I saw a video of a National league soccer player in Britain (Brackley Town) making a quite different sort of “flip throw”. The referee blew the whistle immediately after the throw. From this and what I’ve read elsewhere it seems the throw-in was deemed foul. I don’t understand why.
Nowhere that I read about this did anyone say WHY it was foul. Every news item judged the throw so humiliatingly and obviously ridiculous that the actual problem with the throw-in didn’t even need to be stated.
I guess I must be pretty dull-witted because it seemed legal to me. What’s wrong with it?
from the KNVB: Op het moment van inwerpen geldt voor de inwerper dat hij:
zich met de voorzijde van zijn lichaam in de richting van het speelveld bevindt;
zich met een gedeelte van elke voet op of achter de zijlijn bevindt op de grond;
de bal met beide handen werpt van achter en boven het hoofd en inwerpt vanaf de plaats waar deze het
speelveld heeft verlaten.
translated (badly)
*On the moment of throwing the ball the player is:
pointing with the front of his body towards the field
with parts of both feet behind the line and on the ground
throwing with both hands from behind and above his head*
I think this was more or less wrong on all counts.
Front of his body is facing the field. Check.
Parts of both feet were behind the touchline and on the ground. Check.
He uses both hands and the ball comes from behind and goes over his head. Check.
When he starts the motion of throwing his feet are off the ground, that’s how he’s generating the velocity and that’s what he’s being pulled up on. Sure, at the point of release his feet are on the ground but I suspect that the interpretation of “at the moment of throwing” is what matters here, (plus his body isn’t facing the field at any time during the motion of throwing)
I’m going to be generous and assume this is a joke that fell way flat. It’s not a comment that helps the discussion though and could be perceived as trolling, so knock it off.
I referee (albeit youth soccer) and after watching it 2-3 times that is what I come up with.
Odd-looking throw-ins have been around for awhile, the ‘flip’ throw-in is usually allowed (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LqIrHg1oZs), but that one just raises to many questions.
And I suspect it was done before (in that game or earlier games) and the referees were aware and watching it closely.
I suppose you can argue that the ball was only above his head, not behind it, but I imagine you’d have to call foul throws a dozen times a game if that was rigorously enforced.
I think the ref was probably annoyed at the player for some reason.
I don’t see a violation here at all. Just watching twice in real time, it sure looks like his feet are on the ground at the moment of release, both hands are over his head, and his body is roughly facing the field. Certainly, I don’t see much to make it different from a flip throw, which are almost always considered OK. Maybe super-slow motion replay could show his feet aren’t quite on the ground at the exact moment of release, but if everything was subjected to that level of micro-scrutiny, there would be a LOT more whistles every game; this is exactly the kind of thing that is usually given the benefit of the doubt in favor of no whistle.
Unless the league has specifically said this is illegal (in which case the league is at fault), this seems like poor refereeing-- calling a violation just because the referee isn’t used to it and doesn’t want to understand it.
The ball is certainly “behind” his head if you define behind to mean on a vertical line passing though his head. Even if you define “behind” to mean relative to the position of a normal standing body, the ball is behind at some point. No throw in I’ve ever seen has the ball behind the head at the moment of release.
Nor can you argue that the momentum for the ball comes from a position with his feet not on the ground. That is also true of any flip throw. I can only see that the ref didn’t like it/him.
We’d probably never have the Fosbury flop if that man had been judging high jumps.
I think the ref rejected it simply because it “doesn’t look right,” not because it isn’t technically right.
He may have thought the player’s feet left the ground for a split second as the ball was released.
It’s more than likely this. I don’t think as much thought went into making the decision as is going into this thread. Some stuffy, old-fashioned ref chose to cut out the shenanigans, probably mumbling, ‘Get on with it!’ in exasperation.
