Skip forward to 2:15 for the innovative flip throw of Michael Harris. Should it be dissallowed as a foul throw or accepted? Really impressive chaos it can cause in opposing defences:
Perfectly legal. There is a saying about throw-ins that's a little like some of our girlfriends in college - they may not have been pretty, but they certainly were legal. Just because a throwin looks different doesn't make it illegal.
I thought I was in for some new, crazy throw in and.... not so much. Yes, it's legal. Effective, yes, but the defense should be prepared (at least by the second time). I know of a local U13 team that specializes in the flip throw. Second only to their amazing trick corner play.
The crazy thing about it is he actually can pull it off. I'd say only 1 in 20 that I see go farther than a normal throw.
Someone will correct me, but wasn't the ruling that this was legal as long it was not endangering an opponent. (This goes back 20 years when these first started popping up.) If a defender stands just off the touchline not otherwise interfering with a normal throw-in then the referee could decide this to be endangering the opponent. Or am I recalling this wrong?
"Innovative" would go a bit far, as I have seen several youth teams use it. It was an impressive execution. Legal and has been so for quite a while now.
Well, an opponent can't stand within two yards/metres . . . I don't recall seeing any reason this would be treated any differently from any other throw: if it is at an opponent it risks being USB or VC -- but since the arms are higher than the head and the purpose is typically to launch the ball, the odds of hitting a nearby player (unless done deliberately) are pretty low. (What has always seemed a bit odd to me is that the sport has decided that kneeling while throwing -- which is inefficient and silly -- is illegal notwithstanding the fact it technically complies with all aspects of the Law, but the flip throw -- which can gain an appreciable advantage -- is legal because it complies with all the technicalities. If I were the grand poobah of the LOTG and was going to choose one of them to make illegal, I would have gone the other way.)
Why is the defender allowed to be just off the touch line? He isn't otherwise. Two meters is the accepted distance.
Think about it. in order for the offensive player to do a flip throw, he has to move forward. If a defender stands 2 meters in front of the player, conceivably the thrower may endanger, encroach, on the defenders position and theoretically put him in danger.
At first look, when I saw his legs coming over the top one at a time, I was suspicioius that both feet would not be on the ground at the release. The slo-mo convinced me that it was legal after all. Both feet contacted the ground nearly simultaneously with the release of the throw. It all happens so fast, it's virtually impossibe to tell. Unless I'm sure somethings violating Law 13, I'm not going to judge it illegal.
I don't see the thrower moving two meters forward. Doesn't happen. In that video he doesn't even leave the line. The whole idea is to propel the ball, not yourself.
I'm going to agree with everyone else, innovative it ain't but legal it sure is. Got to say though that it probably is the best execution of a flip throw that I've seen. Kudos to the guy, he's not only got the technique down but also the length and aim.
OK, for the sake of discussion let's give the thrower an extra meter of space and plant the defender three meters into the field. On a normal throw if the player drills the defender in the face with the ball we could consider it VC. Doing a flip throw does not absolve the thrower of all responsibility for the result of the throw, so if they get the trajectory of the throw too low and the defender is faced we again could consider it VC.
The flip throw doesn't absolve the thrower of any responsibility. It also doesn't place any special burden. If you see a video of a thrower drilling a defender and the defender didn't jump at it or obstruct, let us know and we willl judge it. The discussion about things that don't happen is silly. There is enough to do judging things that actually occur. I know a couple women who do it to great effect. But when they fail, the error they usually make is high floaters, not line drives.
It happens, quick youtube search: Granted the "target" is within 2 yards, but it happens and what are you going to do about it? Shame to caution the now down and out kid
Perfect example of obstruction and why there is a rule. Shame to teach your kid to put himself in that position. If I kid ducks his head into a kick, what do you call?
That video pre-dates the 2 meter rule so shouldn't be an issue any longer. And even so what I remember from the discussions back then no one really wanted to red card the thrower. YC perhaps but no more.
Sorry, I don't see it that way. The kid did not move toward the thower or the ball. Its the other way around. The thrower moved toward the defender and face planted him with the ball. I'm not sure if I would red card the kid for VC, it depends on a lot of circumstances, but I sure would not YC the defender for Failure to respect a proper distance.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull this one up. First, don't let the defender stand that close to the touchline. We all know what's going to happen when that player takes the throw. Another clue is how the teams setup and how far the thrower is -- something special is coming. Move the defender back and remind the thrower to be careful. Second, this situation doesn't seem to be excessive force. What I would need is something "extra" that makes me think the player was out to hurt the defender. Examples would be, him asking the referee move the player back -- and when he doesn't get what he wants, he nails the guy. For me, it's a tragic lesson for the defender (no misconduct for the defender). The other interesting piece is that this would have likely hurt just as much if the defender was back the required 2-meters.
Part of my recert for this year was to determine what the restart for this would be. I think we came up with 3 defensible answers. We also decided that our calls would depend on how much those two had been going at it on the sideline during the game.
The kid wasn't two meters off, was he? Do some stop action. The thrower is a little crouched and the ball is going in an upward trajectory, what you normally want in a long throw-in. If the defender is two meters off he doesn't get hit. And the defender is crouching adjusting his socks when the thrower goes into his flip. Seriously, the kid did almost everything wrong. Then he kid doesn't respect distance on the second attempt. Amazing. And the 'coaching' he gets is to put his hands to his face, not to step back into legal position.
The thrower is obligated to make the throw in from that spot and the defender purposely moves to that spot. The defender went there to disrupt the restart. That is exceedingly obvious.