I had a HS game about a month ago where the visiting team took a throw in from about 7 yards behind the TL. It was a bit down hill and a bit behind the home bench. The throw went over me and onto the pitch. I called it back and had him retake it because in my opinion he has gained an unfair advantage from putting the ball back into play from that position. The reason I allowed a retake is because I noticed what he was doing and blew the whistle to prevent it from happening. I did not blow the whistle to punish him for an infraction.
not knowing the whole game, that clip by itself looks mighty red on the second one, especially if the ref warned the thrower verbally (it appeared he moved in and was saying something) on the first. First one at least looked like a throw IN the second one looked like a throw AT and with much more force.
It is hypocritical for a referee to insist that the throwin be taken within a yard of the touchline after he has been allowing running throwins 10 or more yards from the point where the ball left the playing field.
Hypocritical is a bit harsh. Two meters back? Get a life. 5 yards back, behind the bench. Easy to call. But the creeping issue is also field position and game context dependent -- an uncontested throw in the back third, I'm probably not going to notice 10 yards; on a ball that goes out in the attacking third, I'm going be much more picky. Similarly, a throw back to the keeper from 5 yards back from the touch line in the defending 1/3 is less something to worry about than a throw from 5 yards back behind the bench to start an attack from midfield.
Are you responding to a specific game situation or just being a burro sombrero? I agree that if a referee were to allow 10 yds of leeway on up/down the pitch and yet punish someone being 2 yds back, that would be crazy. I would disagree that simply enforcing the distances back from the touchline would hypocritical in a vacuum.
A practice such as this description would be akin to ignoring Law 15 [pp 46-47]. Why would a referee do such a thing? Are not the officials there to uphold the laws, and enforce them when violated?When, as a referee, you call just such an infraction, the players will adjust. The 'game' they play stops right after the ball is turned over to the other team. I have had this work like a charm in adult mens (competitive) and womens (college-level) matches. The referee must remain wise to the fact that players will use "where from ref?" ploy by word and gesture to use up time (a few seconds), especially when their team is leading the scoreline, or they are going for a tied score. Why? It seems to me for the simple reason to keep the ball away from their opponents. If the opponents do not have ball they are most definitely not going to score.
Well, since it's "the herst....." Second time, not accidental. Even if it wasn't what the thrower planned, you have to treat it that way or this game is going in the toilet NOW. (Or, since it's women, a game next year between these teams will go to hell and that referee will be wondering what he did wrong.) It isn't just the thrower or the vic, it's what everybody else out there thinks.
Here is something I don't understand specific to this situation and in general to many situations. If enforcing a permitted distance from the touch line for a throw in is trifling, why don't they remove the comment from the Laws? I have the same thoughts about how a kick-off must move forward as well as several other situations.
If the great majority of motorists on a highway are speeding, why don't they remove the speed limit? - QC
I think it allows us much more flexibility in managing matches. If the flow is good, no one is complaining and both sides take a few extra steps, you consider the infraction trifling however if it is removed from the LOTG and you need to tighten up all around, you lose a tool as then you can't call it.
I call it a "No beer on the beach" type rule/ law. It may not always be informed fully but when you need a firm line/distance/rule to enforce, it's there. It's there to be enforced when the situation requires it. I had a U10G tournament game this past week. The girls should know how to do a throw in by the 10th week of the season. I had one gal do a throw in with her rear foot that lifted above her knee before the throw. I had her re-do the TI and it was worse. I blew the whistle and it was a TI for the other team. Problem was, the throw ins were bad all game and I was changing directions every third throw in or so.
I like the "beer on the beach" idea. Problem is at certain levels where almost every throw is bad, once you call it can't stop. But rules are rules and at 10 years old I would think you could learn to keep 2 feet on the ground! I'm always surprised at how many kids keep lifting their feet after I call it! Just stand still if you have to!!
I'm reminded of one of vetshak 's podcasts. At 7:55, they discuss calling foul throws and they advocate calling them strictly with little to no allowance for trifling infractions. Vetshak said these podcasts were reviewed by a FIFA Inspector and the MN SRA. !
The other factor was the games were being played at the Regional tournament where the winner would play in Area and potentially in the Section or State levels. If they can't be careful now, where will they get in the next level?
This brings up an issue which has probably been discussed. But in the first example of bad throw-in, which "must be called" because the trailing leg is off the ground, I am not certain it is. I did a stop motion (use the space-bar to stop and start the youtube video) and his toe is dragging the ground at the instant the ball is leaving his hands. At real speed it is a difficult call and I would think I would have let this one go because of the timing. And here it is on a video showing one that definitely should be called.
Here is a screen grab from the video for the first example of a foul throw which "must be called". If we have instructional videos with supposed blatant examples of foul throws, which in truth are not, then what hope do we have of getting these right?