With the benefit of watching a couple times, VC. Had that first throw not hit head, it would have crossed the goal line for GK, ergo deliberate. What was she thinking to do it a 2nd time with ref right there?
Time for a thread merge me thinks. Got no issues with the first one but the second one looks a bit too deliberate tbh (that wasn't going out for a GK though).
Deliberate is not the test. I am permitted to deliberately throw the ball at an oppoenent, so long as it is not overly aggressive -- for example to play it off the fanny of an opponent facing away from me to then gain control of the ball myself. The question is whether, ITOOTR, it constitutes USB or VC depending on the nature of the throw, including the body parts it was aimed at and the level of force. (I can't open the video at the moment, so I have no opinion on the particular case, though a throw aimed at a face would, IMO, be at least a caution, and with any degree of force would be VC.) From the ATR:
Why is this a foul? Would you give a card for a player who kicked the ball into an opponents head during the course of play? So why is this different?
I dunno man, that is VC from the get go. Excessive force and all that. The CR and AR were so nonchalant about the whole thing. Baffling. I can understand letting the first one go, but the 2nd one? Yeah, that is deliberate. The CR never asserted himself in the situation the first time and the 2nd time, he was just dawdling over while letting his AR handle the situation.
It's all about the context and the force. To use your example, a ball that is kicked into an opponent's head during the normal course of play probably is nothing. However, if that player stops, "lines up" his opponent and kicks the ball with enough force to knock him down... what now? In fact, I would even say that kicking the ball at someone's head is more nefarious because at least with the TI, it serves a purpose (allows the thrower to play the ball again).
Assuming you're going red here (which I would) — if you decide it's VC, as opposed to SFP, does that make the restart indirect rather than direct?
Fun... Ok, so first decision is if the TI was taken properly. If yes, then we have a DFK offense regardless of the VC/SFP, right? The offense would be striking, which is a DFK offense. The SFP/VC discussion is a valid one for reporting but doesn't impact the restart. If the TI was not taken properly the restart is a TI for the opponents. Someone check my math.
No. It's still a striking foul. The idea that violent conduct, in a vacuum, results in an IFK starts from the presumption that no foul occurred. In reality, the only occasions (that I can think of) where VC results in an IFK are when it occurs against someone other than an opponent.
I think the rest of your post is spot-on, but do you really think this is a valid (or legitimate) discussion? How could a SFP argument be made at all? There's no challenge for the ball, as the ball is being deliberately thrown at an opponent.
You guys think that is deliberate? Really, on what grounds? Do you see anything in the teams body language that makes it look as though it is deliberate?
Strike valid and just say that I can see someone putting up that debate. I agree it's VC all the way. As I've said before, especially for new referees, just get the card color and restart correct and we'll worry about the paperwork later.
Maybe because she throws it straight at her head on both occasions? I clearly see in her body language on the second throw that it's directed right at the player's head. 1st time - ok, maybe, MAYBE an accident 2nd time - striking a player by throwing the ball - hello red card, goodbye player.
If you watch the thrower, you can see that both times she aims the ball at the defender. The first time she camouflages it better. But the second, VC, one she follows through in text book style, with both arms aimed at her target.
I think it occurs if a player leaves the field for the purpose of committing the offense as well, even against an opponent
wow. how is this even a debate? the first one is clear cut VC. To any referee with doubt, the second one should remove it all. not sure how this referee came to caution as the conclusion? if it's misconduct it's red. or it's nothing.
I believe you are 100% correct on the 1st one, that to me is quite obviously an accident. I still have a problem with it being a foul for something that the ball does after it is played in a legal manor, which this is. I can't imagine it ever being a foul for kicking the ball in any direction during the course of play, be it open play or a legally taken free kick, so why is a throw in different? EDIT: Using this logic, this would make it a foul (or at least potentially) a foul for a player who takes a free kick and hammers it into the wall (or aims their free kick at head level in the wall) ....
If you have a problem with this, you should write to IFAB and ask them to amend the LOTG. This is not just an ATR recognition. The I&G for Law 15 says: And, obvious, careless, reckless. and excessive force are the defining lines for fouls (and misconduct).
Let's look again at my example, with some more imagined detail: Player is clearly pissed off at an opponent. Player is dribbling the ball with the opponent marking him. He flicks the ball up and kicks it right into the players face/body/bathing suit area with considerable (some would say excessive) force. 1. Ball in play? 2. Occurs on the field of play? 3. By a player, against an opponent? Foul, right?
Caution, if it's MLS /tongue from cheek [Of course since it's not against an opponent, NOW we have the IFK]
