You are center--how do you call this situation?

[lmorin]

This is both funny and gruesome (http://www.fandome.com/video/106571/Flip-Throw-TO-THE-FACE/). Would you call a foul? If so, what? If not, why not?

[Nesto]

This is both funny and gruesome (http://www.fandome.com/video/106571/Flip-Throw-TO-THE-FACE/). Would you call a foul? If so, what? If not, why not?

Depends a lot on what has gone before this play. Probably at least a caution to both players; possibly a send off for the thrower.

[hradilv]

Depends a lot on what has gone before this play. Probably at least a caution to both players; possibly a send off for the thrower.

The thrower did nothing wrong(?) The defender was encrouching. If he persists - yellow card for USB.

[Another NH Ref]

Isn't there a dead, rotting horse here somewhere? Or was that on SOCREF-L?

[Nesto]

The thrower did nothing wrong(?) The defender was encrouching. If he persists - yellow card for USB.

What the thrower did borders on violent conduct - there is no way you should let that go. Just because the defender was encroaching on the throw-in, that does not give the thrower carte blanche to attempt to break the defenders nose with a point blank throw to the face.

I agree on a yellow for the defender, but I don't know if I would wait for persistence - just once is enough for USB.

[hradilv]

What the thrower did borders on violent conduct - there is no way you should let that go. Just because the defender was encroaching on the throw-in, that does not give the thrower carte blanche to attempt to break the defenders nose with a point blank throw to the face.

Yes, that's true. But the defender was (besides breaking the rule) very foolish to stand in front of guy that is going to do that. I'm guessing here, but I think there was precedent - the defenders knew that the thrower was going to try that type of throw, and that is precisely why he stood there - to try to stop the advantage. Unfortunately, that type of throw is a little hard to finesse.

[soccerman8067]

My first reactin is that the thrower has every right to preform that throw. The defender was infringing on the throw. And without being there this is speculating but i'm guessing he didn't mean to womp him in the head. There was a white player in the picture he might have been going to.

[lmorin]

My take is that the throw is analagous to a bicycle kick in that both are done blind by the performer. If it works, fantastic, but the performer must be prepared to suffer the consequences if it is mis-targeted. Here, I can't tell whether the mis-targeting was deliberate, although somewhat lackadaisical movement of the thrower and his apparent disinterest in the victim make me suspicious. As to the victim, he definitely was not the mandatory 2 m distant from the point at which the throw-in is taken. From Law 15:Procedures – Infringements
Referees are reminded that opponents may be no closer than 2 metres from the point at which the throw-in is taken. Where necessary, the referee must warn any player within this distance before the throw-in is taken and caution the player if he subsequently fails to retreat to the correct distance. Play is restarted with a throw-in. If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, intentionally throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee must allow play to continue. (my red). Seems to me that the thrower was careless and/or used excessive force, but the referee may have been at fault for not warning the "player...before the throw-in is taken..."

[rippingood]

rotting horse :: socref-L indeed...

[Nesto]

Of course the thrower has every right to perform the throw, but having the right to perform it does not allow you to do it with what appears to be callous disregard for the safety of an opponent.

Yes, we're not at the game, on the pitch, but look at the throwers reaction after the throw - seems pretty clear to me he knew he would hit the guy.

ATR (12.6 and 15.8) clearly asks the referee to judge whether a ball striking an opponent on a throw-in is trifling, unsporting behavior or violent conduct. There is no exception to this if the opponent is too close. No way this is trifling - at least USB and quite possibly VC.

[Nesto]

Seems to me that the thrower was careless and/or used excessive force, but the referee may have been at fault for not warning the "player...before the throw-in is taken..."

Quite true - referee should have been on top of this and warned the defender back.

[rippingood]

My take is that the throw is analagous to a bicycle kick in that both are done blind by the performer. .."

bicycle kick: would you ever call a foul against someone who struck the ball cleanly using a bicycle kick and the ball strikes an opponent who is 2 yds away in the head?
Not the player's foot but the ball...

[hradilv]

bicycle kick: would you ever call a foul against someone who struck the ball cleanly using a bicycle kick and the ball strikes an opponent who is 2 yds away in the head?
Not the player's foot but the ball...

Or for that manner - a free kick taken hard that strikes a defender in the face while the defender was less than 10 yards away...

[boylanj64]

So, I think the technical answer might be red, but that seems to me to be a disservice to the game. When I first saw it on SOCREF-L, that was my thought, but I have the advantage of being from the state where the incident took place and being able to ask around and hear from players and refs involved in the game, and have come to the decision that it was unintentional. It was in a playoff game, and sending off the player would have been ludicrous. I don't see how you sell a yellow, it is either red or nothing (maybe a stern warning), but taking in to account game temperature I feel comfortable saying it is nothing. Plus, it was played under NFHS rules, so many of the IFAB decisions bandied about on SOCREF-L didn't apply.

[refmedic]

Nesto hit this one on the head. Once the blue coach removed his player from the turf with a spatula, that player should get a caution for encroaching, but you MUST send the white player off for VC on this one. The attacker has every right to take this throw-in, and also to perform a flip-throw as long as it is performed within the parameters of Law 15. You need to watch this video a few times to take it all in, but take each part of the sequence individually.

Firstly, The white player retrieves the ball, and stands about 5 yards from the touchline. Once the blue player takes up his position, the white player backs up about 5 more yards. The white player makes no protest to the referee to back the player up, or makes an effort to move the place of the throw-in to one side of the blue player or another. When was the last time a player took a throw-in at the spot where it went out of play in the attacking 3rd without having to be backed up bythe referee. He made a point to throw it in from exactly that place. Watch as the white player begins the throw. To me he looks like he is lining the blue player up.

Secondly, a flip-throw is designed to create distance on the throw-in. The higher trajectory the ball is thrown, the farther it goes. The player in white appears to be taller than the player in blue, so one would think that with his extra height and the higher trajectory for a longer throw, he could have easily thrown the ball over the blue player. He made a point to back up farther to create more speed, and thrown the ball lower than he needed to, or should have, to hit the blue player squarely in the face.

Thirdly, watch the white players' reaction once the ball hit the blue player. He doesn't even look at the blue player. He gets up and smartly sprints to retrieve the ball. He knew when the ball left his hands that he would be taking another throw-in. If I hit a player square in the face like that, I would at least try to see if he was ok. Make no mistake about it, the white player backed up to get more distance, lined up the player in blue, intentionally threw the ball at his face, and then ran to get the ball like he didn't care, and to remove himself from the area where the referee, coach, and other players would be sure to start milling about due to the injury. IMO, this is ABSOLUTELY violent conduct, and bordering on assault. Send that white player off, and make sure to describe it in detail in your match report. Maybe he will get a few extra matches off for his troubles.

[o5iiawah]

Nesto hit this one on the head. Once the blue coach removed his player from the turf with a spatula, that player should get a caution for encroaching, but you MUST send the white player off for VC on this one. The attacker has every right to take this throw-in, and also to perform a flip-throw as long as it is performed within the parameters of Law 15. You need to watch this video a few times to take it all in, but take each part of the sequence individually.

Firstly, The white player retrieves the ball, and stands about 5 yards from the touchline. Once the blue player takes up his position, the white player backs up about 5 more yards. The white player makes no protest to the referee to back the player up, or makes an effort to move the place of the throw-in to one side of the blue player or another. When was the last time a player took a throw-in at the spot where it went out of play in the attacking 3rd without having to be backed up bythe referee. He made a point to throw it in from exactly that place. Watch as the white player begins the throw. To me he looks like he is lining the blue player up.

Secondly, a flip-throw is designed to create distance on the throw-in. The higher trajectory the ball is thrown, the farther it goes. The player in white appears to be taller than the player in blue, so one would think that with his extra height and the higher trajectory for a longer throw, he could have easily thrown the ball over the blue player. He made a point to back up farther to create more speed, and thrown the ball lower than he needed to, or should have, to hit the blue player squarely in the face.

Thirdly, watch the white players' reaction once the ball hit the blue player. He doesn't even look at the blue player. He gets up and smartly sprints to retrieve the ball. He knew when the ball left his hands that he would be taking another throw-in. If I hit a player square in the face like that, I would at least try to see if he was ok. Make no mistake about it, the white player backed up to get more distance, lined up the player in blue, intentionally threw the ball at his face, and then ran to get the ball like he didn't care, and to remove himself from the area where the referee, coach, and other players would be sure to start milling about due to the injury. IMO, this is ABSOLUTELY violent conduct, and bordering on assault. Send that white player off, and make sure to describe it in detail in your match report. Maybe he will get a few extra matches off for his troubles.

Lining up the other player? The blue defender stood between white's throw and the goal. Thats gaining a compeditive advantage by being in an unfair position. It's the referee's fault for letting this situation escalate the way it did. White is totally free to play a flip-throw and just as if it were a FK, should not have to ask the referee for distance. Blue knew exactly what he was doing by planting himself just off the line and covering himself. If anything, you caution him for either FRD, or UB-PIADM. A player who charges a free kick and ends up hit in the face and injured has only himself to blame.

would you send off a player for kicking the ball "straight at" an opponent who unfairly put himself under 10 yards and between the player, ball and goal? While the throw in was careless, and may have bordered on VC had the blue player been not looking, or maybe standing off the line looking the other way in an attacking position for his team, but there was intent on blue's part to put himself in an illegal position.

[brainer 99]

Nesto hit this one on the head. Once the blue coach removed his player from the turf with a spatula, that player should get a caution for encroaching, but you MUST send the white player off for VC on this one. The attacker has every right to take this throw-in, and also to perform a flip-throw as long as it is performed within the parameters of Law 15. You need to watch this video a few times to take it all in, but take each part of the sequence individually.

Firstly, The white player retrieves the ball, and stands about 5 yards from the touchline. Once the blue player takes up his position, the white player backs up about 5 more yards. The white player makes no protest to the referee to back the player up, or makes an effort to move the place of the throw-in to one side of the blue player or another. When was the last time a player took a throw-in at the spot where it went out of play in the attacking 3rd without having to be backed up bythe referee. He made a point to throw it in from exactly that place. Watch as the white player begins the throw. To me he looks like he is lining the blue player up.

Secondly, a flip-throw is designed to create distance on the throw-in. The higher trajectory the ball is thrown, the farther it goes. The player in white appears to be taller than the player in blue, so one would think that with his extra height and the higher trajectory for a longer throw, he could have easily thrown the ball over the blue player. He made a point to back up farther to create more speed, and thrown the ball lower than he needed to, or should have, to hit the blue player squarely in the face.

Thirdly, watch the white players' reaction once the ball hit the blue player. He doesn't even look at the blue player. He gets up and smartly sprints to retrieve the ball. He knew when the ball left his hands that he would be taking another throw-in. If I hit a player square in the face like that, I would at least try to see if he was ok. Make no mistake about it, the white player backed up to get more distance, lined up the player in blue, intentionally threw the ball at his face, and then ran to get the ball like he didn't care, and to remove himself from the area where the referee, coach, and other players would be sure to start milling about due to the injury. IMO, this is ABSOLUTELY violent conduct, and bordering on assault. Send that white player off, and make sure to describe it in detail in your match report. Maybe he will get a few extra matches off for his troubles.

To your first point. Maybe he thought he'd clear the defender without hitting him? To assume he was "lining him up" is making a big assumption (plus, he'd have to have great control of these flip throws). I've seen people try them before and often they are well of the mark (just like a bicycle kick). Maybe he was going to use a regular throw in at first and changed his mind and backed up to use the flip throw, because all of his teamates were waiting inside the box, as they knew he had a good flip-throw?

To your second point, he was a good distance away from the goal, but looked like he wanted to put it into "the mixer". Also, just like kicking a long field goal in soccer, you want a lower angle, so that it goes further, a higher angle won't travel as far. This is why many long field goal attemts are blocked, due to the lower trajectory. Furthermore, when a player comes out of the "flip" part of the flip throw, his legs should be bent to soften the landing (some what like a gymnyst landing after a flip. How many land straight legged?).

Third point, if you watch the white player after the throw, his jersey is covering his face and it shows him moving the shirt off so he can see better. What reaction is required? Is he required by the LOTG to immediately show remorse? Maybe he actually felt bad or didn't realize how hard he hit him? or maybe he was embarrased or felt stupid and just jogged away to get the ball because he didn't know how to react?

I know I got my head ripped off here last time I asked this, but why does it seem every action discussed on these boards have to result in a red or yellow card? why not a talking to about being more careful next time. I know i was put in my place last time I asked why refs see everything in black and white with no gray area? How come every play has to have an "intent". Maybe both players are just caught up in the intensity of the moment and were just playing hard and neither had "bad or violent" intentions? There is nothing wrong with being in controll of the game, but there's alot of assumptions going on. Maybe this had been a really clean game so far and this was the only "incident" that happened the whole game. Why red card this player if he had no intentions you could prove?

I'm not saying I'm right either, and I respect your opinion, but I guess my point is why card if you're not 100% sure of what his intentions were. I know there are some who post on here who know what every players intentions are and why he/she did a certain action. But I believe a ref has better control of the game when they're fair and don't jump to conclussions.

[refmedic]

Lining up the other player? The blue defender stood between white's throw and the goal. Thats gaining a compeditive advantage by being in an unfair position. It's the referee's fault for letting this situation escalate the way it did. White is totally free to play a flip-throw and just as if it were a FK, should not have to ask the referee for distance. Blue knew exactly what he was doing by planting himself just off the line and covering himself. If anything, you caution him for either FRD, or UB-PIADM. A player who charges a free kick and ends up hit in the face and injured has only himself to blame.

would you send off a player for kicking the ball "straight at" an opponent who unfairly put himself under 10 yards and between the player, ball and goal? While the throw in was careless, and may have bordered on VC had the blue player been not looking, or maybe standing off the line looking the other way in an attacking position for his team, but there was intent on blue's part to put himself in an illegal position.

You should note that one of the first things that I stated was that the blue player should be cautioned for for FRD (once he wakes up). He should not be cautioned for playing in a dangerous manner, as he was being dangerous to himself, and not an opponent or a teammate. The white player is guilty of endangering the safety of his opponent, as well as striking an opponent (remember that anything in the hand, including the ball, can be considered an extension of the hand, and even the GK can be sent off for VC for throwing a ball AT an opponent), and should be sent off ans shown the red card.

Just because the blue player was doing something that he wasn't supposed to, though, doesn't automatically relieve the white player of his responsibility to not intentionally throw the ball as hard as he could at the face of an opponent (which, IMO is exactly what he did). White's behavior is not mitigated by blue's actions. Also, you must remember that a throw-in is not just like a free kick, and there are specific instructions in ATR about a player who intentionally throws a ball AT an opponent. A player who charges a free kick and gets the ball square in the face does not get what he deserved, and may not have only himself to blame, rather he is guilty of FRD and deserving of a caution for it. If the kicker intentionally kicks the ball AT his face as hard as he can with the intent to injure the defender (which I still submit is what the thrower did in this clip), then he should be sent off for VC.

THis player has a responsibility to play in a safe manner, regardless of the actions of his opponent. A player taking a free kick does not HAVE to ask for 10 yards, but there are times when he SHOULD. This player did not HAVE to ask for his 2 yards for the throw-in, but this was a time when he SHOULD HAVE. He also doesn't HAVE to try to change the exact blade of grass where he throws the ball in from, but in this case he SHOULD HAVE. Should the referee have intervened before this situation escalated to the level that it did? Probably, but even from the short clip, I would never have expected the white player to do this until he did it. We can't expect referees to be clairvoyant.

There are times when we may watch a match on TV and see the red come out and think "why a red for that?". Well, there are times when there is more than meets the eye. I must have watched that clip 10 times before I put it all together. Our FIFA referees are blessed with the ability and the experience to see these things the first time. I hope to have that same ability someday, white shield or not (most likely not).

[Nesto]

The bicycle kick and the free kick situations aren't really analogous, but let me give you one that I think is. I seem to recall seeing this happen, just can't remember where...

Forward has been hounding the opposing goalkeeper on pickups, punts and releases back into play. Probably should have had a foul called, but "play on" because the keeper has possession. So every ball that's rolling to the keeper the forward runs in at full speed and pulls up just short of charging once the keeper has the ball. Loiters around when the keeper is getting ready to punt, etc.

On his last run in to the keeper, forward pulls up a yard or two short when the keeper grabs the ball. Keeper proceeds to haul back and throw the ball quite hard into the forwards face.

What do you call?

Ref determined that the forward was interfering with the keeper's release and was given a yellow card for PI (maybe one time too late). He was removed from the field with his injury. GK was sent off for violent conduct.

[refmedic]

You bring up some excellent points. ITOOTR is very important here, and had I seen this in real time, I'm willing to bet I would have shrugged it off as an accident, and not even cautioned the blue player, because one could say that he had already been punished. Corporal punishment meted out by the opponent might hinder game control, though. After watching the clip over and over again and dissecting it, I think I would have gotten it wrong on the field. One of the best parts about this forum is the things that I have learned from other people, as well as the ability to dissect a situation and see beyong my initial reaction.

To your first point. Maybe he thought he'd clear the defender without hitting him? To assume he was "lining him up" is making a big assumption (plus, he'd have to have great control of these flip throws). I've seen people try them before and often they are well of the mark (just like a bicycle kick). Maybe he was going to use a regular throw in at first and changed his mind and backed up to use the flip throw, because all of his teamates were waiting inside the box, as they knew he had a good flip-throw?

I would agree with you on this if he didn't appear (IMO he did) to throw the ball AT blue's face. Even though he is under no obligation to change his actions in terms of taking the throw-in from a different place or asking the referee for distance, he is still responsible for playing in a safe manner. Blue's actions do not relieve white from his responsibility to play is a safe manner and not endanger the safety of his opponent. This is an instance where he SHOULD have tried to work this out before throwing the ball, even if he had no obligation to, since the referee didn't do it for him.

To your second point, he was a good distance away from the goal, but looked like he wanted to put it into "the mixer". Also, just like kicking a long field goal in soccer, you want a lower angle, so that it goes further, a higher angle won't travel as far. This is why many long field goal attemts are blocked, due to the lower trajectory. Furthermore, when a player comes out of the "flip" part of the flip throw, his legs should be bent to soften the landing (some what like a gymnyst landing after a flip. How many land straight legged?).

The point that I was making about trajectory is that you need to throw the ball at a higher trajectory than parallel with the ground to generate distance. Youre point about less of a trajectory being favorable for distance is correct, but I think this throw goes beyond that threshold. In addition, I'll give white credit, that was one of the most technically correct and beautiful flip-throw's that I've ever seen. In fact, he did such a good job at the throw, I expected it to sail over blue's head, or perhaps catch a piece of it at most. The fact that it hit him square makes his intentions suspect.

Third point, if you watch the white player after the throw, his jersey is covering his face and it shows him moving the shirt off so he can see better. What reaction is required? Is he required by the LOTG to immediately show remorse? Maybe he actually felt bad or didn't realize how hard he hit him? or maybe he was embarrased or felt stupid and just jogged away to get the ball because he didn't know how to react?

I was simply stating that I would show more remorse. From what I saw, the player was avoiding the situation, and making an overt attempt to get out of dodge, similar to a player who just commited a bad tackle who knows that he should get a card, and tries to sprint back to position and avoid the referee. Also, if I threw the ball in and my shirt came over my eyes, my first look for the ball would be on the field, because that is where I threw it, not behind me, unless I knew that the ball would be behind me for some reason.

I know I got my head ripped off here last time I asked this, but why does it seem every action discussed on these boards have to result in a red or yellow card? why not a talking to about being more careful next time. I know i was put in my place last time I asked why refs see everything in black and white with no gray area? How come every play has to have an "intent". Maybe both players are just caught up in the intensity of the moment and were just playing hard and neither had "bad or violent" intentions? There is nothing wrong with being in controll of the game, but there's alot of assumptions going on. Maybe this had been a really clean game so far and this was the only "incident" that happened the whole game. Why red card this player if he had no intentions you could prove?

I'm not going to rip you at all for this, as it is a very valid point, and I admit I'm guilty of this as well from time to time. I may have framed my argument incorrectly, as there is no way to determine actual intent. IMO white endangered the safety of his opponent and/or commited an act of striking by throwing the ball at his opponent's face with excessive force. You are right that it is impossible to prove intent from this clip, but you can definitely make an educated guess from the players' actions. This is why they took the word "intent" out of the LOTG. It no longer matters if you intend to endanger the safety of an opponent. What only matters now, whether you mean to do it or not, is that you DO endanger the safety of an opponent. Referees are a "black & white" breed of people, and USSF is making us more so with their new directives requiring certain cards for certain things, but maybe we shouldn't be. You should not be chastized for asking why we are a black & white breed, but we are that way because more and more lately, we are being instructed to be that way from the powers that be. There is a time for black & white, and a time for ITOOTR. In the opinion of this referee, white gets sent-off for that, regardless of whether the game needed a red card or not (another disproved theory of game management courtesy of MLS). I guess that many of the questions/controversies here are related to situations seen or encountered where we question what we or the other referee did. Other than goal/no goal, where there is no gray area, the vast majority of those controversies relate to no card/yellow/red. We can justify issuing a misconduct for almost anything, but we shouldn't. It just appears that many of the discussions generated here are because the members of the forum may think the situation was underhandled.

I'm not saying I'm right either, and I respect your opinion, but I guess my point is why card if you're not 100% sure of what his intentions were. I know there are some who post on here who know what every players intentions are and why he/she did a certain action. But I believe a ref has better control of the game when they're fair and don't jump to conclussions.

I'm not saying that I'm right either, and I don't know what any players intentions are unless he tells me what he is going to do before he does it. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, but I'm certainly doing to DRAW some conclusions from the information that I have available to me. Like I said in my first paragraph, in real time I would have done nothing to white, helped blue up if he was still alive, and moved on with the game. Looking at this more closely, I think I would have been wrong. I also don't think that is is unfair to send white off for this. One could argue that it might be unfair NOT to send him off for this. One thing is for sure though, and that is that IF you send white off for VC you MUST caution blue for FRD. The only thing unfair about this would be to not punish the instigator, but it still doesn't absolve the retaliator from his responsibility to play safely.