restart was a freekick to Leicester - presumably because Sanchez was too close and/or for the misconduct. He'd been warned a couple of times and kept creeping forward. It was pretty obvious that Fuchs hit him purposely.
I'm trying to figure out if that's the correct restart. Technically, if the card was for being too close to the throw-in, an IFK to Leicester might be justified. But the fact that Fuchs didn't perform a valid throw-in complicates things, doesn't it? He lifts his leg (to get more force behind the throw) and never puts the ball into play properly. On page 100 of the LOTG, it says "if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is award" for a violation of the 2m clause. The word "properly" is omitted, but is this one of those situations where it is obviously implied based on everything else in Law 15? If the card was for simulation, on the other hand, then the restart is definitely wrong because the simulation happens while the ball is out of play, since it's never put into play properly. And, of course, I know it won't be a popular opinion outside referee circles, but Fuchs has to be sent off. You can't ignore violent conduct just because the victim tries to make it look worse than it was. Call this the Rivaldo 2002 principle. Fuchs clearly and deliberately threw the ball at Sanchez from 2 yards away. It's VC. And even if you somehow reason it's not VC, it's absolutely UB and Fuchs already had a card.
I agree with all of this. I think this is a classic example of the kind of cards that leagues would frown upon unfortunately.
I didnt watch it but I was reading another board where people were watching and they indicated the restart was a free kick for LC.
I didn't get to watch the game as my internet broke down earlier tonight but I've seen a few clips of this incident. I have no issues with Sanchez getting a caution, he was standing 1 foot inside the line and tried to make it look as he got hit in the face when it actually hit the shoulder so well deserved. And while I'm sure that Fuchs did intentionally throw it at Sanchez I'm OK with him getting nothing for it, some force but controlled with no damage (and Sanchez was a knob ). From what have found the re-start was an FK to Leicester (team in blue).
I'd assume so considering how rare the word "properly" is in the good book (PK taker, ball placement on CKs and support of the netting). But... You need to have another look at it. Both feet are in contact with the ground when he releases the ball and the ball passes the line, nothing wrong with the throw (from a technical standpoint).
I've watched this clip a few times over now, and his foot stays on the ground until after the ball is released. Ball just released, foot still on ground Ball rebounds off opponent, foot now comes off the ground
Actually, he did get hit in the face, after the ball deflected from his shoulder. So, he didn't to try to make it look, as if it did, when it actually did. The fact he afterwards might have exagerated the issue, by throwing himself down, doesn't take away anything from what really happened : whom did the throw in, had no intentions to play the ball, but directly hit the opponent, which no matter how you want to see it, it is violent conduct. Change the issue just a little bit, and imagine yourself as the referee of the match, where a player does the same thing to you. How will you see it, then ? .....accidental ? Oh and btw, there was some damage : not much to justify him from throwing himself to the ground, if you ask me, but it's there
http://www.espnfc.us/arsenal/story/...-for-alexis-sanchez-incident-versus-leicester says what Wenger thought. The article doesn't know if Sanchez got booked for not respecting the distance or for simulation.
Fair enough and it's hard to argue with the still photos. I'm just going to tag @socal lurker here, though, for his opinion because he's often very good at stuff like this. The still photos show that the throw conforms with the literal text of the Law. Watching in totality and in real-time, however, do you have any problems with the technical aspects of the throw-in itself? I have to seriously part ways here, though, and am actually surprised by your assessment. As @Rickdog points out, the ball does also hit him in the face (though the nature of the throw makes that mostly irrelevant to me, it is interesting). The problem with Sanchez's behavior is the comical nature of the delayed reaction and the fact that he grabs his entire face when the brunt of the force hit his shoulder. Fine. Sanchez is exaggerating. But Fuchs violently threw the ball at his opponent from a yard or two away. This goes to the Liverpool example I posted above--if Sanchez doesn't go down at all, just like Coutinho didn't, for a lot of referees that means nothing happens to Fuchs (and, in this case, even going down doesn't get the right decision). I can't believe we want to excuse or ignore Fuchs behavior. Doing so only makes our lives more difficult and the game worse. You have a player, in stoppage time, on a yellow card, losing by a goal, violently and intentionally throw the ball at his opponent--above the shoulders/toward the head area (are we concerned with head injuries or not?). What message does it send when we condone such actions? Book Sanchez for not respecting the distance. Fine, no issues with that and good for a referee to finally do it. But I can't believe we'd want to be sanctioning Fuchs' actions in any game, at any time, nevermind the specific circumstances here with a player already on a card.
Sanctioning can mean approving or punishing (thank you English language). In this case I assume you mean "But I can't believe we'd want to be allowing Fuchs' actions in any game, at any time, nevermind the specific circumstances here with a player already on a card." Right?
For reference: I'm not sure I see excessive force there. Careless or reckless, almost certainly, but if the FRD comes first then that's what determines the restart, no? Or is this a rare instance of true simultaneity?
The ball bounds at least 10 yards after first hitting Sanchez's shoulder and then hitting his head. How far would it need to bound before you would be sure it was with excessive force? Either way, it doesn't matter. This wasn't thrown "at an opponent in order to play the ball again" but to punish an opponent, so it should be punished regardless. This is especially evident because it would have been thrown softly if the intent was to be able to play the ball.
In one of my games yes that's almost certainly excessive force and a send off. In an EPL match, given the standard of what passes for a mugging there? I'm not sure (again, just one of the many reasons I don't do EPL games). Maybe it's reckless and a caution? This referee apparently judged it to be careless at most. Yes? And if so, then it was "only" a foul, which was preceded by the FRD.
To me it is a perfect example of a technically correct TI (because there is no requirement that the feet remain in contact with the ground after the release) that often gets called a "foul throw" because it is difficult for us to track the timing of the release versus the obvious lift of the leg in real time. Unfortunately, the first time I watched it, I was already aware of the question of whether it was valid. With that in the back of my mind, I thought it was completely proper in the video the first time I watched it -- but I can't say that would have been my unprepared thought seeing it live. (AYSO training has used a video of a throw very similar to this (except the 9 year old girl didn't throw it at her opponent's head. . .) to show referees what not to call.) IMHO, there is no way whatsoever to justify less than a caution to the thrower on this play. Law 15 is pretty clear: 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 allows play to continue. I don't see any way to view a throw aimed at the head area of an opponent from that close as anything less than reckless. And I think a straight send off is the better call.
Fair enough, but if we're going to have discussions based on the EPL definitions even in the EPL thread, there isn't much point to it because there's no consistency there to begin with. The bottom line should be that there is no excuse to purposefully throw the ball at your opponent's head with any level of force and it should always be VC. I'm not holding my breathe for the FA or EPL to see it that way though.
This should be a lesson in the category of "just because we see it on TV, doesn't mean the referee got it right." My guess--and it's just a guess--is that the referee felt Sanchez's comical reaction tied his hands and he knew that a red card to Fuchs would look silly and prompt back-page ridicule for the rest of the week. So, in these exact circumstances, he opted not to act against Fuchs because it was the path of least resistance. Whether the PGMOL supports him or not in that reasoning, I have no idea. Perhaps the avoidance of controversy here is more important than a correct application of the Laws. And, if your employer feels that way, you can't be criticized for executing what they want. But the nature of the act was still VC, even in an EPL match. You refer to "muggings," but I'd suggest you're thinking more about tackles or off-the-ball skirmishes rather than instances of deliberate physical contact while the ball is out of play. The bar for such behavior is pretty low, even in the professional game. Some very "light" violent conduct is still sanctioned with a red card in the EPL and other top leagues. And I have no doubt that this is a red card at a FIFA event.
The Wenger interview linked in the post after yours says that was from the subsequent Huth tackle, not the throw-in. FWIW.
Yeah, I wish there was some way of keeping the knuckleheads I referee from watching EPL games. And MLS games.
and that's not even mentioning that Fuchs took almost a 4 meter run away from the finish line, right before doing his throw in, to give more force to his throw. If that wasn´t excessive force, then really, I don't know what is......
Actually Wenger refered to what he saw, as that incident (the Huth-Sanchez tackle, that is), happened right in front of him, and from it, he said many times that he wasn't positively certain, how alexis got his lip busted, but he did say that when Huth passed his hands over Alexis's face, Alexis was bleeding from his lip (which never implies as if it was Huth whom provoked it, or if it was due to something accidental or not).
Early in that match there was as lovely an example as you could ever ask for of a but-I-got-the-ball tackle that still earned a foul and a caution.
the Man U-Swansea match had an unfortunate PK given to Rantford by Swarbrick, but he had a terrible angle and consulting the far-side AR couldn't have given him much additional information. Right at the end of first half stoppage, no less. http://www.totalsportek.com/highlights/swansea-city-vs-manchester-united-replay-video/ incident is about 1/3 of the way into the video highlights.