While I was AR recently, I had a player take a throw-in where he lifted the heel of his forward foot as he took the throw, such that his heel was above the touch line, but the only part of his foot that was touching the ground was fully inside the field. Putting aside the question of trifling, flag or no flag? For the record, I didn't flag it, mostly because I had never thought about it before and wasn't sure. But looking over Law 15, it says that the player must have “part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line”. So if “on” in this case is to be taken to literally mean “physically touching”, then it would be a bad throw-in. But if you interpret it the same way you would for judging whether a ball is out of play (i.e., not actually touching, but some part of the ball is still within the plane) then it would be fine. I think I'm leaning towards the former interpretation (that the foot has to be actually on the ground for it to count), but I can see the argument for the latter. Of course, even so it probably would still be trifling… but let's be honest, flagging a bad throw-in is second only to flagging a close offside on a promising attack in terms of sheer pedantic pleasure, right?
If I ever had the ability to influence the LOTG, I'd immediately move to make "foul" throw ins a thing of the past.
In my opinion it is by the book a foul throw - no way I flag it unless its a learning opportunity (as in U littles) - I like code1390 's take on it !
I'm sure you had to be there but technically speaking it would not be a legal throw in. It is another discussion regarding if this situation is trifling. Going with your second "interpretation" regarding if a foot could be in the plane above the touch line but not touching the touchline. With this interpretation you could have one or both feet off the ground as long as they were over the touchline which clearly doesn't work. Don't over think it.
I think the wording of the law is unfortunate. IMO, the principle, which Yale pointed out, should be the same as the ball. As long as it in the plane of the touchline, it is good with me. I have seen several instances where a player will have both feet together on the line with toes in the field. As the throw is executed, the player raises up on his toes. The heels are still over the line, but not touching the ground. I don't think anyone wants that called.
I'm going to use "sheer pedantic pleasure" in as many communications as I can today because it's AWESOME! OT, I'm with code1390 & camconcay.
The general idea of the Law is to prevent an actual jump being used during the throw, or the thrower being somewhere inside the touchline. Certainly in games with children and lower-skilled adults such very minor deviations as described here are not significant, except to those who enjoy sheer pedantic pleasure. PH
This is clearly a case of giving leeway as a philosophy in soccer that is slowly moving down the slippery slope. I can remember when throw ins were very strictly regulated. Then we let it relax. Now we are thinking it should be relaxed more. At some point a line needs to be drawn. I think we have reached that point in my opinion. We no longer have the "equal pressure" or "no spin", there are VERY few specific requirements with throw in anymore. We should enforce the ones that remain. Not doing so is allowing the proverbial ball to role further down the hill. I'm not specifically picking on you I just think you post fit best with my response.
Well, not really. In that situation, it wouldn't be true that “part of the foot is on the ground”. In the circumstances I proposed, part of the foot is on the ground, and part of the foot is over the touch line, just not the same part.
You're asking whether "on the touch line" can be construed to include "over the touch line" in a sentence that specifically includes "on the ground" for the part of the foot that's outside the touch line. Think about whether that would make any sense.
I'm just saying the two situations aren't equivalent, that's all. Anyway, I don't think it's an unreasonable question, given that for all other circumstances of determining whether a ball or player is in or out of a given area, it's a matter of “breaking the plane”, whether that happens directly touching the ground or not. If the foot is completely off the ground, it obviously doesn't meet one criterion for a valid throw-in, regardless of where it is. But if part of the foot is on the ground, and another part of it is “in the area”, both criteria are met when examined separately. However, (as I said above) I think a strict reading of the LOTG would indicate that you can't examine them separately. So technically, it would not be a valid throw-in. While I'm pretty sure that's the logical conclusion, I don' t necessarily think it's obviously so. At least, it's not to me. On the other hand, I don't regret not flagging this particular throw, since I tend to think foul throw-ins are overcalled anyway, and I just don't see the huge advantage that raising your heel up an inch or two gets you.
This would be a perfect opportunity for a historian to explain the genetics of the throw-in. Why was it created, what was the motivation for why it is designed the way it is (hands all of a sudden vs feet all other times). You know, go back and read the LOTG and IFAB minutes from 1800's. For example: - Why is it a THROW in and not a KICK in? Futsal seems to have figured that out. All about the foot until the ball goes over the touchline. (GK exception...) -Why must the goal keeper use their foot for a goal kick? We let other positions use their hands to put ball back into play...? Come on people, field players can not use their hands at all other times. Where did this come from! What a vastly different game it would be if Law 15 was a Kick In. Okay, I've caused enough trouble for one day.
The goalkeeper doesn't have to take goal kicks. It's not, as I've heard from at least one coach, a "goalie kick". (That grated on my ears nearly as bad as fingernails on a chalkboard. Off-topic aside - with whiteboards replacing blackboards, how will students ever have that unique aural experience?)
I'm a university student, and I don't think a single one of my classrooms/lecture halls has a whiteboard, even the new ones. Not really sure why. Granted, there isn't much fingernail scratching by this time... And now to post something on topic so I don't get in trouble: Yea, by the book foul throw in. And if you're my AR and you call that I'm spitting in your bag.
Well you certainly picked a good forum for picking nits. Maybe you should ask this at your next recert clinic, right at the end when everyone is ready to leave. PS - I wouldn't call it.
Only if you set a time limit (ugh - no way) - it takes WAY too long to set up a kick and when the ball leaves anywhere in the attacking third (or even attacking half) this would become another futile exercise in trying to get the game restarted at all,much less quickly. Getting them to throw the thing in is enough of a chore sometimes ("someone get open" as they stand there with ball over head for EVER...)
I believe NCAA did kick-ins around the 50s or so. . . . I believe around the same time that ties were decided by the team with the most CKs. . . .
The bigger issue is that kick-ins would make every out-of-bounds in the offensive half a goalscoring opportunity, which is a big change. Also, people on this board won't be able to complain about players disputing "insignificant" throw ins. Personally, I think throw ins should be done by the ref/AR heaving the ball over his head, Aussie-rules style.
Either you call this or ignore it and based on what you have described this is most likely too nit picky and looking for trouble where you don't need it. Don't over think it. Don't call it, call it; it's your choice as AR. Whatever you do, your second interpretation isn't a good one.
...unless I am the Referee; I tell my ARs that under no circumstances are they to raise the flag on a throw-in.