Was not the offense the actions of the thrower when the ball was still out of play? The fact the ball crossed out of touch is not an offense by itself. After all is said and done here, I have issues with the end of the video where the defender, after staggering around with a likely concussion, goes back and STANDS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE THROWER AGAIN!
The ball might be in play but the thrower isn't challenging for the ball and thus the charge is VC (page 129 of the LotG for reference).
Further, you'd write it up as striking (since in this case the ball is an object being thrown at an opponent).
This isn't right. A striking offense "occurs" at the point of contact (or at the point where contact would have been made). There are a number of interpretations on it that focus on whether the offense was inside or outside the Penalty Area, and I would apply the same thing here. The VC (if that's what you judge it) happened at the point where the ball hit the defender. More interesting would be deciding which happened first (i.e. what comes next) if you decide to caution the defender and send off the attacker. I can see the arguments for retaking the throw in (due to the FRD), or a FK.
ATR 12.6 and 15.8. While 12.8 clearly establishes the location of a striking offense, it does not clearly establish the timing of the offense. I.e., does the offense occur at the moment of the throw or the moment it reaches the person at whom it was thrown? 12.6 doesn't address, and 15.8 discusses only the misconduct aspect, not the restart. An argument could be made that the the offense occurs when thrown and that therefore it is misconduct only, not a striking offense. That philosophical rumination aside, if I'm cautioning (USB) or tossing (VC) someone for deliberately throwing the ball at an opponent, I'm going to infer from 12.6 that the offense occurs not only at the spot but at the time the ball gets there, and I'm going to start with the DFK (striking).
The restart is simple. FK for the defending team. VC is the more serious and the ball was in play (and technically you shouldn't be cautioning the defender UNLESS you have already told him to move back.)
Completely agree socal (and I had never really thought about timing that hard, I've just equated the "location of contact" with when the contact would have occurred) But playing devil's advocate here, in any other FRD situation, you would retake the restart, so why wouldn't you do that here as well? These aren't two offenses occurring at the same time, since no matter when you think the striking "occurs", the FRD is happening first (especially if it's still happening after a warning -- which I'd really be hoping was from some other time earlier in the game)
because the purpose of retaking a restart due to FRD is not because the ball isn't in play, it is because someone unfairly interfered with putting it back in play. The infractions end up being simulateneous and when that happens the more serious infraction takes precidence.
I can buy that. The more I think about it, the less justification I see for an FRD card anyway once the ball is allowed to be thrown in. Going on our instructions on FRD in regards to a FK, the player doesn't move closer to the ball or do anything else to draw the card. If you warn on FRD on a throw in, the card needs to come before the next throw in. And, most importantly, if the ball to the face doesn't get him to move, do you really think a caution is going to change his behavior?
I disagree. This isn't a "two offences at the same time" type of situation, they are two separate offences that happens to be close (both in time and location) and should be treated as such.
Slow to remember it was there, but per the oracle from back in '09: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=1242
If I'm that referee, I'm laughing way to hard to make any type of call. That was hilarious. And if I'm the guy with the new Adidas tattoo on my face, when that guy attempts his 2nd flip throw, I'm am tackling him (American football style) as he comes out of that flip.
Why is this different than kicking a ball into an opponent's face (who is in a wall) from a free kick?
Because the wall is 10 yards away. A throw-in at an opponent may be nothing, may be USB, or may be VC. All depends on the details. And ineed, a FK at the face of an opponent who say kneels a yard in front of the FK could also be sanctionable.
SFP or USB against the kicker -- if ITOOTR it qualifies as such. The FRD by the opponent is not a license for violence. (Of course, as with the FT scenario we've been discussing, the wise referee intervenes before it happens; but if he doesn't intervene and diffuse the situation, he needs to play the cards the players deal him .)
This is ridiculous. The thrower may not enter the field of play and must meet the regs for a legal throw-in. The defending player must be two yards from the point point alongthe touchline from where the throw will be executed. Where do the two meet in a dangerous manner? Use to teach this to players - HS and club - every summer. Takes about an hour to get them to where it is effective and legal, but is easily teachable; especially if you have ever used it.
I'm playing devils advocate here. So here it goes. In the video clip we know approximately where the ball left the field. We also know that the defensive player is about 1 to 2 meters from that spot. However he is more that 2 meters from where the offensive player is standing. This is the gray area. In the players eyes the spot of the throw in was not defined and therefore the blame may go either way. For the defensive player for FRD or to the offensive player for encroachment or SFP.
Do you really want to referee this way? It is 100% clear that the defender is watching the thrower and deliberately positioning himself immediately on the touch line where he believes the thrower is headed for the sole purpose of illegally interfering with the throw. Why make this complicated?
I am on the fence but watching in slow motion don't think it is legal. Per rule 15: At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: • stand facing the field of play • have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline • throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play I question that at the moment he is throwing the ball, he is not throwing the ball from behind and over the head. In slow motion, his head is going over the ball and not the ball going over the head. Also, the position of the ball is such that it starts midway on the head and not fully over or behind. Also, you could question, is this really standing.
You joined Big Soccer to ask this question? I’ll give you credit for finding an old thread to make your case, but did you read through the whole thread before you posted? As threeputzzz says, nothing has changed in the six years since this came up. I may be wrong, but I think throwins are one of the few things IFAB hasn’t messed around with lately. If Arsene Wenger gets his way that might change.