Question Number: 22623

Law 15 - Throw In 12/7/2009

RE: Select Under 12

Jason Devoys of Folsom, CA USA asks...

One of our players is taking a throw-in and the opponent is encroaching and is within 2 yards of the thrower. Our player gets frustrated and makes a legal throw but deliberately at the head of the opponent encroaching (not too hard but deliberate nevertheless). Referee awards a free-kick to the opposing team. Is this correct? Can't find anything in Law 15 on this. Opponent shouldn't have been standing so close, but at the same time it probably wasn't right to retaliate in such a way.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

If the referee determines that the ball was thrown in an opponent that constitutes striking in a fashion that is careless, reckless, or using excessive force, then a direct free kick from where the target was located (where the offence occurred) is the correct response if the throw was otherwise taken correctly (otherwise, it would be a throw in to the opposition).

Naturally, throwing the ball into an opponent for tactical reasons can be considered part of the game, but when it's done with significant force, and/or at a sensitive part of the opponent's body (such as the head), this becomes foul play.

Depending on those factors, the force used, and a number of other factors the referee may caution or send off the player depending on the severity of the incident. However, if it isn't particularly severe the referee is certainly within his rights to only award a direct free kick.

While the opponent should not have encroached, you are correct that this doesn't justify retaliation.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jason
Correct decision by the referee in this case and thank you for your honesty and fair play in pointing out your player's indiscretion. The player should know the throw in law and a simple call to the referee while pointing to the player within 2 yards would have sorted this out. Indeed if he had taken the TI and he was impeded then the referee would have had to caution the opponent and the TI is retaken.
The other side of this is that the referee should be mindful of this encroachment by players at throw ins. Where necessary, the referee should warn any player within this two yard area 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.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

If the referee determines that the opponent was standing too close to the thrower, that is the offense that happened first. The restart will be based on that offense. Page 126 of the Interpretations and Guidelines section of the Laws says, 'Referees are reminded that opponents may be no closer than 2 m 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.'

The actions by the thrower in that case would not be a foul, but would be misconduct which followed the encroachment infraction by the opponent. The referee would have to decide if the throw at the player's head was hard enough to justify a caution for unsporting behavior, or a send-off for violent conduct.

However, the referee may have decided that the opponent was not too close to the thrower. In that case the throw was completed correctly, followed immediately by the foul and probable misconduct. In that case the restart of a direct free kick to the opponents is correct.

Players should be mindful of their role on the field, and not try to take the referee's role. Let the ref enforce the Laws; don't take it into your own hands by retaliating. Refs may see retaliation more than they see the original offense, because the retaliation is often more pronounced and much harder to miss than a subtle foul that prompted the situation.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The referee has several decisions to make: (1) was the throw-in properly taken; (2) even if the ball was intentionally thrown at an opponent, was it done so that the thrower could play the ball? In a careless or reckless manner? With excessive force? What about the defender's failure to respect the distance? What is the restart?

Was it a foul by the thrower? FIFA reminds us that '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.' (Interpretations and Guidelines annexed to TLOG.)

In this case, however, the player wasn't trying to play the ball but sought to and did strike the opponent with the ball. The referee could well judge that the throw at the opponent was done in an careless manner (just a foul - striking); indeed, the referee could have judges it reckless and cautioned the thrower depending on the circumstances. (You indicate the force was slight and not excessive, so a sendoff for violent conduct would not appear to be a consideration.)

Was it misconduct by the defender? The defender failed to respect the distance on a throw-in, and the referee is empowered to warn or immediately caution the defender, depending on the circumstances.

What is the correct restart? If the throw was NOT properly taken, the restart would be another throw-in. But, you indicate that the throw-in was proper. If the referee decided to stop play because of the defender's misconduct in failing to respect the distance, the restart would be a retake of the throw in by the attacking team. If the referee decided to stop play because of the foul (striking the defender with the ball), the restart would be a direct free kick for the defense where the defender was standing/hit.

The referee chose one of the appropriate options: restart for the striking the foul. The referee could have cautioned both players, and restarted with a throw in for the offense (based on the first misconduct). Another referee might have concluded that the throw-in was not properly taken, warned or cautioned both players, and restarted with another throw-in.

IMO, players recognize who committed the first offense (failing to respect the distance) and who retaliated (striking). They sometimes will retaliate against the first when only the second is punished by the referee. IMO, complete justice requires that the referee appear to recognize and act on the defender's conduct (which may be as simple as a public rebuke). Indeed, the better course for the referee is to be proactive about dealing with the encroachment by the defending player at the first throw-in. If the players understand that the referee will enforce the distance, they are unlikely to test the referee (and their opponent's patience) later.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I would only add that it doesn't matter if the ball actually strikes the opponent's head. If in the opinion of the referee, the taker of the throw-in threw the ball at the opponent's head, then the thrower is guilty of attempting to strike an opponent which is still a direct free kick offense. Since the ball didn't actually hit the head in my example usually only a foul is called, but if the referee felt the throw was with such force that the thrower obviously intended to harm the opponent, a caution or send off could be possible