Question Number: 26076

Law 15 - Throw In 3/17/2012

Scott of Little Rock, Arkansas United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26015

A twist on the question of the location of a throw-in regarding the referee's management of the situation. In a recent high school game, a player took the liberty of about five yards down the line on the throw. It was a great throw into the goal area from near the corner. The ball was headed in for a goal. However, rather than whistling the violation upon the taking of the throw, the referee waited until the goal was scored, and then nullified the goal. His explanation was that 'because the team taking the throw-in gained an advantage' (scoring the goal), he whistled the violation and gave the throw-in to the defending team.

This seems inappropriate to me. Once the referee has determined to allow the throw in the first place and would, by his own explanation, have allowed play to continue had a goal not have been scored, what happens after the throw should not result in going back and calling it a violation. It's one thing to play advantage for the attacking team by not stopping play for a foul. But to penalize a team because they gained an advantage for a violation the referee seems to have considered trifling until he saw that something significant came of it, does not seem to be within the laws. Thoughts?

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Advantage cannot be played on an incorrectly taken throw in. This is because if the throw has not been taken in accordance with the laws of the game, then the ball has not been put into play. If it's not in play, then advantage is impossible.

That aside, I can't imagine why you'd even consider advantage when the ball has been put into the penalty area on an attack anyway.

Therefore, I'd argue that the referee has made two mistakes in his approach to that situation.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
Poor refereeing decision really. If the throw in was taken from the wrong location then the play should have been stopped immediately with the throw in awarded to the opponents. To approach it the way that he did would surely caused ill feeling as the referee has to disallow a goal with a decision that is 'late'. The approach of whether an advantage accrued or not is fraught with difficulty as this type of situation can show and it is certainly not advisable. From the referee's perspective there is little if anything to be gained here by this approach. Waiting to see what develops with the attacking team in possession and control of the ball is a lottery and there is no 'benefit' to the defending team. Yes perhaps the ball can be collected by the goalkeeper who can punt the ball forward but the downside is that there is every chance that the attacking team will gain through perhaps a goal, as in this case, or a corner kick or perhaps a deliberate handling by a defender.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Sometimes a slow call is not better than a quick one. This is one of those times.
If the referee believed the throw-in was improper, it was better to stop play immediately. Note: the referee may still enforce the decision that this was an infringement even if the ball is in play by the time the referee can get the whistle to mouth.

Although the referee's answer - advantage - - was a poor one, I suspect that the referee was waiting to see if the infringement should be ignored as trifling if the ball ended up being safely in the keeper's hands. Most infringements on a throw-in are trifling. But, as your example shows, it is playing with fire to let an improper location for a throw-in result in a dangerous attack.