Question Number: 34073

Law 15 - The Throw In 12/8/2020

RE: Competitive Under 19

Danny of Dallas, TX United States asks...

In Law 15, it is written:
"If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue."

This inspires the question of procedure when this is violated. I can easily envision a situation where the throw taker deliberately and/or angrily throws the ball at the head or "lower stomach" of a nearby opponent. If the referee deems this careless/reckless/excessive, sanctions should be issued. The first part of my question is procedural: Is the restart a DFK from the spot of the contact?

The second part of my question involves the "flip-throw." I think it has been well-established that the flip throw can be executed legally provided that Law 15 is satisfied "at the moment of delivering the ball." There have, however, been situations (albeit comical) where this has resulted in an injury to an opponent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAD8Zl5ngg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewqy5EDrenw

In my mind, it certainly raises questions about the "at an opponent" clause from the beginning of this question. One side of me says that the defender accepts this responsibility, similar to standing in a defensive wall, when deciding to stand exactly 2 yards in front of the throw location. The other side of me says that the thrower has a higher liability or responsibility for the trajectory of a thrown ball from 2 yards away than that of an attacker taking a shot toward opponents standing 10 yards away. Really, I think it comes down to whether the referee can determine that the throw at the defender is deliberate and careless. Careless seems easier to conclude, but ruling the action deliberate seems difficult for me.

That being said, the second part of my question is subjective: Could the referee have good reason to deem this throw to be in violation of Law 15 when it strikes a stationary opponent?

Thanks for all of your hard work!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Danny
The answer hinges on whether the throw in was taken correctly or not and the manner of the throw in plus the intention.
If the intention was just to restart as per what is allowed by the Laws then play continues.
If however the intention was a reckless or excessive force throw at an opponent then it is a caution / dismissal and the restart is a direct free kick from where the ball struck the player provided the throw in was executed properly. If not executed properly the ball is not in play so it is either a retake if it was not a throw in or a turnover of the throw in if it was incorrectly taken.
As to a players intention on a throw in it is up to the referee to judge the intention of the thrower on a flip throw.
On both those videos there is a doubt as to intention and a referee would have to mind read or perhaps take into account conduct up to that point.
On the first one the thrower shows concern for the opponent and it simply could be poor execution.
On the second one there appeared to be some interaction between the players before the throw? The referee acts like there was “intention” behind the throw in yet probably difficult to determine. On slow motion there appears to be poor execution of the throw as the thrower releases the ball quite low in a squat position. It certainly could merit an incorrectly taken throw in resulting in a turnover of the throw. Law 15 used to state that the thrower had to face the field of play and it has been amended to *stand facing the field of play*. It can be difficult to determine time of release of the ball and whether the thrower is standing or squatting at release. However the close proximity of the opponent is also an infringement as he is clearly closer than the required distance.
I feel in both that the referees should have moved both opponents back the required distance before allowing the throws. Certainly if it is a potential flip throw as per what has happened previously in the game then the referee would be best advised to step in, move the player back and remind him of the risk of getting hit with the ball.
It is not going to challenge many referees as these flip throws do not happen very often.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Danny ,
thanks we all appreciate the fact our efforts are appreciated, Merry Christmas.

discretion is a referee's conditional impartiality while adhering to the LOTG but still able to choose from the practical application of doing anything at all or the most of what is necessary in the best interest of the match..

If the ball is used as a weapon and thrown at the opponent in such a way to be reckless harmful it can be USB reckless cautionable action , show a yellow card or excessive force violent conduct and thus show the red card , send-off reducing them by a player. SFP (serious foul play) can not apply as there is no Challange involved. The correct restart is a DFK from where on the FOP it occurred. THis is actualy a violation of law 12 as the throw in was probably performed correctly.

It would depend a great deal on the directional, FORCE and body location. A soft toss into the back of the head is NOT a foul whereas a toss into the nose or sideways off the ear even a gentle throw taken correctly is not going to be well received. A groin shot if purposefully with force is a violent act but correctly taken throw into the body itself that might catch that area or face is not an auto foul either.

These flip throws look impressive but not particularly accurate and as they are conditional with both feet on the ground the release point and timing is key. The thrower is supposed to release the ball BACK onto the pitch from WHERE the ball exited. That said most referees allows a yard or two minimums of creeping along the touchline leeway. Given the defender must be 2 yards away from the PROJECTED release point, the thrower should be able to adjust a run up to place the ball on a trajectory past the defender rather than drive it into his face. Should the defender fail to respect th 2 yards or move to get in line with the thrower or closer to the exit point such action might create a ball into the face and the thrower not held accountable for an unsafe delivery just a bit of bad defender luck. If the throw is adjudged incorrectly taken the oppostion gains possession of the throw in restart .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAD8Zl5ngg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewqy5EDrenw
I am concerned neither refeeere seemed to convey vital warnings as on both videos the defenders FAILED to respect the distance even on the retake in the first video, no cautions to the defenders but no sanctions to the attackers as the throw ins were considered correctly performed. What is interesting is the realization the thrower has far less control of directional accuracy even if powerful in distance where as a stand-up two-handed throw in directed into the face of the opponent is more likely to be seen as a striking foul given the EXPECTATION of greater accuracy!

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x4t2c
good goal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSVvY3CakW4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhfA8fm5wI
Just more background information for your discrestionary considerations .
Cheers