Barnsley Foul Throws

[Ellafella]

I know I am going to sound like an old moaner but technically Barnsley's goal yesterday  should have been disallowed because the throw-in from which the header came was a "foul" - the thrower quite clearly has his back foot off the ground when he launches the ball across. The ref did give 1 foul throw yesterday when again a Barnsley player threw the ball into the ground.He and the assistant though missed a few others (all Barnsley players).

Sadly, it's endemic in the modern game - when I watch my son's u14 side, just about every throw-in taken is illegal with blind eyes being turned to players with their back foot off the ground as they launch it.

The same can be said of no-balls at cricket; many seem just to be let go by umpires now that they hae recourse to a video replay in the event of an appeal or a decision needed to be made. 

 

[RamNut]

Its a daft rule. Change it. I don't really see that there is much advantage to be had by lifting your heal.

ooh vicar.

[FrostedRam]

16 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Its a daft rule. Change it. I don't really see that there is much advantage to be had by lifting your heal.

ooh vicar.

I always got called up on this when I played Sunday league. In my head I was just taking a throw in like the pros so couldn't see what I was doing wrong. 

[StringerBell]

19 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Its a daft rule. Change it. I don't really see that there is much advantage to be had by lifting your heal.

ooh vicar.

Distance?

[LazloW]

As a bit of a moaning old git myself, the number of foul throws in most games annoys me (at least as I understand the rules... which might be faulty anyway). I probably agree with RamNut in that it's probably a stupid rule that could/should be changed, but while it is a rule it ought to be adherred to.  Can't say I spotted the infringement on their goal, but refs seem to have decided that the rules are actually more like guidelines. Bah humbug, to that, I say. Rules are rules. 

Just as a digression into Football Talk/Pub zone... what was the point in changing the rule on kick offs? What has that bought to the game?  

[davenportram]

8 minutes ago, LazloW said:

As a bit of a moaning old git myself, the number of foul throws in most games annoys me (at least as I understand the rules... which might be faulty anyway). I probably agree with RamNut in that it's probably a stupid rule that could/should be changed, but while it is a rule it ought to be adherred to.  Can't say I spotted the infringement on their goal, but refs seem to have decided that the rules are actually more like guidelines. Bah humbug, to that, I say. Rules are rules. 

Just as a digression into Football Talk/Pub zone... what was the point in changing the rule on kick offs? What has that bought to the game?  

The rule is to effect distance. If you can lift your back foot you effectively create more of a pivot of the body over the planted foot, like a medieval catapult the whole body can be used to increase the power of the throw. It's the same reason you have to use two hands. Just look at how far keepers can throw the ball without such regulations.

[RamNut]

what about the position of the ball at corner kicks.

uncontested drop balls

Or holding and grappling at corners

Active and non-active ******

Debating natural and unnatural arm positions

strikers being 'entitled' to go over

tupping on water bottles every five minutes

And some hair do's should be an automatic red card (bradley johnson)

 

 

 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

I know I am going to sound like an old moaner but technically Barnsley's goal yesterday  should have been disallowed because the throw-in from which the header came was a "foul" - the thrower quite clearly has his back foot off the ground when he launches the ball across. The ref did give 1 foul throw yesterday when again a Barnsley player threw the ball into the ground.He and the assistant though missed a few others (all Barnsley players).

Sadly, it's endemic in the modern game - when I watch my son's u14 side, just about every throw-in taken is illegal with blind eyes being turned to players with their back foot off the ground as they launch it.

The same can be said of no-balls at cricket; many seem just to be let go by umpires now that they hae recourse to a video replay in the event of an appeal or a decision needed to be made. 

 

With you there, oh and by the way why isn't obstruction given anymore? 

[Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

I know I am going to sound like an old moaner but technically Barnsley's goal yesterday  should have been disallowed because the throw-in from which the header came was a "foul" - the thrower quite clearly has his back foot off the ground when he launches the ball across. The ref did give 1 foul throw yesterday when again a Barnsley player threw the ball into the ground.He and the assistant though missed a few others (all Barnsley players).

Sadly, it's endemic in the modern game - when I watch my son's u14 side, just about every throw-in taken is illegal with blind eyes being turned to players with their back foot off the ground as they launch it.

The same can be said of no-balls at cricket; many seem just to be let go by umpires now that they hae recourse to a video replay in the event of an appeal or a decision needed to be made. 

 

I see it was Marc Roberts long throw wot done it. Saw lots of them when he played for Buxton a few years ago. It was a lethal weapon when used in moderation. I don't recall him being flagged for fouls throws back then.

I said at the time Derby should take a look at him.

[Ewe Ram]

2 hours ago, Sparkle said:

With you there, oh and by the way why isn't obstruction given anymore? 

If a foul is called for obstructing the keeper then why isn't the same manoeuvre a foul when (my pet hate) they barge and obstruct a player getting to the ball when it's going over the line for a corner/goal kick? 

[Sith Happens]

55 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

If a foul is called for obstructing the keeper then why isn't the same manoeuvre a foul when (my pet hate) they barge and obstruct a player getting to the ball when it's going over the line for a corner/goal kick? 

I am sure it used to be, but something that seems to have become accepted nowdays.

[Ellafella]

4 hours ago, davenportram said:

The rule is to effect distance. If you can lift your back foot you effectively create more of a pivot of the body over the planted foot, like a medieval catapult the whole body can be used to increase the power of the throw. It's the same reason you have to use two hands. Just look at how far keepers can throw the ball without such regulations.

Absolutely right. With the back foot lifted you can sling the ball further...the rule is precisely to stop that. Given they scored from it the "goal" should not have been allowed. 

 

4 hours ago, LazloW said:

As a bit of a moaning old git myself, the number of foul throws in most games annoys me (at least as I understand the rules... which might be faulty anyway). I probably agree with RamNut in that it's probably a stupid rule that could/should be changed, but while it is a rule it ought to be adherred to.  Can't say I spotted the infringement on their goal, but refs seem to have decided that the rules are actually more like guidelines. Bah humbug, to that, I say. Rules are rules. 

Just as a digression into Football Talk/Pub zone... what was the point in changing the rule on kick offs? What has that bought to the game?  

Clear as a bell on Sky Sports highlights. 

[Ellafella]

4 hours ago, RamNut said:

what about the position of the ball at corner kicks.

uncontested drop balls

Or holding and grappling at corners

Active and non-active ******

Debating natural and unnatural arm positions

strikers being 'entitled' to go over

tupping on water bottles every five minutes

And some hair do's should be an automatic red card (bradley johnson)

 

 

 

Absolutely...why does nobody give a proper drop ball anymore?!! When did the rule change?!! 

[Mafiabob]

Thought his throw was fine to be fair in real time.

With drop balls,  not sure how what else you can do to restart a game after official stops it for treatment? 

[Ewe Ram]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I am sure it used to be, but something that seems to have become accepted nowdays.

It winds me up! 

[davenportram]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

Absolutely...why does nobody give a proper drop ball anymore?!! When did the rule change?!! 

The rule hasn't changed and the ref doesn't decide it's uncontested 

 

Quote

Dropped ball

PROCEDURE

The referee drops the ball at the position where it was when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area in which case the ball is dropped on the goal area line which is parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.

The ball is in play when it touches the ground.

Any number of players may contest a dropped ball (including the goalkeepers); the referee cannot decide who may contest a dropped ball or its outcome.

the drop ball being uncontested can only be a decision made by players. I think it has become popular due to TV stating it is a fair play thing to do and players being scared of getting booed and pileried in the media.

[Ninos]

7 hours ago, Ellafella said:

I know I am going to sound like an old moaner but technically Barnsley's goal yesterday  should have been disallowed because the throw-in from which the header came was a "foul" - the thrower quite clearly has his back foot off the ground when he launches the ball across. The ref did give 1 foul throw yesterday when again a Barnsley player threw the ball into the ground.He and the assistant though missed a few others (all Barnsley players).

Sadly, it's endemic in the modern game - when I watch my son's u14 side, just about every throw-in taken is illegal with blind eyes being turned to players with their back foot off the ground as they launch it.

The same can be said of no-balls at cricket; many seem just to be let go by umpires now that they hae recourse to a video replay in the event of an appeal or a decision needed to be made. 

 

Agree but slamming the ball into the ground is legal unless it's not over the head. Don't matter when you release it.