The Referee Forum: Amusing throw-in in Watford vs. Manchester United - The Referee Forum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Amusing throw-in in Watford vs. Manchester United

#1 User is offline   slilott39 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 23-March 15

Posted 21 November 2015 - 03:00 PM

https://twitter.com/...075595104985088

Decision here?

Some considerations, presuming you have to restart after checking the potential head injury:

1)Yellow card for United player for failing to respect required distance; indirect free kick to Watford

2) Dropped ball if you don't see any offence

3) If thrown aggressively, direct free kick to United at point of contact and red card for VC; but this doesn't appear to be the case here.

4) I don't see any grounds for a retaken throw-in.

This post has been edited by slilott39: 21 November 2015 - 03:18 PM


#2 User is offline   Mooseybaby 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 816
  • Joined: 05-February 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bournemouth
  • Interests:Football, cricket, good pub grub, my wife & kids.... back in black again having returned from the darkness called "retirement"! :-)

Posted 21 November 2015 - 07:42 PM

Had the game on in the background earlier and saw this incident from the cameras on the opposite side.

Distance an opponent has to be from a throw in is only 2 yards and without a tape measure the United player on the face of it looked the minimum distance.

Whilst it's difficult to prove, I personally think there was an element of intent involved. The Watford is not looking for a team mate, certainly not one in view and it would have to been a hell of a throw with more loop to reach a team mate in the box. The Watford player may have felt the United player was too close and took the opportunity to earn a cheap yellow. :unsure:/>

#3 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 21 November 2015 - 09:50 PM

I think all that has happened is the Watford player saw a chance to get the ball to a forward, Blind realised this and jumped and therefore got the bull in the mush. There is a possible argument to say stop play for a head injury, but equally I don't think that was what the law was changed for as no one has ever been seriously injured by the ball being thrown at them.

I think the referee got it spot on personally.

#4 User is offline   Gary V 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,510
  • Joined: 18-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Michigan, USA

Posted 22 November 2015 - 12:05 AM

Page 136 of the good book:

Quote

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.


So the ref would decide if this throw was careless/reckless/excessive or just normal. To me it seems he throws the ball at the player with some force, but maybe at that level it's not considered out of line.

#5 User is offline   Alex Rush-Fear 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 01-October 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poole

Posted 22 November 2015 - 04:06 PM

View Postslilott39, on 21 November 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

1)Yellow card for United player for failing to respect required distance; indirect free kick to Watford

If that's what you're giving, restart is a throw-in, not an IDFK.

#6 User is offline   barstewart 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 18-March 14

Posted 22 November 2015 - 06:20 PM

The defender's jump gave him even worse contact with the ball. If he hadn't jumped, the ball may have glanced off the top of his head so to me it's not clear that the thrower wanted to cause harm.

I would side with stopping to check on the head injury, followed by a dropped ball.

#7 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 22 November 2015 - 06:37 PM

People are over complicating this. Talk of misconduct and potential red cards is ridiculous in my opinion. The thrower didn't throw the ball at Blind, or at least if he did he is a rubbish thrower as had Blind not jumped it would have missed him. Rather the taker has just tried to get the ball to a team mate, Blind realised this and jumped, and unfortunately as a result has copped a sore one.

#8 User is offline   slilott39 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 23-March 15

Posted 22 November 2015 - 07:13 PM

View PostAlex Rush-Fear, on 22 November 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

If that's what you're giving, restart is a throw-in, not an IDFK.


"An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team when play is stopped to caution or send-off a player when no specific foul has occurred (e.g. when play is stopped to caution a player for dissenting the decision of the referee)."

#9 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 22 November 2015 - 08:22 PM

View Postslilott39, on 22 November 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

"An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team when play is stopped to caution or send-off a player when no specific foul has occurred (e.g. when play is stopped to caution a player for dissenting the decision of the referee)."

Sure, but in this case you're looking at a retake since play hasn't been properly restarted.

#10 User is offline   slilott39 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: 23-March 15

Posted 22 November 2015 - 10:05 PM

View PostBartek, on 22 November 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

Sure, but in this case you're looking at a retake since play hasn't been properly restarted.


Ah, yes, good point; in the same way penalties are retaken after encroachment and free kicks when the wall creeps forward.

#11 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 23 November 2015 - 08:23 AM

View Postslilott39, on 22 November 2015 - 11:05 PM, said:

Ah, yes, good point; in the same way penalties are retaken after encroachment and free kicks when the wall creeps forward.

Good example!

#12 User is offline   barstewart 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 18-March 14

Posted 23 November 2015 - 05:50 PM

I'll agree with others on the re-throw — if encroachment is the call.

I'd say the defender has allowed the required two yards… barely. Any closing of the gap was due to the thrower moving slightly up the line. We don't know where the ball had gone out, as the video has been clipped.

This post has been edited by barstewart: 23 November 2015 - 05:50 PM


#13 User is offline   Goldfish 

  • Select Group
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 3,685
  • Joined: 02-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 23 November 2015 - 09:22 PM

Hi
The question I would pose is who was the Watford player throwing the ball to? I can't see from the video and that IMO is important in the decision. The Law states
"" 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.""
Now if Blind happened to get in the way of a legitimate throw to the throwers team mate then no offence. HOWEVER if the Watford player intentionally threw the ball AT Blind then it was certainly reckless if not using excessive force.

#14 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 23 November 2015 - 10:46 PM

View PostGoldfish, on 23 November 2015 - 09:22 PM, said:

Hi
The question I would pose is who was the Watford player throwing the ball to? I can't see from the video and that IMO is important in the decision. The Law states
"" 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.""
Now if Blind happened to get in the way of a legitimate throw to the throwers team mate then no offence. HOWEVER if the Watford player intentionally threw the ball AT Blind then it was certainly reckless if not using excessive force.


I can answer that as I was watching it live, and he was definitely trying to get it to a free team mate.

#15 User is offline   Goldfish 

  • Select Group
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 3,685
  • Joined: 02-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:33 PM

View PostRustyRef, on 23 November 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:

I can answer that as I was watching it live, and he was definitely trying to get it to a free team mate.

HI RR
Then no offence and I would say play on unless play is stopped to deal with the injury.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users