Question Number: 34534

Law 15 - The Throw In 3/22/2022

RE: Competitive Adult

George of Adelaide, South Australia Australia asks...

A question about the position on the side line from where a throw in should be taken. We are usually advised that somewhere within a metre or two of the place is good enough as long as any undue advantage doesn’t eventuate. I was the centre for an u18 game a couple of weeks ago where the player was given a mark on the ground by my AR for the position of the throwin. The AR then moved about five metres down the line. The player then took a run up way past the mark, collided heavily with the AR (5 metres away), and eventually threw the ball into play. The player then yelled at the AR who was now on the ground to get out of his way. The collision with the AR was obviously deliberate.

The question therefore is about how rigid one should be about the throw in point.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi George
Thanks for the question.
It depends on how precise you want to be. Many referee allow a great deal of latitude in throw in restart location where is not unusual to see 5 yards or more taken, I know some referees who have limited tolerance for *stealing* yards and it is a turn over of the throw in. In those instances it results in less stealing from that point on. Other referees tend to advise the thrower to go back yet many times fail to follow through on the instruction with the throw being taken close to where the player was pushed back from! My personal preference is that the throw in should be close to the location and that is no more that 2/3 yards at most in any direction. An early intervention of getting on the whistle to ensure the correct location and a turn over sorts it fairly quickly when the player that is stealing the yards pays little heed and the player will be more mindful of location on the next TI.
Another important point is team tolerance. At the Pro level players are not too fussed about TI location except for the teams with a long throw merchant. At grassroots teams do get fussed about it with shouts of *where is he going ref* and the like. When it is being fussed about then it needs to have stricter enforcement which means both ways

As to the incident described you do not mention the outcome. The collision with the assistant is way more serious than throw in location and for me what is described is a red card for violent conduct as it is a deliberate collision by the player into the AR. If the AR was in no doubt that the player knew the mark location and what was intended I would without hesitation be issuing a red card here. If I was certain it was intentional then the game is over with a red card. Also we cannot allow a player to commit VC in the guise of an accident. The player knew the AR was there so why did he not adjust accordingly?
In this part of the world it is grounds for abandonment as VC on a match officials is treated very seriously with a minimum of one year ban from all soccer.
Over a lifetime of refereeing I had one incident of contact by a player that I was unsure of and to be honest I was unsure as to the *intent* of the player as there was a possibility of having moved into his path so I let it slide. I did not like the fact that he did not apologise as I have had other situations of slight contact that was purely accidental with an immediate apology by both myself and the player.

The second point is the positioning of the assistant referee at a throw in. In recent times I have seen AR being ahead of the thrower and from experience that is not a good location. The AR has two areas to concentrate on namely the throwing location and the any possible offside call

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

What a bizarre situation.....I'm sure it doesn't need to be said, but if the referee believes the collision was deliberate, then a red card should be issued - and abandonment strongly considered (in some jurisdictions, abandonment is a requirement after any form of referee assault) - and it's hard to imagine how this could have been accidental.

Taking that whole thing away and if we just look at a situation of a TI being taken 5 yards from the mark - we'll be a bit more lenient in the defensive third of the field, and stricter as we move up - much like a FK position.

Also, if the exact spot has clearly been pointed out, we'll be stricter again. For instance, if I'm AR and I'm close to the mark myself, and I've clearly told the player to take it on my left, and he takes it in my right, I'm flagging that (though partly because the nature of that is a particularly blatant offence, even if the actual distance is quite small).

Typically, I think 5 yards is going to be a bit too much. You'll give more leeway when the location is a bit more ambiguous (eg ball going out at a slight angle), but even then there are limits.

One thing I will point out is that the tolerance applies both ways - a lot of players expect to be able to take the throw 5, 10 yards down the line (back towards their own goal), arguing that it doesn't matter if it's backwards - but this is false, it's still an incorrect throw. After all, if taking it from the wrong spot wasn't gaining them some benefit, they wouldn't have done it, would they?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi George,

Like most of the LOTG how stringent we are on blade of grass restarts is dependant on the significance of the when & where the restart occurs.

The FACT is, the opposition is required in law to be 2 meters away from the point of where the ball exited the FOP aka the spot where the throw is required to be taken legally.

An opposing player moves 2 meters up the touch line from the spot where the referee indicates the throw in is to occur and stands along or even on the touchline itself.
That player is legally where the LOTG have asked them to be. The two meters is not based on the distance from the touchline itself but the location of the restart.
Thus a thrower intent on running up the line smashes into that opponent, who is at fault?

I use a fairly harsh point finger gesture and often say out loud if there is the slightest doubt of who gets the throw IE.. Yellow throw Right there! Back up! for the older groups with +Feet on the ground , hands over the head, for the wee ones.

It is in certain situations where you as referee can see the gamesmanship and must be aware if consequences of no intervention at all, versus a tweaking of the arrangement every now and then. My good friend and colleague Julian Carosi used to argue over the concepts of a correctly taken throw-in taken where a player hurls the ball down relatively parallel to the touchline but -never- entering the FOP until the diagonal or wind carry that ball into the FOP by having the ball intersect the touchline some 25 yards from where it exited. He was adamant that the ball must enter the FOP from where it left. Neither one of us liked the creepers who kept inching up or down the FOP AFTER we indicate THAT is the designated restart spot but both of us were experienced enough to know when to pick a fight to win it or set an example to stop other disagreements!

I can tell you with certainty neither one of us would permit our AR to be run over with impunity! We would stress to our ARS to be vigilant and proactive and not be in a run path but a DELIBERATE rundown is a red card red sleigh ride with conceivable criminal charges if truly that blatant of an attack!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi George,
Talk about "burying the lead."

The important question here is most decidedly *not* how rigid to be about the throw in point. It is what action should be taken for what (based on your description) amounts to a player assaulting a match official.

As my colleagues have pointed out this should be at least a red card and potentially a match abandonment. The issue of where the throw should be taken from and what leeway we should allow utterly pales into insignificance when compared to the matter of this unprovoked violence inflicted by a player on a match official.

I'm sorry, but for me that is what should be uppermost in your mind.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 34539