Referee

[MobileBlade]

Foul throw was bizarre, give one against Tanganga for 1 foot up, which is perfectly acceptable, and no issues with ref pulling players up (seems to be less enforced these days), their player took one ball not behind his head thrown onto the pitch & ref allows to be retaken, only thing i can think of is that the vall maybe slipped out of his hand? Not sure i was too far away to see any slips.

One of the intricacies of the Law of the Game but he was correct with this one. The ball actually bounced on the ground before it came in to play. If it has not bounced on the ground and entered the field then he may have given a foul through but because it bounced on the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken from the same spot. To quote the Law for you:
"The ball is in play when it enters the field of play. If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. "

 

[Blademan89]

Theirs was re-taken as the ball didn’t come onto the pitch before it bounced pal. It was the correct decision to be fair. Quite rare that you ever see that though isn’t it.

Fair enough, I was other side to it. Eyesight bad enough these days doesnt help either lol.

 

[bakeblade]

Linesman visibly told whoever had on the line (possibly McGuiness?) to play on once the ref hadn’t give it.

Watching back the highlights the lino incorrectly put his flag up as the ball had come off a Watford head. The ref signalled play on and the lino put his flag down and told McGuiness to play on.

 

[LBA_Blade]

Foul throws...

United do a foul throw - Watford get to take a throw in return

Watford do a foul throw - they get to retake it?

Why aren't rules being applied properly? I just don't get how they can just choose to disregard the laws of the game when they are the ones suppose to upholding them.

For me although I agree a simple law change would stop foul throws. Looking at the history of the Laws of the game we are going back to 1863 for a throw in when, football and rugby were still finding their way and a throw in was decided then. Practically for a restart of play in football it doesn’t make any sense anymore. A simple place the ball and kick just like corners would be the more sensible approach and you have all the technicalities removed from the throw in law.

 

[bladesmanluke]

Credit where it's due i thought that was a good performance from the referee

 

[SuperSonicBlade89]

One of the intricacies of the Law of the Game but he was correct with this one. The ball actually bounced on the ground before it came in to play. If it has not bounced on the ground and entered the field then he may have given a foul through but because it bounced on the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken from the same spot. To quote the Law for you:
"The ball is in play when it enters the field of play. If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. "

So basically.... very basic... they still did a "foul" throw, but in this instance they get to retake it? The foul being the ball bounced before it was over the line.

Very stupid that one accident can supersede another like that.

Almost like being able to retake a penalty becuase the player slipped on the run up and skied it.

 

[MobileBlade]

So basically.... very basic... they still did a "foul" throw, but in this instance they get to retake it? The foul being the ball bounced before it was over the line.

Very stupid that one accident can supersede another like that.

Almost like being able to retake a penalty becuase the player slipped on the run up and skied it.

No. There is no foul throw because the ball did not technically come into play as it bounced before it entered the field of play so no throw actually took place. Said it was one of intricacies.

 

[Belvedere Blade]

 

[dsr-burnley]

For me although I agree a simple law change would stop foul throws. Looking at the history of the Laws of the game we are going back to 1863 for a throw in when, football and rugby were still finding their way and a throw in was decided then. Practically for a restart of play in football it doesn’t make any sense anymore. A simple place the ball and kick just like corners would be the more sensible approach and you have all the technicalities removed from the throw in law.

If a throw in is replaced by a kick, then it'll slow the game down even more. Free kicks near the box, and corners, all lead to delay and faff. Remember that, unlike corners, there is no permanent marking to indicate 10 yards.

 

[LBA_Blade]

If a throw in is replaced by a kick, then it'll slow the game down even more. Free kicks near the box, and corners, all lead to delay and faff. Remember that, unlike corners, there is no permanent marking to indicate 10 yards.

Personally, the difference won't be noticeable and if anything would speed things up, there have been plenty of ways to delay a throw in, chucking it to a team mate " a specialised thrower" to take the throw (back to Delap days), drying off the ball, not standing in the right place and waiting for the referee to indicate by pointless blasts of a whistle rather than just moving to where it should be and putting a hand out (assistants could help too). Even now the 2 metre distance isn't followed. A place kick would be simple, and could be a way to actually speed up the game, rather than waiting your Delap type, your winger could have taken the pass-in, and already set-up the momentum.

The only reason I mentioned the comment was, being a sport apart from one position of the keeper being able to use his hands, everything else non hand related. We are using a law brought in the 1860's which requires another restart of play law to cover the technicalities now and something else to have to be taught. There are too many Laws that over complicate what should be a simple sport to understand for the spectator. From a pundits preceptive it doesn't help the vast majority of them don't have a clue/are still relating to laws of "back in my day". The prime example is a booking for a yellow card that hasn't been in the Laws of the Game for over 20 years probably more but it is still referred to.

 

[Back post bob]

Liverpool v man utd there was as least 5 foul throws that never got noticed Liverpool player had his leg of the ground four times.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Personally, the difference won't be noticeable and if anything would speed things up, there have been plenty of ways to delay a throw in, chucking it to a team mate " a specialised thrower" to take the throw (back to Delap days), drying off the ball, not standing in the right place and waiting for the referee to indicate by pointless blasts of a whistle rather than just moving to where it should be and putting a hand out (assistants could help too). Even now the 2 metre distance isn't followed. A place kick would be simple, and could be a way to actually speed up the game, rather than waiting your Delap type, your winger could have taken the pass-in, and already set-up the momentum.

The only reason I mentioned the comment was, being a sport apart from one position of the keeper being able to use his hands, everything else non hand related. We are using a law brought in the 1860's which requires another restart of play law to cover the technicalities now and something else to have to be taught. There are too many Laws that over complicate what should be a simple sport to understand for the spectator. From a pundits preceptive it doesn't help the vast majority of them don't have a clue/are still relating to laws of "back in my day". The prime example is a booking for a yellow card that hasn't been in the Laws of the Game for over 20 years probably more but it is still referred to.

You're guilty of the same "fault" that the commentators are. "Booking", so far as I can tell, has never been in the laws of the game. In 1971 it was "cautioned" or "sent off". In 1949 it was "cautioned" or "ordered from the field". In 1925 it was "caution" or "order off". In 1903 it was "cautioed" or "ordered off the field of play".

The point is that there are many words that can used for the same thing, we aren't restricted to using the exact terminology as per the laws. (If a player shouts out, "Linesman, you're a **** cheat", he won't get away with it by claiming he didn't use the terminology as stated in the laws!)

Interesting site with laws going back way back when. https://www.theifab.com/documents/?documentType=laws-of-the-game&language=en&years=all

 

[LBA_Blade]

You're guilty of the same "fault" that the commentators are. "Booking", so far as I can tell, has never been in the laws of the game. In 1971 it was "cautioned" or "sent off". In 1949 it was "cautioned" or "ordered from the field". In 1925 it was "caution" or "order off". In 1903 it was "cautioed" or "ordered off the field of play".

The point is that there are many words that can used for the same thing, we aren't restricted to using the exact terminology as per the laws. (If a player shouts out, "Linesman, you're a **** cheat", he won't get away with it by claiming he didn't use the terminology as stated in the laws!)

Interesting site with laws going back way back when. https://www.theifab.com/documents/?documentType=laws-of-the-game&language=en&years=all

I imagine the term itself refers to the notebook that the referee uses to record the names "back in the day"/amateur level. I guess you don't need that as much now with matches recorded/potentially other methods at the professional level.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I imagine the term itself refers to the notebook that the referee uses to record the names "back in the day"/amateur level. I guess you don't need that as much now with matches recorded/potentially other methods at the professional level.

I'm sure you're right - it was colloquially called booking because the ref wrote the name in his book.

Language is like that - you get a good word that is understood, and it persists even when it is no longer literally true. Videoing TV programmes, for example. A picture of a paper clip to signify email attachments, and virtually all the language of emails taken from the old postal system. That sort of thing.

And shouting "lino".