Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Foul throw - Rotherham's goal

CallumcafcCallumcafc
in General Charlton
Seen lots of people comment post match that there was a foul throw involved in the build up to Rotherham's goal but I'm not seeing it. Can anyone explain which of the below conditions were not satisfied?


From the FA's website:

At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:
  • stand facing the field of play
  • have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline
  • throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-15---the-throw-in
«13

Comments

  • Jac_52Jac_52
    Thought it was one of his feet not touching the ground when I first saw it but from the replays it's because the lino is obscuring his feet so what looked like a throw mid stride actually wasn't. Probably.
  • agimagim
    At the time the motion of the throw didn't look right but after seeing a replay he just gets away with it. 
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
  • JayajoshJayajosh
    edited November 2021
    Looks okay to me but it would really be good to see a camera fixed in the AC stand as it seems every game at the Velley now we are talking about decisions going against us, whether it’s offsides, ball over the line, balls out of play and foul throws. 
  • KiwiValleyKiwiValley
    I’ve refereed a World Cup 3/4 playoff. I’m telling you there was nothing wrong with the throw. 
  • CAFCsayerCAFCsayer
    That's not behind his head at any point. It's a definite foul throw, bit it's never going to be given in a professional game unfortunately 
  • SporadicAddickSporadicAddick
    Foul throw - that would have been pulled up in school boy football years ago, but foul throws (usually feet off the ground) don't seem to be given in the modern professional game.
  • SporadicAddickSporadicAddick
    edited November 2021
    lordromford said:
    If we had a goal chalked off for that, we’d be furious. It’s a nothing incident. It’s happened. We need to let it go.
    But the goal would never have been chalked off. The whistle should have blown as soon as he committed the foul throw and before the ball got anywhere near the goal. In which case a "decent chance" would have been chalked off rather than a goal.
  • Sponsored links:


  • JohnnyH2JohnnyH2
    Its a foul throw, shows how poor the ref was as the player did exactly the same about 5 minutes previously. 
  • Pedro45Pedro45
    Their left back continually lifted his back foot when taking longer throw ins. In the second half, one long throw from the right had the foot well over the line. Lino wasn't even looking...
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    That lino didn't make a decision until injury time of the second half, even then he got it wrong.
  • bazjonsterbazjonster
    Their number 20 regularly 'foul throwed' in the first half when he was launching long throws into the box. Front foot was a good 10cm over the touchline onto the pitch. Amazed it didn't get picked up at all.
  • jamiebcooljamiebcool
    guinnessaddick said:
    That's not a foul throw. 
  • golfaddickgolfaddick
    Foul throw or not the players were moaning about the ball going out of play after that so it's all a fuss about nothing.

    The throw was legal

    The ball didnt go out. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • newyorkaddicknewyorkaddick
    It's a foul throw (ball was delivered over his not behind and over).  However whilst irrelevant it didn't confer any obvious advantage.

    Meanwhile on whether the ball went out of play, as the cross came from a throw-in not a corner the linesman had to be positioned in line with the second last defender not the goalline so wouldn't reasonably have been able to be sure either way.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    edited November 2021
    The problem is that it could have been a foul throw, the ball could have gone out and Wood could have handled it. But then again, it wasn't conclusive enough to remove doubt one way of another. As Brownie suggested, don't moan about it, defend it better.  The goal emanated from Akin, who had a decent game, going on a late run and not looking after his final ball. I am liking his runs but it is something to work on.

    Washington's little nudge could have been deemed a foul but it could also be deemed not enough to be a foul. The big decision was the non sending off. It is a classic example of poor refereeing. Last night's ref booked players for far less and clearly bottled it. I think if he avoids a wrist slap for that, it will be amazing.
  • iainmentiainment
    4 games ago we would have collapsed after a goal in the 47th minute. If anything it stirred us up. So it ended up as showing we have a new resilience and belief so in a funny way it was a good thing for us.
  • MuttleyCAFCMuttleyCAFC
    iainment said:
    4 games ago we would have collapsed after a goal in the 47th minute. If anything it stirred us up. So it ended up as showing we have a new resilience and belief so in a funny way it was a good thing for us.
    It felt like a test at the time and we certainly came through it. That is a massive positive. We don't give away many chances and can score. These are attributes for putting a run together. I like Rotherham, best team we have played IMO, and that is a major positive for us too.
  • oohaahmortimeroohaahmortimer
    First thing I did was same as forever , it did go behind looks like he has his knees a bit bent to keep it low and both feet appear to be on the ground .
    we have some of the most the worlds against us cry baby fans where refs are concerned known to man .

  • RonnieMooreRonnieMoore
    Plus the offside and the ball going out .. apart from all that it was a good goal 
  • cafc999cafc999
    I thought there was a bit of a hand ball in there but as the ref was shit all night he was never going to give it 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!