The other mob

[the cry was no 3,044]

19 minutes ago, NixonRFC said:

I don't know if they've changed the rule with shys or not but years ago you would sometimes see players (usually gallus ones) deliberately throw a shy off an opponent's back if they were close to them so they could then go on a run with the ball by themselves, this tells me that as long as the opponent isn't deliberately trying to block the shy then this will more than likely be left upto the discretion of the referee in charge of the game.

Those players would have been on the field of play

He was off the field and less than 2m away

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

He was less than 2m from the thrower AND off the park

On both counts the throw should have been re-taken

Nothing in the laws about him being off the park. If the ref deems the motherwell player deliberately threw the ball off the Celtic player, the fact the Motherwell player tries to take it quickly means there's little scope for the Celtic player to move out of the way quickly enough.

If the ref judged that it was deliberate from the Celtic player, it wouldn't have been retaken but would have been an indirect free-kick.

[The Dude 20,026]

27 minutes ago, NixonRFC said:

I don't know if they've changed the rule with shys or not but years ago you would sometimes see players (usually gallus ones) deliberately throw a shy off an opponent's back if they were close to them so they could then go on a run with the ball by themselves, this tells me that as long as the opponent isn't deliberately trying to block the shy then this will more than likely be left upto the discretion of the referee in charge of the game.

Correct.

[the cry was no 3,044]

21 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Nothing in the laws about him being off the park. If the ref deems the motherwell player deliberately threw the ball off the celtic player, the fact the Motherwell player tries to take it quickly means there's little scope for the celtic player to move out of the way quickly enough.

If the ref judged that it was deliberate from the celtic player, it wouldn't have been retaken but would have been an indirect free-kick.

 

I'll agree that the laws on being off the field are vague but can think of no reason or circumstances where a player could play the ball from outside the field (other than taking a throw in) and that be deemed ok

I see your quoting the laws of the game but choosing to  ignore the 2m part which IFAB is very specific about

 

LAW 15 THE THROW-IN

Introduction

A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air.

A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in:

if the ball enters the opponents’ goal – a goal kick is awarded

if the ball enters the thrower’s goal – a corner kick is awarded

15.1 Procedure

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

All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken.

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. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team.

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player.

15.2 Offences and sanctions

If, after the ball is in play, the thrower touches the ball again before it has touched another player, an indirect free kick is awarded; if the thrower commits a handball offence:

a direct free kick is awarded

a penalty kick is awarded if the offence occurred inside the thrower’s penalty area unless the ball was handled by the defending team’s goalkeeper, in which case an indirect free kick is awarded

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded.

For any other offence, the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team.

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,893]

Still a bunch of cunts. Hope there are loads of injuries in Australia.

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

 

I'll agree that the laws on being off the field are vague but can think of no reason or circumstances where a player could play the ball from outside the field (other than taking a throw in) and that be deemed ok

I see your quoting the laws of the game but choosing to  ignore the 2m part which IFAB is very specific about

 

LAW 15 THE THROW-IN

Introduction

A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air.

A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in:

if the ball enters the opponents’ goal – a goal kick is awarded

if the ball enters the thrower’s goal – a corner kick is awarded

15.1 Procedure

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

All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken.

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. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team.

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player.

15.2 Offences and sanctions

If, after the ball is in play, the thrower touches the ball again before it has touched another player, an indirect free kick is awarded; if the thrower commits a handball offence:

a direct free kick is awarded

a penalty kick is awarded if the offence occurred inside the thrower’s penalty area unless the ball was handled by the defending team’s goalkeeper, in which case an indirect free kick is awarded

An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded.

For any other offence, the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team.

Aye and I haven't disputed that part of the rule. That's absolutely in there. However, when the Motherwell player opts to take the throw in quickly, there's literally no physical way the Celtic player could have been 2m away.

It's the same as a free-kick. Opposition players should be 10 yards away. If a player opts to take it quickly and an opponent isn't 10 yards away and the ball is hit off them then play continues.

[TheKingObv 10,649]

1 hour ago, NixonRFC said:

I don't know if they've changed the rule with shys or not but years ago you would sometimes see players (usually gallus ones) deliberately throw a shy off an opponent's back if they were close to them so they could then go on a run with the ball by themselves, this tells me that as long as the opponent isn't deliberately trying to block the shy then this will more than likely be left upto the discretion of the referee in charge of the game.

The situation is surely a bit different when the celtic player makes contact before the ball enters the pitch ?

[Rangers_no1 32,936]

Any footage of the red card challenge?

[TheKingObv 10,649]

Just now, Rangers_no1 said:

Any footage of the red card challenge?

 

[ayrshireranger 8,245]

The world's greatest winger fails to make WC squad. 

[ger4life_1872 29,770]

5 hours ago, Iakona said:

it wasn’t even on the half way line.

That's surely not the view used to make the decision though 

[the cry was no 3,044]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Aye and I haven't disputed that part of the rule. That's absolutely in there. However, when the Motherwell player opts to take the throw in quickly, there's literally no physical way the celtic player could have been 2m away.

It's the same as a free-kick. Opposition players should be 10 yards away. If a player opts to take it quickly and an opponent isn't 10 yards away and the ball is hit off them then play continues.

It's the same as a free-kick.??? - No, no it absolutely isn't 

You're using parts of 2 separate rules here and conflating them to get to the answer you want 

The free kick rule makes reference to a quick free kick scenario

13.3

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.

The throw in rule makes no reference to the thrower taking a quick throw in or the free kick 10 yard rule. It simply states all opponents must be 2m away (it doesn't even reference, as you randomly did, whether there was no physical way they could have been 2m away)

15.1 Procedure

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

All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken.

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. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team.

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

So by the rules

Was he 2m away? - NO

Not - NO BUT IF IT WAS A QUICK FREE KICK WE COULD PLAY ON

If we just stick to the IFAB rules it's not a difficult decision to make

Combining different rules is a bit mad really we might end up with say......

was that player offside? - YES but if it was a throw in instead of a pass he wouldn't be so let's just give a goal

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 hour ago, the cry was no said:

It's the same as a free-kick.??? - No, no it absolutely isn't 

You're using parts of 2 separate rules here and conflating them to get to the answer you want 

The free kick rule makes reference to a quick free kick scenario

13.3

If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.

The throw in rule makes no reference to the thrower taking a quick throw in or the free kick 10 yard rule. It simply states all opponents must be 2m away (it doesn't even reference, as you randomly did, whether there was no physical way they could have been 2m away)

15.1 Procedure

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

All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken.

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. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team.

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

So by the rules

Was he 2m away? - NO

Not - NO BUT IF IT WAS A QUICK FREE KICK WE COULD PLAY ON

If we just stick to the IFAB rules it's not a difficult decision to make

Combining different rules is a bit mad really we might end up with say......

was that player offside? - YES but if it was a throw in instead of a pass he wouldn't be so let's just give a goal

 

The throw in rule also makes no reference to players being off the park when the throw is taken.

I see you're also missing this part of the rules which was mentioned in my initial response to you: If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 hours ago, ger4life_1872 said:

That's surely not the view used to make the decision though 

It's not.

[NixonRFC 1,405]

4 hours ago, the cry was no said:

Those players would have been on the field of play

He was off the field and less than 2m away

Remarkably I don't think there's anything in the laws that you have to be on the park, I actually just watched it again there as I wanted to see our game again, I'm no even convinced he is off the park, well his head anyway.

 

As for thr 2m law, now I know that is a rule but I'd imagine it's like the 10 yard law at freekicks, you can't try and intercept a free kick if you're less than 10 yards away but a team can take quick freekicks and if you inadvertently play the ball off an opponent less than 10 yards away while trying to take it quickly the ref usually plays on.

 

What I noticed when watching it there the Motherwell left back didn't claim for it, his reaction probably made the refs mind up, you'd imagine if their player tried to intercept it intentionally the left back would be going tonto.

[the cry was no 3,044]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The throw in rule also makes no reference to players being off the park when the throw is taken.

I see you're also missing this part of the rules which was mentioned in my initial response to you: If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

 If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

I didn't quote that because that's very obviously not what happened.

He didn't deliberately throw the ball at him in order to play the ball again ffs, he was trying to throw it to his team mate.

That part your quoting would cover what someone else mentioned about essentially bouncing the ball off an opponent (usually their back) in a 1-2 type move 

That's clearly not what happened here

I've no idea why you're going to such ludicrous lengths to prove that the tarriers didn't benefit from a wrong call 

You've reached the Worzel Gummidge have a wank stage though

[The Dude 20,026]

19 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

 If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

I didn't quote that because that's very obviously not what happened.

He didn't deliberately throw the ball at him in order to play the ball again ffs, he was trying to throw it to his team mate.

That part your quoting would cover what someone else mentioned about essentially bouncing the ball off an opponent (usually their back) in a 1-2 type move 

That's clearly not what happened here

I've no idea why you're going to such ludicrous lengths to prove that the tarriers didn't benefit from a wrong call 

You've reached the Worzel Gummidge have a wank stage though

If he took the throw when the Celtic player was still in front of him then that could well be deemed that he's deliberately thrown it off him where it ends up after that is wholly irrelevant.

[the cry was no 3,044]

19 minutes ago, NixonRFC said:

Remarkably I don't think there's anything in the laws that you have to be on the park, I actually just watched it again there as I wanted to see our game again, I'm no even convinced he is off the park, well his head anyway.

 

As for thr 2m law, now I know that is a rule but I'd imagine it's like the 10 yard law at freekicks, you can't try and intercept a free kick if you're less than 10 yards away but a team can take quick freekicks and if you inadvertently play the ball off an opponent less than 10 yards away while trying to take it quickly the ref usually plays on.

 

What I noticed when watching it there the Motherwell left back didn't claim for it, his reaction probably made the refs mind up, you'd imagine if their player tried to intercept it intentionally the left back would be going tonto.

You can imagine that if you like but that won't make it true

As I said in my earlier reply to the Dude you can't just take a wee bit of one rule and add it into another completely different rule to get to a decision that you want

It was a wrong call and a massive piece of "good fortune"

I see their seeking clarification on the Jota offside, I'm sure they won't seek clarification on this

The concerted campaign of pressure is cranking up

[the cry was no 3,044]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If he took the throw when the celtic player was still in front of him then that could well be deemed that he's deliberately thrown it off him where it ends up after that is wholly irrelevant.

Dearie fucking me

Like I said, Worzel wanking

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, the cry was no said:

Dearie fucking me

Like I said, Worzel wanking

I've no idea what the fuck you're slavering about with that but, believe me, it says far more about you than me.

[the cry was no 3,044]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I've no idea what the fuck you're slavering about with that but, believe me, it says far more about you than me.

It's an old expression Dude about a scarecrow having a wank - clutching at straws

Maybe you're to young to remember Worzel Gummidge but you've been clutching at straws for hours

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

It's an old expression Dude about a scarecrow having a wank - clutching at straws

Maybe you're to young to remember Worzel Gummidge but you've been clutching at straws for hours

So tell me then, why did literally none of the motherwell players - including the one who took the throw claim for ANYTHING

[Rangers_no1 32,936]

😴

[the cry was no 3,044]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So tell me then, why did literally none of the motherwell players - including the one who took the throw claim for ANYTHING

More straw clutching ffs

Players claiming for something, or not claiming for something is irrelevant 

No Dundee United players claimed the penalty at the piggery 

VAR didn't say "it hits his hand in a raised position so it should be a penalty but no-one claimed so we're not giving it"

Likewise, thankfully, when 3 or 4 Hearts players claimed a penalty last night VAR didn't say " it hits his face not his hand, it's not a penalty but there's a few claiming it so I think we'll just give it"

Did someone mention "slavering"

 

[Inigo 32,607]

I honestly don't see anything that definitively covers the situation that occurred with the throw in, so I don't see the issue that it was played on.