Match Day Thread Watford v Southampton Sat 4/3/17 3.00 PM

[QUOTE="Also, one for stats people,have we scored 4 goals in back-to-back away games in the top flight before?

[/QUOTE]

Nope, not as far as I can make out anyway....

 

No, he's not. Foot on the line or behind. Not in front.

Oops I wrote this before I realised how things had progressed. I'll say no more........ (except I can't resist)

Apart from the fact that the law couldn't be clearer:

- has part of each foot either on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline

The use of the word, "either" means one or the other. It doesn't hint at a third option of foot in front of the line. It doesn't specifically say that no part of the foot should be in front of the line because it doesn't need to.

The next part of the rule says

- uses both hands

It doesn't specifically say '"mustn't use just one hand" but it more than implies it.

 

He was following in Tadics goal at the back post too!

 

has part of each foot either on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline

I read that, and immediately noticed it doesnt mention the rest of the foot, just that part of the foot must be touching aforementioned areas. Still can't see where it says that part of your foot can't cross the line.

 

It doesn't say it in official rules, but most people take it to mean it mustn't be over the line. I have seen the 'no over the line' rule in training manuals, but it isn't said in so many words in the FA rules. Have the rules changed?

 

It doesn't. It doesn't need to. You can do EITHER one thing or another with your feet. If you wanted to state everything you can't do you could make a list a mile long so instead it states the things you must do.

 

Given that it is impossible to have one's foot on the touchline without having part of it either outside or inside the touchline (no player possessing feet that allow them to stand in such a way as to have a contact patch of approximately half an inch in length), the implication of that particular sentence would seem to be that while making contact with the touchline, one can also have part of their foot within play. Otherwise, there is no "either", given that anatomical realities mean that having your foot on the touchline but not in play automatically would entail having part of your foot out of play, which is already covered.

 

If your feet mustn't cross the line, they could have put it in one sentence. When taking a throw in, your feet must not cross the line onto field of play. What we need to know is how refs interpret the law. Presumably they only call a foul throw if you step onto the grass beyond the line without a part of your foot touching the line or your feet leave the ground.

 

Who can we ask for final clarification on this thorny throw in issue? Tom?

 

Stop the game while we consult the video evidence and reach a consensus

 

Again that would still rest upon an individual that may interpret the rule differently to the rest of us!

 

That or get someone in the Kingsland to take the throw in from row A....

 

Not so easy for an away game is it? Think your posts through a bit!

 

"On or outside"....... how can they be any clearer? If they wanted inside as well all they needed to say was "on".

Seems to me we don't need a referee but a graduate of English language!

 

You're missing the point that having your foot on or outside the line doesn't exclude the possibility that part of either or both feet could be on the field of play. I read the law as meaning that your foot has to be touching the line or outside it but can be partly inside it. If the law meant to prohibit putting part of the foot inside the line it would say so.

 

I can see what you are saying but I also think you are just wrong! But it just shows you that maybe we aren't the know-alls that we think we are. I have refereed professional players who would appeal for a handball because, "He controlled it", regardless of the fact that it was completely unintentional. This, of course, was in the days when the laws were actually understandable!

 

Where's Tom? We need a ref's opinion....for once in our lives

I do agree that the law written according to the FA means you can step onto the pitch as long as both feet either touch the line or the area behind the line. What I want to know is if that is how it is interpreted by the refs/linesmen.

 

But, if that were your case, surely the law would simply say that the foot can be on the touchline, without any distinction. But it doesn't. It says that the foot can be on the line and behind. It doesn't mention that it can be over the line.

It's no wonder that when LFF and I were kids we were told to stand behind the line when taking throw-ins. At least you can't get your feet placement wrong from there. Blimey, what a hornet's nest.

I don't suppose we ought to talk about ball placement when taking corners now.?

 

Good old Vin, never known somebody lose their **** as quickly as he does and this is just on a forum be surprised if he hasn't got a few of his mates buried under his patio after a difference of opinion down the pub.

 

It has to say behind because if it didn't, if you took a throw with the whole of one foot behind the line it would be a foul, which it isn't.