The Fish 10750 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 to be fair J69 "...from behind and over your head" could sound like the ball has to be released from behind your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) to be fair J69 "...from behind and over your head" could sound like the ball has to be released from behind your head. FA Rule 15 At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower: faces the field of play has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line uses both hands delivers the ball from behind and over his head If you read the first bolded bit in conjunction with the second bolded bit , the rule does indeed prohibit throwing the ball down at your feet/the ground. At the moment of delivery = release. So release needs to co-incide with the ball being both technically 'from behind' and 'over' the head. If the ball has still not been released when it is being brought down on the other side of the head, 'at the moment of delivery' it is no longer 'from behind'. I find against J69. Case dismissed. Costs awarded against the Appellant. Edited April 23, 2008 by manc-mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Not that vague tbh. Both hands have to go behind your head and back over again. Your as bad as him man!!! Vague enough for you to misinterpret it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10750 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 to be fair J69 "...from behind and over your head" could sound like the ball has to be released from behind your head. FA Rule 15 At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower: faces the field of play has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line uses both hands delivers the ball from behind and over his head If you read the first bolded bit in conjunction with the second bolded bit , the rule does indeed prohibit throwing the ball down at your feet/the ground. At the moment of delivery = release. So release needs to co-incide with the ball being both technically 'from behind' and 'over' the head. If the ball has still not been released when it is being brought down on the other side of the head, 'at the moment of delivery' it is no longer 'from behind'. I find against J69. Case dismissed. Costs awarded against the Appellant. I claim the assist! Alex to me on the wing, dribble down the line, 90 degree turn along the byline to square the ball for a 2 yard tap in. You may have added a bit of flair and back heeled it, but I did the hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 to be fair J69 "...from behind and over your head" could sound like the ball has to be released from behind your head. FA Rule 15 At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower: faces the field of play has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line uses both hands delivers the ball from behind and over his head If you read the first bolded bit in conjunction with the second bolded bit , the rule does indeed prohibit throwing the ball down at your feet/the ground. At the moment of delivery = release. So release needs to co-incide with the ball being both technically 'from behind' and 'over' the head. If the ball has still not been released when it is being brought down on the other side of the head, 'at the moment of delivery' it is no longer 'from behind'. I find against J69. Case dismissed. Costs awarded against the Appellant. I claim the assist! Alex to me on the wing, dribble down the line, 90 degree turn along the byline to square the ball for a 2 yard tap in. You may have added a bit of flair and back heeled it, but I did the hard work. I should add, the rule is not completely foolproof. For instance J69 could be a hunchback and win the case on appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6994 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! Basic grasp of physics notwithstanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! I'm not saying the rule is applied to the absolute letter, but on the construction that I highlighted, it does prohibit bringing the ball down in front of you before releasing-which was your original question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! Basic grasp of physics notwithstanding There is that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6994 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! I'm not saying the rule is applied to the absolute letter, but on the construction that I highlighted, it does prohibit bringing the ball down in front of you before releasing-which was your original question. No it doesnt. . . pedants withstanding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The reason I know the rule was because I was told it whilst doing my referees course which was part of the level 2 coaching qualification. And no amount of WUMs can tell me otherwise 'The ball must go behind and over the head' is quite plain to understand for anyone with a basic grasp of english. If you have to release the ball whilst it is still behind your head then how the fuck are you meant to propel it forward. Give the man u game tonight a watch to confirm and I will be waiting for your apologies after wards. thankyou and goodnight! I'm not saying the rule is applied to the absolute letter, but on the construction that I highlighted, it does prohibit bringing the ball down in front of you before releasing-which was your original question. No it doesnt. . . pedants withstanding It does though. For instance if you didnt read the first bolded bit in conjunction with the bit about having both feet on the floor then arguably you wouldnt be able to take a brief run up. Obviously you can do that. The point is the rules are drafted to chrystalize on the point of delivery (release) of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6994 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 And how exactly are you meant to have the ball behind AND over your head on the point of delivery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 And how exactly are you meant to have the ball behind AND over your head on the point of delivery? I'd guess it's because the moment of delivery describes the moment at which the player undertakes the action of delivering the ball, not the split second at which the ball is released. Slight difference but a crucial one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10750 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Pedantry; The idle man's hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 It's the only way it makes sense though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 And how exactly are you meant to have the ball behind AND over your head on the point of delivery? Not 'behind and over'......'from behind and over' from behind: so the action must involve you bringing the ball from behind your head - thus prohibiting basketball like throws and over: 'over' 1 directly above; on the top of; via the top or upper surface of: over one's head (Collins English Dictionary) The rules are deliberately drafted to be interpreted using the primary meaning of the words involved. Again, I stress that the rule isn't necessarily always applied 100%, but when it is read to ascribe the primary meaning to the words used, then it does prohibit the downward thrust that you seem so keen on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6994 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Every man and his dog knows that 'over his head' doesnt mean 'on top of his head' though, youre just being a pain in the arse 'over' in this case means not hoying it past your lug hole or under your legs. It means both arms have got to come back over your head in front of you again. You cant possibly tell me that since the invention of the throw every player in every league in the world has been breaking the rules and no-one has picked up on it or changed the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Fucking hell. No offence but this has become a reading comprehension issue. I can't make you understand it if you don't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Played drunk tonight, honestly can't remember whether we won, lost or drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Played drunk tonight, honestly can't remember whether we won, lost or drew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawan 0 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) Played last night with a very weak squad, didn't have our proper keeper, no real defenders, Besty missed 3 great chances and I had 2 and put 1 away, ended up loosing 8-1 Edited April 24, 2008 by bawan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Played last night with a very weak squad, didn't have our proper keeper, no real defenders, Besty missed 3 great chances and I had 2 and put 1 away, ended up loosing 8-1 Sounds like he had a good game by his standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawan 0 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Played last night with a very weak squad, didn't have our proper keeper, no real defenders, Besty missed 3 great chances and I had 2 and put 1 away, ended up loosing 8-1 Sounds like he had a good game by his standards. Am not saying owt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6994 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Fucking hell. No offence but this has become a reading comprehension issue. I can't make you understand it if you don't already. I understand perfectly your tenuous attempt to prove me wrong in a poor stab at humour or oneupmanship. However, it doesnt make my original point any less valid. You can twist the semantics of the line any way you like, its quite obvious to anyone reading it what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Fucking hell. No offence but this has become a reading comprehension issue. I can't make you understand it if you don't already. I understand perfectly your tenuous attempt to prove me wrong in a poor stab at humour or oneupmanship. However, it doesnt make my original point any less valid. You can twist the semantics of the line any way you like, its quite obvious to anyone reading it what it means. Do you not understand that, in saying that, you're conceding that it is at least open to an alternative interpretation? The problem is I imagine you don't. I haven't made a joke of it either thus far btw so I don't know why you seem to think that. I gave the exact primary dictionary definition of the word 'over' in the only dictionary I had to hand, but that wasn't good enough for you. If you want to argue against a dictionary definition then fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now