Foul Throws ... What's the Point?

[njligernj]

Merry Christmas/Holiday/Festivus To You All!

So I was wondering the other day ... what's the point of foul throws? How would making any method of re-entering a ball into play (kicked, rolling under hand like a keeper [or "nets"] does sometimes) make the game worse?

I suppose the one concern might be any throw-in near the box becomes Rory Delap time (only now everyone could do it if you could throw one hand overhead like a keeper). So that's easily fixed: still require two hands for over-head throws. However if you want to roll it to feet doesn't that help speed up the game and make it flow better?

There are lots of stupid rules in football -- not saying this is the worst ... just that I think the foul throw is generally pointless. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[ijjysmith]

Because rules are rules.

 

[electricblue]

Phil Neville likes this.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Cheese on toast

 

[Royal]

It's to keep corners as a better result than throw ins. If you can have a quarterback style throw every throw in, it's gonna devalue corners, which should be better as they generally come from a better attack than a throw necessarily does.

 

[njligernj]

I will personally reply to everyone who replies to this wonderful thread. Here we go ...

Because rules are rules.

Let me quote Orwell for you ... "Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence." There ... nothing in there about foul throws at all.

Phil Neville likes this.

No idea what that means.

Cheese on toast

I thought about that for one of the options of course but everyone picks it and then nothing gets changed ... I am hoping to have this rule changed by February at the very latest you see.

It's to keep corners as a better result than throw ins. If you can have a quarterback style throw every throw in, it's gonna devalue corners, which should be better as they generally come from a better attack than a throw necessarily does.

... but I said that wouldn't be allowed! I go to all this trouble of building a wonderful new fantasy world with less restrictive throw-in rules for us to live in and you don't even read the manifesto! BAH! No Humbug.

Very disappointed nobody has mentioned Hitler yet either.

 

[njligernj]

Because rules are rules.

You know who else liked rules? Hitler!

There. That's better.

 

[noharmdone]

Taking a throw in isn't hard.

 

[Brennan]

The reason the lack of enforcement annoys me is because officials are generally happy to enforce other stupid formalities like forcing an offside to be taken from a dead ball instead of just letting the play carry on when the defending side has control.

If you're going to make rules, you should follow them. I'd be surprised if there is a single game in the prem now where you don't see a fowl throw.

 

[njligernj]

Taking a throw in isn't hard.

Doing a chicken dance prior to every free kick wouldn't be "hard" either but it would be a pointless (though entertaining) rule to enforce.

Well I'm off to wrap presents now. Hopefully tomorrow will bring some good responses. So far I have defeated every possible argument with iron-clad logic.

 

[Julian Carax]

Throw ins are ****. The longer they remain **** the better. Remember Riise he's a it of cult hero for the RS, but he must of took hundreds of long throws, I don't think they scored a single goal from his throw ins.

 

[Elong]

Yeah it pisses me off too, the fact that players all get away with blatant foul throws. Rules are there for a reason, it's just laziness on their part.

 

[njligernj]

The reason the lack of enforcement annoys me is because officials are generally happy to enforce other stupid formalities like forcing an offside to be taken from a dead ball instead of just letting the play carry on when the defending side has control.

That is another stupid rule. Agreed. That said I don't care about lack of enforcement because it's a pointless rule which does nothing to improve the game.

Yeah it pisses me off too, the fact that players all get away with blatant foul throws. Rules are there for a reason, it's just laziness on their part.

Is this one really there for a reason though? I don't think they thought it through. If it's mainly to stop long throws into the box you can ban those and still allow a quick underhand roll-in that gets the game restarted quicker and with more potential to keep the game going nicely. Why do you *have* to throw it back in such a particular way?

Throw ins are ****. The longer they remain **** the better. Remember Riise he's a it of cult hero for the RS, but he must of took hundreds of long throws, I don't think they scored a single goal from his throw ins.

Well I don't like the RS but Riise is retired now isn't he? Nope ... he plays for Fulham. Same difference.

Anyway ... honestly going to wrap presents now. I will then face the christmas tree, have both feet on the ground and use both my hands to deliver the present from behind and over my head ... however I will delay the release until after my hands are below my forehead and throw the present straight into the ground.

 

[electricblue]

I will personally reply to everyone who replies to this wonderful thread. Here we go ...

No idea what that means.

Because the title of the thread is 'What's the point'.