Kick-ins instead of throw-ins

[David Hankey]

I see the powers that be are considering this change, presumably as many players don't know how to take a throw in properly.

 

I have no problem with the suggestion providing they are taken from the right spot and not used as a tool to cheat and gain a few extra yards/metres.

[Lako42]

7 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I see the powers that be are considering this change, presumably as many players don't know how to take a throw in properly.

 

I have no problem with the suggestion providing they are taken from the right spot and not used as a tool to cheat and gain a few extra yards/metres.

****ing ridiculous 

[Craig]

We are the one club that should do everything it can to stop this happening  

[Jaspa]

You'd be pushing every throw in near the box into the same opportunity as a corner or an indirect free-kick into the box. So no, it alters the balance of play too much.

[String fellow]

Fwiw, I like the idea. However, I doubt it'll happen. A good compromise might be one-handed throw-ins, just the same as the way goalkeepers throw the ball up-field. 

[davieG]

Leave it alone

 

It's gone through years of changes and there's a reason why it ended up like it is because the other options didn't work.

 

 

 

[Vlad the Fox]

Don’t see the point of this, there’s no need to change the rule.
 

However, they should allow play to continue when a player goes down injured and physios treat him while the game is ongoing unless it’s a goalkeeper or serious or multiple players injured from the same team. Soon stop all those fake time wasting injuries if your a man down. 

[tom27111]

Wasn't there a trial of this about 10/15 years ago at a level just below the Conference?

 

If and it's a big IF, I'd consider it for throw ins 10 yards from the goal line of the attacking team, then it makes it harder for a defender to tap out for a throw in and prevent a corner. But just award a corner, so it's consistent and taken from the correct place.

 

If it's any way related to time wasting, just play a 60 minute game with the clock stopped when the ball is out of play.

[Foxdiamond]

I had to check it's not 1 April. Mad idea and stop wasting time is my advice to powers that be. 

[whoareyaaa]

what a shit idea, thats what corners are for

[fuchsntf]

A Non footballer,who has no idea,or spends too much time,in the company of Americans...

If your English & Think its a Good idea,  Too many holidays in the States, or just a brainwashed plastic ,whos lost his European identity....!

Belong to the same Mutants who prefer KFC,Taco-Bell, & Macdonalds....to Fish n chips,Pork-pie, Tuna & cucumber Sandwiches, & Faggots n peas...

Sell your Victoria Sandwich Grannie, for an easy over hamburger...

[ajthefox]

No thanks.

[Lambert09]

Funny that this is an easier thing to implement than the  ref actually just booking players for taking too long 

 

Make it a letter of law, the ball must be thrown in within 10 seconds of the ball going out. Anyone walking over gets a swift yellow. 

 

[adejo92]

Soon the only thing left with the sport we all know and love will be the shape of the ball.

 

Footballs football, we love it the way it was - leave it.

[ozleicester]

4 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

Funny that this is an easier thing to implement than the  ref actually just booking players for taking too long 

 

Make it a letter of law, the ball must be thrown in within 10 seconds of the ball going out. Anyone walking over gets a swift yellow. 

 

easier still.. 10 second limit, if not taken, throw gets handed to the other side.

Im sure if one side is wasting time, the other side will be happy to get on with it.

But, in truth, the best move is to take the time keeping responsibilities away from referees and stop the clock when the ball is dead. Then there is no benefit in time wasting on throws, free kicks corners etc etc.

[PAULCFC]

Foul Throws need clamping down on first.......doesn't seem to matter anymore.

[fox_up_north]

Christ, they're doing everything they can to not have to force the current rules they have.

 

Just have a great big bloody clock that says 90 mins and stop it when the ref blows whistle. 

[BenTheFox]

You know how a lot of people think that Arsenal shouldn't have parted company with Wenger in 2018? 

 

Nah, they were 100% right to do so. The man has well and truly lost his mind. 

[nnfox]

You'd just end up with two teams of tall centre-half types.  The game's strategy would surely change and there's no real need for creative players.  A couple of wing backs that get good at winning kick-ins and set piece delivery and then the rest of the team made up of giants.  Then lump the ball into the box at every opportunity.  Players that can defend one box and attack the other become the superstars of the game.

 

Just leave it as it is please.

[gerblod]

On 13/06/2022 at 18:35, tom27111 said:

Wasn't there a trial of this about 10/15 years ago at a level just below the Conference?

 

If and it's a big IF, I'd consider it for throw ins 10 yards from the goal line of the attacking team, then it makes it harder for a defender to tap out for a throw in and prevent a corner. But just award a corner, so it's consistent and taken from the correct place.

 

If it's any way related to time wasting, just play a 60 minute game with the clock stopped when the ball is out of play.

I came to this topic by accident, but it resonated with me because the current throw-in situation doesn't enable the game to flow. 

Ok that it's often sheer chance who gets the throw but the thrower spends too much time trying to find a free teammate and then, often enough, that teammate gets no opportunity to make anything of it.

There's an exclusion zone for free kicks and corners - why not for throw-ins? The opposition could be prevented tackling until the ball has been passed by the receiving player - who is unapproachable. This would speed up play and enable the space to get the ball moving. Your idea about awarding corners within a certain distance from the goal line advantageous for attacking play. It certainly would prevent defenders from trying to smother play. 

[HybridFox]

No justification behind it other than being silly

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, gerblod said:

I came to this topic by accident, but it resonated with me because the current throw-in situation doesn't enable the game to flow. 

Ok that it's often sheer chance who gets the throw but the thrower spends too much time trying to find a free teammate and then, often enough, that teammate gets no opportunity to make anything of it.

There's an exclusion zone for free kicks and corners - why not for throw-ins? The opposition could be prevented tackling until the ball has been passed by the receiving player - who is unapproachable. This would speed up play and enable the space to get the ball moving. Your idea about awarding corners within a certain distance from the goal line advantageous for attacking play. It certainly would prevent defenders from trying to smother play. 

I just think we're one of the worst teams I've seen for losing possession from our own throw-ins and it's been like that for as long as I can remember.

 

If time is the issue there's so much more time wasted setting up free-kicks near the goal most of which lead to nothing with many just flying over the cross bar, refs seem to no longer allow teams to take quick free kicks near the goal.

[Leeds Fox]

Kick in from own half

Throw in from oppos half

 

That could work.

[Leeds Fox]

Stoke would’ve had about 5 PL titles. 

[Voll Blau]

9 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

Kick in from own half

Throw in from oppos half

 

That could work.

Nah. Would lead to awful, negative pissing about round the halfway line in order to win a kick-in to launch into the box.

 

A throw-in is the appropriate award for the team with the advantage at present. This plan doesn't solve any problem with the rules or the way teams benefit from them as far as I can see.

Edited 3 September 2022 by Voll Blau