In the wake of a goalless draw between Brighton & Hove Albion and Crystal Palace, the Seagulls’ young manager Fabian Hürzeler wasted little time in publicly lambasting his London rivals’ use of long throws — and urging the Premier League to introduce a new rule to curb what he described as a game-distorting tactic.
After watching his side defend a series of prolonged throw-in sequences around the Brighton box, Hürzeler made his feelings clear. “It stops the rhythm,” he said. “It takes so much time to throw. Too much time. We need another rule because it’s always a minute.” The particular trigger for his ire was the repeated long throws launched by Palace midfielder Jefferson Lerma into Brighton’s penalty area, a tactic which Hürzeler believed was disrupting the flow of play and giving his side unnecessary defensive burden.
Hürzeler didn’t just stop at criticism of the tactic itself: he proposed a concrete remedy. “We restrict time with the goalkeeper, eight seconds, that’s good,” he said, pointing to the eight-second rule for keepers after a save. In effect, he argued that throw-ins should perhaps be subject to a similar time-limit, to stop teams deliberately grinding down the clock and altering the natural tempo of matches.
From Brighton’s standpoint, the frustration is understandable. While Hürzeler acknowledged that his team “defended well” under the barrage of throws, he believed their rhythm was compromised and that such tactics shift from being legitimate to borderline unsporting when used repeatedly. Meanwhile, his counterpart at Palace remained quiet publicly, but one can assume that the set-piece approach will remain part of their pragmatic toolkit until official guidance changes.
Hürzeler’s complaint touches on a broader debate: at what point does a legitimate tactic cross the line into distortion of the sporting contest? Long throws have long been an established method — some clubs invest heavily in specialist throwers and aerial threats — but when executed repeatedly in a manner that repeatedly halts progression and allows one side to dominate restarts, critics say it becomes a structural imbalance.
The Premier League has historically been cautious about intervening in this space. There is a clear rule for goalkeepers and for restarts from goal-kicks, for example, but nothing explicit around throw-ins and the time taken. Hürzeler’s suggestion thus poses a new challenge for how the league defines “reasonable time” for restarts beyond the goalkeeper. If clubs saw such a change implemented, it could force a tactical rethink — benefiting teams who prefer dynamic open play, but altering approaches for those who deploy throw-in battalions.
For Brighton fans, the appeal is obvious: faster restarts, fewer stoppages, and less of the “grind” that long-throw tactics can bring. For Palace supporters and others who feel they have found a competitive edge in the throw-in game, it may feel like a targeted complaint against a legitimate method. Ultimately, the question lies with the Premier League and its referees: do repeated throw-ins that consume large chunks of time deserve formal regulation? Hürzeler clearly thinks so.
As the season rolls on, all eyes will be on whether this issue gains traction among the league’s rule-makers, and whether other managers join Hürzeler in calling for change. In the meantime, one thing is certain: the conversation around throw-in tactics has been officially reignited — and it may yet force the Premier League to reconsider the boundaries of time, fairness and restart advantage.
