infringement preventing QTI

[Blackberry]

Oh uh, I'm going to disagree with Womble, here goes... too late to stop now.... If somebody dances in front of the quick thrower, it stops the QT'er ever having the opportunity. Furthermore, if it becomes accepted that refs are likely find in favour of the dancer and not the QT'er... it means that QTI's will be 1) more easily and 2) more frequently blocked, perhaps limiting the role they presently play in the game.

 

[Taff]

... Furthermore, if it becomes accepted that refs are likely find in favour of the dancer and not the QT'er... it means that QTI's will be 1) more easily and 2) more frequently blocked, perhaps limiting the role they presently play in the game.

The impression I get is that the IRB / WR really love QTIs (they're exciting and keep the game flowing) and won't tolerate anything that jeopardises them.

 

[didds]

I suppoee the answer for the thrower is not to throw it in the dancer's face, but to contrive to throw it against their shin such that it then goes into touch thus keeping the TI/lineout options open and highlighting the dancer's actions.

That in itself becomes contrived though, and the dancer is the player needing to be addressed still.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Law 19.2(h)

FK, although it doesn't state where. I would probably go with the place of the offence, 15m in.

In answer to Womble....no he didn't throw it in, because he couldn't with a player jumping up and down right in front of him. To me the offence is still there and the intent is to stop or slow down the QTI ('IF' one was on).

If you let it play out then the thrower chucks the ball into the face of the dancer, result flash point. Just nip it in the bud by penalising if there was a QTI in the offing (there rarely is), or managing it if there was never a chance of a QTI.

100% agree with this post.

 

[Phil E]

The "dancer" obviously thinks it's having an effect ... otherwise why do it?

Ignorance of the law?

 

[Womble]

One thing we do need to realize is that the thrower can throw it in run on to the field of play and catch it . would he? who knows. my gut instinct in most games is that management of this scenario brings far more fruit than a FK on the 15

 

[OB..]

Back in the days when you had to throw a QTI straight, I saw a Level 6 referee instantly penalise the dancer under 10.2(a). Made sense to me.

 

[Rushforth]

Ignorance of the law?

At lower levels I tell hookers where they need to stand at an early LO. Being 2m back is more important to me than precisely where they are with respect to 5m line - they can't impede the ball. Quite often there is no hooker - again not really an issue in XV's, unlike sevens, so ignorance is most likely.

My point in saying this is that I also do tell defending hookers at LOs early in the game that they are correctly positioned at higher levels. It establishes the requirement not to block the ball from travelling 5m (at all levels). This has been my way of managing the later possibility of a QTI, and it seems to work.

 

[Phil E]

Quite often there is no hooker - again not really an issue in XV's, unlike sevens, so ignorance is most likely.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that if the non throwing in team doesn't have a player in the hookers position (2 and 2) you don't worry about it?

 

[crossref]

One thing we do need to realize is that the thrower can throw it in run on to the field of play and catch it . would he? who knows. my gut instinct in most games is that management of this scenario brings far more fruit than a FK on the 15

you are no doubt correct, but I can't help thinking that if the dancer's aim is to shut down this particular QTI, as the QTI is on, and he can see that his team is vulnerable, then the referee managing it = he completely achieves his objective.

 

[Womble]

you are no doubt correct, but I can't help thinking that if the dancer's aim is to shut down this particular QTI, as the QTI is on, and he can see that his team is vulnerable, then the referee managing it = he completely achieves his objective.

Next tie you get a dancer, manage it and then ask him what he was doing, he will not have a scooby doo ! so management is key in this situation. If you want to be black and white then FK everyday of the week but I hope that is not what we are discussing !

 

[L'irlandais]

Since the QT thrower doesn't have to throw straight ; he lobs the ball high over the head of the dancing opponent, toward his own goal line, he jinks around the player to gather his own throw, perhaps because his team desperately need to score next.
Unfortunately, the dancer being closer to the touch line than anticipated, they both collide & end up in a heap. A team mate of the defender recovers the ball. What do I decide now?

 

[crossref]

Next tie you get a dancer, manage it and then ask him what he was doing, he will not have a scooby doo ! so management is key in this situation. If you want to be black and white then FK everyday of the week but I hope that is not what we are discussing !

he's hardly going to say -- "Well, obviously I was trying to illegally prevent or delay a QTI, confident in the expectation that you wouldn't penalise me" is he ? Of course he's going to say "Sorry, Sir, I wasn't thinking"

 

[RobLev]

Next tie you get a dancer, manage it and then ask him what he was doing, he will not have a scooby doo ! so management is key in this situation. If you want to be black and white then FK everyday of the week but I hope that is not what we are discussing !

What exactly do you mean by "manage it"? Do you mean "Do that again and it's a PK/FK"?

 

[Womble]

What exactly do you mean by "manage it"? Do you mean "Do that again and it's a PK/FK"?

yes Rob, on another thread ( just opened) you do not manage it, both international players who knew what they were doing, pen & a yellow and quite right, we don't referee at that level !!!!! we are involved far further down the food chain where players play for fun, they are not sure of all of the laws and do need guidance to make the whole day enjoyable for all.

 

[Rushforth]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you. Are you saying that if the non throwing in team doesn't have a player in the hookers position (2 and 2) you don't worry about it?

Yes, you misunderstood, but I am to blame. I always ensure, early on, that there is a player in the hooker position, and I continue to watch for it throughout the game for the simple reason that there is time for it. That's what I was trying to say in the previous post.

However, because the dynamics of XVs vs 7s rugby are different, if the ball is thrown "fast" at the lineout, I won't be getting out the tape-measure in XVs, as long as there is a hooker in the 2 and 2 vicinity in XVs - an immediate FK for 19.8 (j) would be harsh in XVs since it can be so easily managed.

In Sevens, on the contrary, not committing a third forward to the LO area potentially means an extra 'back line' defender which eliminates attacking options, although of course their receiver can choose not to be in his (or her) spot.

I "don't worry about it" because I have the time to "manage it", and I would worry about "dancers" if only for the fact that by early management I let both teams know I'm watching something easy to watch, so I've not had any "dancers" yet.

 

[Rushforth]

Since the QT thrower doesn't have to throw straight ; he lobs the ball high over the head of the dancing opponent, toward his own goal line, he jinks around the player to gather his own throw, perhaps because his team desperately need to score next.
Unfortunately, the dancer being closer to the touch line than anticipated, they both collide & end up in a heap. A team mate of the defender recovers the ball. What do I decide now?

I'd expect the area (and air space) between touch and 5m and LoT and 2m back towards defenders own goal line to be empty of all other players. The dancer could be considered offside, either accidentally or to the level of foul play.

 

[OB..]

yes Rob, on another thread ( just opened) you do not manage it, both international players who knew what they were doing, pen & a yellow and quite right, we don't referee at that level !!!!! we are involved far further down the food chain where players play for fun, they are not sure of all of the laws and do need guidance to make the whole day enjoyable for all.

I am obviously more cynical than you. I would certainly expect players in the National Leagues to know the laws. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse).

 

[Dickie E]

I don't believe this. You blokes are taking the piss, right? I'm going to start again with a new thread.

 

[crossref]

yes Rob, on another thread ( just opened) you do not manage it, both international players who knew what they were doing, pen & a yellow and quite right, we don't referee at that level !!!!! we are involved far further down the food chain where players play for fun, they are not sure of all of the laws and do need guidance to make the whole day enjoyable for all.

I just don't agree - you don't need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Laws to know that standing 2m in front of a player to stop him from doing a QTI is likely to lead to a PK.

Indeed on the rare occasions I've seen something like that the 15 players on the throwing team are consumed with righteous anger, and expecting a YC at least