interfering with a QTI -- unsuccessfuly.

[crossref]

Last couple of minutes of a sevens game, so everything is happening quickly (and you don't need to be very close to the try line for a successful break to be a try scoring opportunity)

- red are in possession
- red ball carrier is tackled into touch, and the ball rolls free.
- red support player, seeing a blue player arriving, quickly picks the ball up to prevent a blue QTI.
- arriving blue player yells and make to grab the ball and red, rather lamely, drops it to the floor
- blue player picks it up and executes a QTI to himself and hares off down the pitch, very likely to score..

So - according to the Laws the QTI cannot be taken as it's been touched by another player, the cynical ploy succeeded, so I think the technical answer is peep, YC the red player and award a PK

However could the ref legitimately play on and let them score what could be a match winning try ?

- by playing advantage (in which case come back and YC the player later) ... But you can't play advantage when the ball is dead...

- by declaring the offence immaterial and ignoring it ? In which case no YC...

 

[Dickie E]

the Red support player can't prevent the Blue player from taking the ball but I see nothing wrong with him touching it to prevent a QT. Play the lineout.

I'll now go and check the law



EDIT: yes, all seems above board:

[LAWS](i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.[/LAWS]

 

[Rushforth]

You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up, in much the same way red tackled player isn't to hold on to it if blue support arrives first.

Having successfully prevented the QTI, it does seem a bit churlish to drop the ball rather than hand it to blue.

 

[ddjamo]

You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up, in much the same way red tackled player isn't to hold on to it if blue support arrives first.

Having successfully prevented the QTI, it does seem a bit churlish to drop the ball rather than hand it to blue.

HOGWASH! there's no way the lawmakers intended the law to be for the removal of a QTI. the no touch portion is to stop the throwing in side from gaining an advantage NOT for the opposition to take away a chance at continuity.

 

[crossref]

You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up,.

hmm, wasn't expecting those answers : whenever we've discussed it before, it's tended to be me arguing that it's not an offence, agaisnt the prevailing current of opinion that it IS an offence. for example
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread....preventing+QTI

 

[ddjamo]

Last couple of minutes of a sevens game, so everything is happening quickly (and you don't need to be very close to the try line for a successful break to be a try scoring opportunity)

- red are in possession
- red ball carrier is tackled into touch, and the ball rolls free.
- red support player, seeing a blue player arriving, quickly picks the ball up to prevent a blue QTI.
- arriving blue player yells and make to grab the ball and red, rather lamely, drops it to the floor
- blue player picks it up and executes a QTI to himself and hares off down the pitch, very likely to score..

So - according to the Laws the QTI cannot be taken as it's been touched by another player, the cynical ploy succeeded, so I think the technical answer is peep, YC the red player and award a PK

However could the ref legitimately play on and let them score what could be a match winning try ?

- by playing advantage (in which case come back and YC the player later) ... But you can't play advantage when the ball is dead...

- by declaring the offence immaterial and ignoring it ? In which case no YC...

I have wondered the same thing and would be very tempted to let things play out if a player was taking the piss like that. to me - that's not gamesmanship - it's cowardly. stay in the fop and defend the throw.

 

[Browner]

The ideology behind the QTI is to permit 'game continuity' the fact that law wording doesn't specifically deal with 'Mr gamesmanship' is a shame, and it needs to be widened to do so IMO.

In the OP scenario, If i was satisfied that red support player's actions were deliberate, then i would be deem it against 'the spirit' of the game, so I'd let the play continue, then inform the red captain of my interpretation so that he can communicate to his players and thus prevent a repeat offence from his team, from which a higher sanction may follow.

 

[ChrisR]

I think we should referee to the Laws.

When the Red player picks up the ball he has committed NO offense. By his quick thinking and law knowledge he has prevented the opponents from taking a QTI. Well done Red player.

As the ball is dead and no QTI is on then the next act of the Red player, dropping the ball instead of handing it to Blue, is churlish but immaterial and I wouldn't consider it an offence by law.

 

[Phil E]

There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

 

[crossref]

There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

Will Skinner / Alain Roland

But I don't think that follows - that RC was a for a sub interfering with the game.
It would also be a RC offence for a sub to step on the field and make a tackle, but tackles in themselves are perfectly legal for a player to do.

 

[Browner]

. By his quick thinking and law knowledge he has prevented the opponents from taking a QTI. Well done Red player.

[LAWS]. [FONT=fs_blakeregular]If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.[/FONT] [/LAWS]
Law expects a QTi 'opportunity' to be created by the BC being compelled to release the ball.

You're advocating that teammates are allowed to race/rush to touch the ball with the sole purpose of nullifying a QTi 'opportunity' ?!

Law omission/silence doesn't become the 'gamesmanship charter' , if that were the case then there are a host of things that could be done to add to this TEotWedge. :nono:

 

[crossref]

when we have discussed this before I was always on the side of : it's not an offence, merely smart play.

but one thing that has started to sway me as I have reffed more and more games, is that when it occasionally happens the the general expectation of the players does seem to be that it's wrong and the expect the ref to penalise it.

(yes, I know of course we don't ref to please the players ... but still... it makes it seem less an open/shut issue).


But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

 

[OB..]

There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

Wasn't the PK for knocking the ball out of the player's hands?

On second thoughts, I think that was a different offence.

There have been cases of non-players interfering with play, which I agree with. However I see no good reason in law to penalise a player for playing the ball unless specifically prohibited.

 

[Browner]

. But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

Yes, absolutely you can, why would you ever want to cancel a non offending team's 'opportunity' to continue? "advantage blue " & if you want to escalate , then do so under next break in play ( IIRC similar was discussed under another thread) , to do otherwise gives the offender Red the outcome he sought ...to get his team organised to defend!

 

[OB..]

Yes, absolutely you can, why would you ever want to cancel a non offending team's 'opportunity' to continue? "advantage blue " & if you want to escalate , then do so under next break in play ( IIRC similar was discussed under another thread) , to do otherwise gives the offender Red the outcome he sought ...to get his team organised to defend!

Why is Red an offender? The bit of law you quoted in your #11 was simply designed to prevent a player, having been forced into touch, from holding onto the ball if an opponent wanted it.[LAWS]19.2 (d) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...][/FONT][/LAWS]This says that if other people touch the ball, a QTI is no longer an option.

 

[Browner]

Why is Red an offender?

I was answering crossref, within his " those of you" invite .

 

[John3822]

To my mind it is an act contrary to good sportmanship and contrary to the spirit of the game. Much the same as the team not in possession, chasing back and calling for the inside pass from a ball-carrier. Pinged that one on Saturday at a 7's tournament and no complaints.
In the OP, essentially it is negative play.

 

[Dickie E]

But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

OK, I don't think it is an offence but if I did I would not allow play to continue.

I think you're suggesting a "beam me up, Scotty" kind of situation but remember the ball is dead and out of play. If an offence has been committed correct restart is PK on 15M line, advantage can't be played.

 

[Dickie E]

calling for the inside pass from a ball-carrier. Pinged that one on Saturday

Really? Wow

 

[ddjamo]

Wasn't the PK for knocking the ball out of the player's hands?

On second thoughts, I think that was a different offence.

There have been cases of non-players interfering with play, which I agree with. However I see no good reason in law to penalise a player for playing the ball unless specifically prohibited.

IMO leaving the field of play to stop play is the same as standing in the trams to stop a QTI - not where the player should be and interfering with a legal restart. just because he is not in the field of play he is allowed to stop play? because it's not forbidden in law he can leave the fop and stop a restart? complete nonsense. so rugby is a sport that allows for stoppage of play/a restart by player action outside the playing field when the ball is dead? in essence the ball is out of play but the players continue to "play" and not even on the field of play?