interfering with a QTI -- unsuccessfuly.

[Dickie E]

Makes me wonder though (2 glasses of red and 11pm).

Red kick for touch and ball is caught by Blue player. As he approaches touchline to look for a QTI, another Red player punches another Blue player in the face.

Blue player #1 takes QT. Do I call "play on", call "advantage Blue" or award penalty to Blue?

 

[Dickie E]

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?

ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

 

[ChrisR]

Stop making it up! Advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

Yes, some acts are contrary to law and deserve sanction. Try the following but quote Law if you penalize:

1. Red player is forced, not tackled, into touch and his momentum carries him 10m up the pitch where he places the ball on the ground away from nearest Blue.

2. Red player forced into touch and then kicks to ball up the pitch away from Blue.

3. As in 1 but second Red player kicks the ball away from nearest Blue.

4. Red player forced/tackled into touch refuses to relinquish ball to Blue.

5. Red player forced/tackled into touch passes ball to teammate.

6. Red player forced into touch runs up pitch but turns and kicks ball back toward Blue. Ball sails over Blue's head.

7. Red forced into touch passes/kicks ball toward Blue but another Red player steps in and intercepts ball. Hands ball to Blue.

Now, given the choice, I would relax some of the restrictions on the QTI before I'd start writing laws to cover all the possible misdeeds.

 

[ddjamo]

ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

how could it be "instinctively" if doing so is not common practice? instinctive would be to release the ball and get 5m from the thrower eh? it's not instinctive to toss a ball to an official just as chasing the ball into touch to place a finger on it is not either. it's out of ordinary play and is taking it.

 

[Browner]

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.

Interestingly that law uses "another person" rather than "player" , IMO this is to group categorise all the other potential perimeter interferers .... Ie ....Coach/physio/spectator/ballboy/steward/ mascot/dog/waterboy/ parent/ assessor/4th official etc

Re: 19.2 (d)
I simply do not believe it was created under any thinking that it was 'licensing' Teammates of a BC ( otherwise not involved ) to deliberately interfere with/ and by such involvement negate a QTi 'opportunity' for their opponents.

I'm not privileged to own the IRB Law committee meeting notes, and I would happily buy beer of choice if anyone can evidence this was their intention , rather than another not particularly well worded law.

QTi Law ideology simply doesnt allign with any 'deliberately denying' actions of opponent players on the pitch towards restarts of play AFAIA.

 

[Browner]

ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

Sorry, Didn't see that, your no5 mustve been blocking my view , play on :biggrin:

 

[Browner]

Makes me wonder though (2 glasses of red and 11pm).

Red kick for touch and ball is caught by Blue player. As he approaches touchline to look for a QTI, another Red player punches another Blue player in the face.

Blue player #1 takes QT. Do I call "play on", call "advantage Blue" or award penalty to Blue?

Blue player played on

[LAWS]. [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.[/FONT] [/LAWS]

[LAWS]. [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish[/FONT] [/LAWS]

" advantage blue - card pending" :shrug:

 

[crossref]

ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

you ping the ball carrier for that -- he is the one person on the pitch who cannot perform an action like that to deny a QTI

[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]

 

[Browner]

you ping the ball carrier for that -- he is the one person on the pitch who cannot perform an action like that to deny a QTI

[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]

That'll do........ "failure to release the ball to an opposition player "....... Caused by your own teammate intervening , yep works for me ..... Not quite the route I was looking for, but it'll do :biggrin:

 

[Rushforth]

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.

Since you can use capital letters for emphasis, TLAs and cleansing swine, you might want to consider using them to start sentences. Shift is the key beneath Caps Lock.

The QTI rewards a "defender" who gets to the ball quickly and gets it right back into play. If the ball bounces of any inanimate object, including a surprised AR, the QTI can still be taken. If it is handled by anybody else, it cannot be taken quickly. If a TJ is "kind enough" to pick the ball up then a QTI cannot be taken.

The QTI wouldn't happen in the first place in XVs of course, and being tackled into touch isn't that common in Sevens for that matter.

 

[Phil E]

If the ball bounces of any inanimate object, including a surprised AR, the QTI can still be taken.

No it can't, that would be a law error.

The AR is "another person", not an inanimate object.

[LAWS]19.2 (d) 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. [...][/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

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?

I strongly disagree.

Players outside the FoP continue to play in the sense that they can restart play without the referee getting involved. There are laws about how this can and cannot be done. One law says that other players touching the ball prevents a QTI, and places no restrictions or caveats on other players. Your view means that throwing the ball to a team mate for a throw-in is an offence.

Of course there have to be some limits eg no tackling or physically trying to stop a player from taking the QTI. However your player in the 5m area is committing an offence by trying to prevent the throw going 5m. Merely "interfering with a legal restart" is not in itself an offence - a player can legally attempt to intercept the throw, for example.

This is clearly an area that needs further clarification, but please let's be cautious in devising new penalty offences when players cannot realistically expect them.

 

[crossref]

we are in a slightly odd situation where

- kicking the ball away to prevent a quick-tap PK is an offence, if any player does it [advance 10m and (often) a YC]

- kicking the ball away to prevent a QTI is an offence if the ball carrier does it [PK and (often) a YC] But if a team mate of the ball carrier does it .... it's an OK ploy to prevent a QTI

It's a little hard to sustain, and my belief is that most grass roots players who did it would expect to be sanctioned.

 

[Rushforth]

No it can't, that would be a law error.

The AR is "another person", not an inanimate object.

[LAWS]19.2 (d) 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. [...][/LAWS]

I am fully aware of the definition as per the law-book, and would have agreed with you a year ago.

However, during my IRB2, the point was specifically made that the AR - if surprised - counts as inanimate. Which makes sense, considering the ARs should be the only individuals on the touch-line, and also should not be interacting with the ball in any way if a QTI is at all possible.

 

[Phil E]

I am fully aware of the definition as per the law-book, and would have agreed with you a year ago.

However, during my IRB2, the point was specifically made that the AR - if surprised - counts as inanimate. Which makes sense, considering the ARs should be the only individuals on the touch-line, and also should not be interacting with the ball in any way if a QTI is at all possible.

An inanimate object is usually described as an object that will stay in the same position for the whole of the game, like a lighting pole or an advertising board. Its position will be the same for both sides, for the whole of the game.

As an RFU Referee Educator I would politely suggest that your IRB2 instructor is talking out of his arse.

 

[crossref]

An inanimate object is usually described as an object that will stay in the same position for the whole of the game, .. Its position will be the same for both sides, for the whole of the game..

mind you I have known Touch Judges pretty much like that.

 

[Baylion]

How is a red team mate picking up the ball to prevent a quick throw in any different to a team mate kicking the ball away? Or the player for that matter

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830684/

There was an incident during this year's Super Rugby where a team mate kicked the ball away and was carded (can't remember which game or ref)

 

[Rushforth]

As an RFU Referee Educator I would politely suggest that your IRB2 instructor is talking out of his arse.

Well, he is Irish, so possibly/probably. But the guy is also an Educator of (IRB3 level) Referee Educators, if you wish to argue by level of authority.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Seems clear that the law needs changing to allow blue to take the QTI providing that no other teammate has touched the ball no matter how many opposition players have touched it, providing a line out has not been formed.
Rewarding positive play.

 

[crossref]

How is a red team mate picking up the ball to prevent a quick throw in any different to a team mate kicking the ball away? Or the player for that matter

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830684/

There was an incident during this year's Super Rugby where a team mate kicked the ball away and was carded (can't remember which game or ref)

I love SA referees because they ask the quesiton

By what law does the referee give De Jongh a yellow card?

and their answer shows that, um, there is no actual Law, but it's against the general principle of the Laws ...

but it does provide a good precedent.