interfering with a QTI -- unsuccessfuly.

[thepercy]

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.

If the ball is going to hit an AR in the face, catching or blocking it would be instinctive.

 

[OB..]

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.

I would not object if the law said that. They could even add that opponents should not do anything to prevent a QTI being taken. At the moment it doesn't say that.

 

[thepercy]

Could this type of action be considered "time wasting", under 10.2.B? Or 10.4.S, "...They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle..."?

 

[OB..]

Could this type of action be considered "time wasting", under 10.2.B? Or 10.4.S, "...They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle..."?

Is it so serious that we should be trying hard to find ways to penalise it?

 

[thepercy]

Is it so serious that we should be trying hard to find ways to penalise it?

It is unsporting, unfair, a potential flash point, and a dick move. I rarely see QTIs in matches I referee, so not a very big issue for me at all. But where QTIs are more prevalent (higher level/7s), I could see it being an issue, especially when the potential quick thrower takes exception to the action, sees you will not handle it, then deals with it with on his own, perhaps with his fist. Others asked what law you would use to penalize this type of action and I offered 2 separate law 10 references, though both are a bit of a stretch.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Deleted

 

[OB..]

It is unsporting, unfair, a potential flash point, and a dick move. I rarely see QTIs in matches I referee, so not a very big issue for me at all. But where QTIs are more prevalent (higher level/7s), I could see it being an issue, especially when the potential quick thrower takes exception to the action, sees you will not handle it, then deals with it with on his own, perhaps with his fist. Others asked what law you would use to penalize this type of action and I offered 2 separate law 10 references, though both are a bit of a stretch.

Yes, they are.

I think you are overstating the problem, but a referee would certainly be expected to step in to restrain the thrower if he stepped out of line. Retaliation for an offence is specifically illegal, so retaliation for a (probable) non-offence cannot be allowed either.

 

[ddjamo]

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.

I am not looking for another PK. I feel that the law is meant to stop a non player from facilitating a quick throw. leaving the field of play to stop a restart is not part of the game and I am wondering what sport would allow it (baseball - catching a ball in foul territory allows the runners to tag and advance - but that's all I can think of right now).

taking the letter of the law as gospel can be more detrimental to the game than applying the framework of the laws for the betterment of the game. you allow cheeky play - you will be managing cheeky play. as for your example - the interception of the throw would be in the fop - so not a very good example. I will say that if I can't get to a player before he pulls that crap - I get both skippers and that player aside and let them know what I think about sportsmanship and common sense with regards to the sport and how no sport is meant to be played outside of the lines. I have never called a pk for this but I have stamped it out anytime I get a chance.

OB, you can have your last word - there's nothing more to add and I am comfortable with my standard and style....but...since you have chosen to use "the letter of the law" for this position you may want to revisit "playing area" and "referee's duties" if you ever really need to debate this again and you maintain your letter of the law position. you need to consider that there's no way the referee can give permission to each and every player leaving the playing area, so one could argue that the player did not have permission. IMO common sense prevails. the game is meant to be, and is, played between the lines.

 

[ChrisR]

ddjamo, the Red player who leaves the FOP to touch the ball is simply denying Blue an option. Now Blue must put the ball into play in a formal lineout. The Red player has not violated the law, merely your own vision of the game.

Red cross kick to the wing but the ball goes into touch. Red winger chasing follows the ball into touch, retrieves it and immediately throws it to a Blue player. He has, possibly without intending to, prevented the QTI. Gonna ping him too?

 

[Dixie]

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.

I don't think it does make sense. Nor can it be consistently applied. Consider a powerful kick with a low trajectory. It hits a spectator in the chest, and bounces back towards the touchline. Do you allow the QTI as the spectator was surprised? If it hadn't hit him, the ball would be 60 yards from the line, not 6 feet. For me, that is exactly the scenario the law envis\ages when it says the QTI is no longer an option if another person has touched it.

ddjamo, the Red player who leaves the FOP to touch the ball is simply denying Blue an option. Now Blue must put the ball into play in a formal lineout. The Red player has not violated the law, merely your own vision of the game.

And I could live with that IF the law allowed the ball carrier to deny that option as well. But if the ball carrier throws the ball into the stands to hit a spectator - :noyc:. (Ask Ben Youngs). If he throws it so it touches an AR or TJ - :noyc:. If he hangs on to it - :noyc:. What purpose is serve by all these? The facilitation of the QTI by the side that didn't take the ball into touch. I accept that the law is silent on the specific point of a team mate deliberately frustrating the QTI, but I do not accept that it is intentional. I suspect they just couldn't imagine a rugby player stooping to such depths of depravity. They're probably the type of people who have never listened to a stump microphone when the Aussies are playing cricket.

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

I agree...

[LAWS]10.4 Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

If the ball is in touch (the ball is out of play) and it is the opposition's throw, you do not have the right to the ball, the opponent does. If you pick it up, you have interfered with the opponent.

I reckon I could sell this, and most players would buy it!

The Aussies have worked around this in their NRC.

Quick throw-ins allowed even if touched by another player or person; must be same ball
• Frees teams from a technicality that will allow for quicker play.
• If support staff or reserves deliberately touch the ball, a penalty kick is awarded 15m in.

With refinement, IMO this should be introduced into Law ASAP. I would

1. restrict the "touch" to any player in the playing XV of either side.
2. Include the wording to the effect that "no player may do anything to prevent an opponent from taking a quick throw-in

 

[Browner]

. Red cross kick to the wing but the ball goes into touch. Red winger chasing follows the ball into touch, retrieves it and immediately throws it to a Blue player. He has, possibly without intending to, prevented the QTI. Gonna ping him too?

If its not his throw, then he has no real reason to touch the ball. To do otherwise risks him being considered an interferer.

However in the case you describe , then Nope.

If Red is genuinely assisting ( how rare is this!) Blue to take their QTI ( which the QTI ideaolgy should support) , then Red gets an exemption from offending, but his assistance needs to be bloody clear & bloody obvious, rather than the more likely 'masquerading delay' pretend assist!

 

[OB..]

since you have chosen to use "the letter of the law" for this position.

No, I have not. I always argue that we must look at the laws as a whole, not just one set of words. I merely say that my position is more consistent with the law than yours. I do not see it as contrary to the ethos of the game, the essence of which is a contest. I think your view strains the laws too far, whereas an unstrained interpretation is quite tenable. It's a balancing act.

 

[Dickie 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.

There is another & different precedent I think.

England v France. Owens was the ref. Player reaches for the ball and opponent drops it behind his back. Ref thought nothing of it.

[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]

MUST RELEASE THE BALL TO AN OPPOSTION PLAYER means, to me, that the opposition player must be actively grasping the ball.

A bit like if a jackler has a grasp of the ball - player on ground must release it. But if jackler is approaching to grasp the ball the player on ground is quite within his rights to throw the ball away.

 

[Dickie E]

as a complete red herring, what does "forced into touch" mean? Against his will, I would guess.

So Red fullback collects ball deep in his own territory and, seeing 4 burly fowards bearing down, decides to step smartly into touch. Has he been forced into touch and does he need to release the ball?


[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]

 

[menace]

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...

Getting back to the op, after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting, personally I see the the red players action to prevent the QTI quite legitimate.

For those against reds action I ask you this, if red had knocked on and an onside team mate quickly ran up and picked up the ball so that blue can't grab it and gain an advantage would you penalise him and YC? I doubt it. But isn't that just as cynical play as preventing a QTI by not allowing blue the ball so they could play it?

I would put that OP preventing QTI action in the same classification picking up a knock on. It's smart play. I see that as legally preventing your opposition from gaining an advantage. (Yet if a reserve or team official came running on to pick up a ball knocked on to prevent the opponent from gaining possession then hell yes that is PK and against the spirit of the game).


But if I did think Reds action preventing a QTI was illegal, I still wouldn't allow them an advantage to throw it, as the supposed illegal action has made the ball dead (it is now beyond a zombie ball!) and as already stated you can't play advantage for a dead ball.

 

[Dickie E]

after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting,

Thank you

 

[Ian_Cook]

Getting back to the op, after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting, personally I see the the red players action to prevent the QTI quite legitimate.

For those against reds action I ask you this, if red had knocked on and an onside team mate quickly ran up and picked up the ball so that blue can't grab it and gain an advantage would you penalise him and YC? I doubt it. But isn't that just as cynical play as preventing a QTI by not allowing blue the ball so they could play it?

But red's entitled to play that ball because it is not out of play, and besides which, the referee might not have seen the knock on. Also, in the case you mention, there isn't specific Law that would require the red player to give up the ball to the blue player.

This is a long way different from a player intentionally running after a ball he is not entitled to play anyway, and kicking it or touching it to prevent a QTI. I see no reason why the restrictions on what can be done by the player who took the ball into touch, should not also apply to his team-mates, but the easier path would be to go the Aussie NRC way, and just remove or alter the touch clause.

There are two things in the Law book that aren't Laws are often forgotten about...

Spirit
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

and

INTEGRITY
Integrity is central to the fabric of the Game and is generated through honesty & fair play

Even at the Elite level, I consider the above two statements to be an important part of the professionalism of the players. Running after the ball with the express purpose of spoiling a quick throw in doesn't seem to me to sit well with the spirit of the way the game is played.

 

[menace]

True Ian, it's how I see it....you see it differently....the laws don't make it clear that either you or I are wrong or right. IMO!
My responses in bold/italics.

But red's entitled to play that ball because it is not out of play, and besides which, the referee might not have seen the knock on. Also, in the case you mention, there isn't specific Law that would require the red player to give up the ball to the blue player.

But is the ball dead? We seem to suggest that it Is more of a 'zombie ball' than a dead ball...that is it still is in play by the mere fact they can play on quickly (and why offside players advancing can still be penalised!). Therefore until the QTI is not on, the ball is still somewhat 'live' and 'in play'

This is along way different from a player intentionally running after a ball he is not entitled to play anyway, and kicking it or touching it to prevent a QTI. I see no reason why the restrictions on what can be done by the player who took the ball into touch, should not also apply to his team-mates, but the easier path would be to go the Aussie NRC way, and just remove or alter the touch clause.

That's your interpretation of the law, others are saying that the law can be interpreted differently. You're the one now drawing that the extension that what applied to the ball carrier into touch should apply to others. But that's not what is written. If that's the intent then why isn't it worded as such. They've had enough years to fix it now? You've said it yourself that unless it's written in the laws that it's not allowed, then it should be permitted. This is one of those. The law says that IF it is touched another player the QTI is not permitted, it doesn't say that anyone that does touch it must be sanctioned? You seem to be drawing an extension not backed up in law. I do agree with you that the NRC approach clears it up - and is a sensible way to go

There are two things in the Law book that aren't Laws are often forgotten about...

Spirit
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

and

INTEGRITY
Integrity is central to the fabric of the Game and is generated through honesty & fair play[/

These are subjective opinions - about behaviour and actions, the problem is that everyone's moral compass on what that entails are different - especially around the edges!

Even at the Elite level, I consider the above two statements to be an important part of the professionalism of the players. Running after the ball with the express purpose of spoiling a quick throw in doesn't seem to me to sit well with the spirit of the way the game is played.

Again, that is what direction your compass points does that mean everyone else should follow it? Who says your compass is right?

 

[Browner]

There is another & different precedent I think.

England v France. Owens was the ref. Player reaches for the ball and opponent drops it behind his back. Ref thought nothing of it.

[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]

MUST RELEASE THE BALL TO AN OPPOSTION PLAYER means, to me, that the opposition player must be actively grasping the ball.

A bit like if a jackler has a grasp of the ball - player on ground must release it. But if jackler is approaching to grasp the ball the player on ground is quite within his rights to throw the ball away.

That wasn't a bonafide precedent, ( it was a QTI prevention error , Eng try probably awaited) anyway they idea that a BC can hide or shield or block or in anyway prevent a unobstructed retrieval is a bemusing suggestion.