interfering with a QTI -- unsuccessfuly.

[Browner]

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]

This is straw clutching extremism.


Their "bearing" forced his FoP exit. So yes he does.

 

[SimonSmith]

So in summary, there are two positions you can take on this. The position you take is inflected by how you view the law and the principles behind it.

Were I coaching a referee, I wouldn't criticize him or her for taking either position, so long as they could talk me through the process.

Personally, I tend to the Browner/Ian position - and that's a gathering of people you won't often see.

I think that the intent of the law is clear, and to take OB's angle, I look at the law and what I believe the intent to be. Players should be able to take a QTI as soon as they wish; opposing players must not deny them that option after the ball has gone 'dead'. The law is specifically written to put an obligation on the ball carrier to release.
I don't personally believe that the intention of the lawmakers was to force the ball carrier to give up the ball only to allow a team mate to then play it - it would be contradictory. We all know that there are lacunae in the Law Book - this seems to me to be a glaring one.

Until there is a clarification, or a mandate from a Governing Body, as cited above, I'm looking for thoughtful and consistent refereeing.

 

[ChrisR]

I believe that "spirit" and "integrity" are critical elements to the game of rugby and dear to my heart. Although each of us may hold somewhat different definitions for the words we would probably all agree on their core sentiments of respect for opponents, officials, the game itself and a commitment to play within the laws.

However, I see some responses to threads on this forum that confuse "spirit" with "mode of play". Running rugby featuring all the elegant skills of the game may be an attractive way to play but that should be the choice of the players, not the referee.

Therefore, if a player acts within the laws to deny an opponent a choice of options then he should not be sanctioned. That doesn't mean that that the laws don't need to change.

I agree with several posts on this thread that propose modifications that would prevent the team putting the ball into touch from denying a QTI.

Meanwhile, let us not use "spirit" as an excuse for making it up.

 

[Phil E]

[LAWS]It is the duty of the Unions to ensure that the game at every level is conducted in accordance with
disciplined and sporting behaviour. This principle cannot be upheld solely by the referee; its
observance also rests on Unions, affiliated bodies and clubs.[/LAWS]

This paragraph from the law book would suggest that the referee (amongst others) is responsible for the game being played in the right 'spirit', as well as, within the laws of the game.

Upholding the principle of sporting behaviour is not "making it up".



[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

Upholding the principle of sporting behaviour is not "making it up"

If there is a disagreement as to what constitutes the principle in a particular case, then that statement does not help resolve it.

 

[crossref]

if we hark back to tradition and principle, going back to the olden times when a ball was in touch the two teams would chase after it, and the first one to touch it got the throw in.

So there is some sort precedent for the idea that, once the ball carrier has released the ball, there might be competition to see who can touch it first.

 

[talbazar]

Damn... Long thread for a guy who has been off the forum for only a couple of days :biggrin:
And it happened to be one topic we had at our last Ref meeting (with the same disagreement I may add).

Anyways, two different responses from me here.
1st

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

I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.

2nd

Anyone who stands in the "non sportsmanship" side of this discussion

So as you guess, I stand on the "fair play by Red" side...
We spend time here (and amongst Referees generally) to rant about players who don't know the law. We may not like it, but touching the ball is a legal way to denying Blue the QTI opportunity.
Play on.

Anyway, when one sees the length of this discussion, I guess we will all have to wait for a clarification or a re-write :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[thepercy]

Damn... Long thread for a guy who has been off the forum for only a couple of days :biggrin:
And it happened to be one topic we had at our last Ref meeting (with the same disagreement I may add).

Anyways, two different responses from me here.
1st

I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.

2nd

So as you guess, I stand on the "fair play by Red" side...
We spend time here (and amongst Referees generally) to rant about players who don't know the law. We may not like it, but touching the ball is a legal way to denying Blue the QTI opportunity.
Play on.

Anyway, when one sees the length of this discussion, I guess we will all have to wait for a clarification or a re-write :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

I propose that anytime a Rugbyrefs.com forum post reaches 50+ replies, a WR clarification should be issued.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.

So, in effect you are saying that, when Blue have made TWO defensive errors (only one player back for the kick and then the sole Blue player stuffs up his kick to touch) that its unfair for them to be exposed by a piece of quick thinking by Red?

Sorry but that is rather like saying its unfair that Red get to feed a scrum when blue knocks the ball on, or its unfair if a Red player intercepts a pass by Blue and scores under the posts.

 

[talbazar]

So, in effect you are saying that, when Blue have made TWO defensive errors (only one player back for the kick and then the sole Blue player stuffs up his kick to touch) that its unfair for them to be exposed by a piece of quick thinking by Red?

Sorry but that is rather like saying its unfair that Red get to feed a scrum when blue knocks the ball on, or its unfair if a Red player intercepts a pass by Blue and scores under the posts.

Extremely valid point Ian.
As a ref in a game where this variation were applicable, I wouldn't have any problem if Red did this. I'm just saying I'm not sure this adaptation keeps the full spirit of the original (and official) law about the QTI...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Extremely valid point Ian.
As a ref in a game where this variation were applicable, I wouldn't have any problem if Red did this. I'm just saying I'm not sure this adaptation keeps the full spirit of the original (and official) law about the QTI...

The ARU used this variation in their NRC last season with no problems. In fact, this was one of the variations that was included after the ARU asked Australian rugby fans to submit ideas for Law changes. There were plenty of instances last season of players taking advantage of it by throwing the ball to a team-mate in touch who would then take the QTI. I don't have a problem with it.



NOTE OFF TOPIC: They also included a variation where all PK's awarded at scrum time could not be kicked for goal... NOT Free Kicks, as they could still be kicked for touch with a gain in ground and retention of the throw in. That was another successful innovation; it prevented teams from using the scrum as a three point accumulation tactic, and led to a lot more tries being scored.

 

[Dickie E]

NOTE OFF TOPIC: They also included a variation where all PK's awarded at scrum time could not be kicked for goal... NOT Free Kicks, as they could still be kicked for touch with a gain in ground and retention of the throw in. That was another successful innovation; it prevented teams from using the scrum as a three point accumulation tactic, and led to a lot more tries being scored.

I watched every Melbourne game at AAMI Park - maybe half a dozen games. I can't remember one penalty shot at goal.

 

[menace]

I watched every Melbourne game at AAMI Park - maybe half a dozen games. I can't remember one penalty shot at goal.

That's because Rebels weren't good enough to earn a scrum penalty!epper: