Italy Vs France Quick throw

[Account Deleted]

Second half late on. France kick long and ball goes into touch between 5 mtr line and goal line. The Italians took a quick throw in from touch in goal. Surely the throw had to be between the line of touch and the goal line.

 

[KML1]

Aye - in law yes. Sure will come up on the review the Tof3 will do. But what harm done? (Not that that's any argument or excuse....)

 

[Account Deleted]

Certainly not a critical error.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Certainly not a critical error.

Given the state of the French LO I'd agree.

Would it make a difference if the Italian LO was the one that was all at sea? ie 5m out on their own throw?

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Am not sure that Italy would have had time to bring the ball forward to take a quick throw in a legal position. If not, there would have been a set line on the 5m. Is there a material difference between a quick throw with the relatively easy clearance kick available, or options to attack from deep, and a set line on one's own 5m? As observed the French line was less than perfect but even so...

Either way, I think Nigel is in for some (hopefully friendly) ribbing! He had a much harder game than the other 6N games and thought he did fine!

 

[Taff]

Aye - in law yes. Sure will come up on the review the Tof3 will do. But what harm done?

Certainly not a critical error.

I'm not so sure gents. It wasn't "critical" but you could easily argue that it was "material". If the QTI had been disallowed, I think it would have been an Italian LO 5m out? That LO could have gone well for the Italians, but it's also quite possible it could have gone badly. As it was, they cleared their line with no pressure. Perhaps it looked OK from where St Nigel was standing.

Am not sure that Italy would have had time to bring the ball forward to take a quick throw in a legal position.

The Italian only needed to bring it forward 2-3 metres (if that) for it to be from a legal position. He had ample time to get it right.

 

[crossref]

it's material also because perhaps the french players - -knowing that no QTI can be taken in-goal, didn't rush forward to defend against the possibility, thus creating the inviting empty space for the Italians to use.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I thought Nige had a solid performance in a challenging match.

However this is was a typical "showbiz rugby" decision not using the same laws as the rest of us situation - which I find difficult to support. I recall a similar incident in a Munster Heineken Cup match two or three seasons ago.

The QT was technically illegal, certainly not critical and borderline material. It could have had an impact (as stated above, but I think crossref overestimates the potential enthusiasm of the French) - but on balance, should it have been called back by AR/ Nige - probably not ?

I am sure it was (and will be) discussed by the To3, the Match Observers and IRB Refs Dept guys.

 

[crossref]

perhaps it will lead to an amendment to the current LAT on quick throws: that gist of that LAT is to extend the permitted zone for taking QTIs, in that spirit it would seem perfectly logical to allow QTI in goal.

It's probably just something they never thought of - there can't be many occasions when a team would even want to take a QTI in goal, when it does arise I cant' see why not legalise it.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

perhaps it will lead to an amendment to the current LAT on quick throws: that gist of that LAT is to extend the permitted zone for taking QTIs, in that spirit it would seem perfectly logical to allow QTI in goal.

It's probably just something they never thought of - there can't be many occasions when a team would even want to take a QTI in goal, when it does arise I cant' see why not legalise it.

What if the Italians had touched it down? Whose scrum/drop out? :biggrin:

 

[Camquin]

The French had not taken the ball into in-goal.
Had the Italians taken the throw on the line of touch and passed back into the in goal it would obviously be an attacking scrum.
Taking the throw behind the goal line must be the moral equivalent.
So I deem the Italians took it it.

Camquin

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The French had not taken the ball into in-goal.
Had the Italians taken the throw on the line of touch and passed back into the in goal it would obviously be an attacking scrum.
Taking the throw behind the goal line must be the moral equivalent.
So I deem the Italians took it it.

Camquin

This is just my mischievous revamp of Chopper's kick goes in touch outside 22 but rolls beyond 22 and QTI is in 22 - do you get the gain in ground from the kick?

 

[OB..]

This is just my mischievous revamp of Chopper's kick goes in touch outside 22 but rolls beyond 22 and QTI is in 22 - do you get the gain in ground from the kick?

No. The ball was never in the 22 until the thrower put it there.

 

[harlequins1970]

I personally think that the quick throw should not have been allowed. The kick to touch was a good one landing in a perfect spot for the French. They would then have had a chance of stealing it at the line out and driving for the line which would have meant that the kick to touch in fact would have been an excellent one. The fact that Italy took the QTI from an incorrect place or should I say an illegal place made that move from france obsolete and therefore in the fairness of the game took away the chance of France competing for the ball in a good position which they had deliberately created with the kick.

 

[Browner]

What if the Italians had touched it down? Whose scrum/drop out? :biggrin:

They'd [illegally] taken it in, so they concede a 5m scrum/put in , IMO

- - - Updated - - -

This is just my mischievous revamp of Chopper's kick goes in touch outside 22 but rolls beyond 22 and QTI is in 22 - do you get the gain in ground from the kick?

I'd class it as taken back in , th4 no gain of ground

 

[Browner]

I personally think that the quick throw should not have been allowed. The kick to touch was a good one landing in a perfect spot for the French.

I agree, no advantage to be gained by the side who took the throw from the incorrect place, so, come back for the throw in the right place, Lucky Italians, .................
Matchfixing investigation to follow ? :biggrin:
lets watch to see if NO gets a house on lake Garda?
[sorry NO, only Joking!]

 

[OB..]

I'd class it as taken back in , th4 no gain of ground

Then you would be wrong. The ball went into the 22 area before going into touch.

 

[Pinky]

Then you would be wrong. The ball went into the 22 area before going into touch.

OB, I htink Browner was thinking about LLP's revamp of Choppers revision of and arguments about what happened if the ball was kicked into touch outside the 22, but because of the angle it had passed behind the 22 and the QTI was taken behind the 22. I think we would all agree that that was taken in by the defenders.

As to this, had the QTI not been illegal, then yes gain in ground as it had been put into the 22 by France