Mark from a PK

[Casey Bee]

I that that was in context of a defending team throwing in closer than 5m from their goal line.

i'm not so sure the same applies for an attacking team

Maybe??? But if I recall the referencing that was done at the time was all related to QT laws, and I don't think QT laws say anything about being 5m out at either end of the pitch...

 

[OB..]

Law 19.2 (b)

For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player's goal line.

 

[TheBFG]

Maybe??? But if I recall the referencing that was done at the time was all related to QT laws, and I don't think QT laws say anything about being 5m out at either end of the pitch...

Without getting too pedantic, do we agree that a QT is covered by Law 19????

In which case surely 19.8 (o) applies :chin:

 

[OB..]

Without getting too pedantic, do we agree that a QT is covered by Law 19????

In which case surely 19.8 (o) applies :chin:

The line of touch is not relevant to a Quick Throw-in.

 

[Taff]

Two attackers following up a PK dropping directly into touch just short of the GL with only the FB to foil the QT. He traps the ball expertly with his foot, quickly steps aside leaving the attackers to complete the QT and score.

why would the defending fullback trap the ball, and then stand aside to allow the attackers to score?

Exactly. If the FB was such an "expert" he would have left it bounce away harmlessly surely ... or get picked up by a spectator.

 

[Casey Bee]

Without getting too pedantic, do we agree that a QT is covered by Law 19????

In which case surely 19.8 (o) applies :chin:

No, don't agree with you on that one. QT is within law 19 but has it's own special sub section 19.2. I would suggest that only items mentioned within 19.2 apply to QT.

 

[TheBFG]

No, don't agree with you on that one. QT is within law 19 but has it's own special sub section 19.2. I would suggest that only items mentioned within 19.2 apply to QT.

gone to a higher authority for an answer:chin:

 

[TheBFG]

:Looser: retracted

well there you go you learn something new every day!

 

[Camquin]

I am being thick - this is after a PK and the defending full back touched the ball first.

Assuming he is in touch when he plays the ball - it does not matter where it is there is no QT as it has touched someone other than the thrower of the player taking the ball into touch.

If the defender tried to keep the ball in but stepped into touch, QT would be on and he would have to make the ball available.

Camquin

 

[Phil E]

:Looser: retracted

well there you go you learn something new every day!

.........or every 8 minutes :wink:

 

[Casey Bee]

gone to a higher authority for an answer:chin:

Who is the higher authority??:Zip: :Zip: Spill the beans!

 

[crossref]

he has asked for one of those secret emails he won't be able to show it to you, even if he wanted to

 

[chopper15]

Camquin . . . :clap: :clap: :clap: a PK, PT and/or YC?

 

[chopper15]

Camquin . . . :clap: :clap: :clap: a PK, PT and/or YC?

. . . . and if the FB, with one foot deliberately placed in touch, catches the PK dropping into the FoP and hands it to the oncoming attackers who takes the QT and his team mate immediately touches it down?

 

[Camquin]

They cannot take the QT. Call them back.

I do not see this as an offence by the defending FB.

Given we are at Fat Boys RFC third team pitch the ball would probably have bounced down the slope and into the stinging nettles/ stream so catching it probably saved time.

Not sure why he would have one foot deliberately in touch - he should be trying to keep the ball in play - but that is his captain's look out.

Camquin

 

[Davet]

Two attackers following up a PK dropping directly into touch just short of the GL with only the FB to foil the QT.

He traps the ball expertly with his foot, quickly steps aside leaving the attackers to complete the QT and score.

Try, penalty or LO defending ball?:hap:

None of the above.

Attacking PK puts ball in touch - throw will be to attacking team. QT is not available as defender has touched ball. That is not an offence.

LO Attacking Ball

 

[chopper15]

None of the above.

Attacking PK puts ball in touch - throw will be to attacking team. QT is not available as defender has touched ball. That is not an offence.

LO Attacking Ball

So what if the FB stepped from the FoP into touch picked up the ball and tossed it to one of the approaching players . . . . deliberately foiling the probable QT and consequent try?

PT, PK, YC? or still a LO?:hap:

 

[chopper15]

. . . . and if the FB, with one foot deliberately placed in touch, catches the PK dropping into the FoP and hands it to the oncoming attackers who takes the QT and his team mate immediately touches it down?

Camquin: this scenario intrigues me. The law states that the kicker put the ball into touch. So if the FB placed it on the ground instead of handing it to one of the approaching players is the QT still OK if .... he placed it on the ground in the FoP or in touch, or either?

 

[Phil E]

Camquin: this scenario intrigues me. The law states that the kicker put the ball into touch. So if the FB placed it on the ground instead of handing it to one of the approaching players is the QT still OK if .... he placed it on the ground in the FoP or in touch, or either?

Your question has already been answered by at least two people. :wait:

Try reading the answers given instead of ignoring them

 

[Dixie]

Camquin: this scenario intrigues me. The law states that the kicker put the ball into touch. So if the FB placed it on the ground instead of handing it to one of the approaching players is the QT still OK if .... he placed it on the ground in the FoP or in touch, or either?

Chopper, you are so keen to debate fine nuances that you forget to look to see whether the point is glaringly obvious. What does the law say:

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.

So, you are really asking whether the FB is "an opponent who carried it into touch" or "another person". If he's not one, he's the other.

Did the FB carry the ball into touch? If he did, then unless it's a PK the lineout would go to the kicking team. We know from the Definitions that the FB caught the ball in touch, not in the field of play - so he could not also have carried it into touch. This is consistent with the award of the throw-in. So the FB is "another person", and there can be no QT.

So what if the FB stepped from the FoP into touch picked up the ball and tossed it to one of the approaching players . . . . deliberately foiling the probable QT and consequent try?

PT, PK, YC? or still a LO?:hap:

This enquiry has merit. We saw from Young's sin-bin against Ireland that preventing a QT is both penalisable and cardable. The question is whether ANY prevention of the QT will get the same treatment. The answer is No. This is clearly inconsistent, but any other response leads us into ridiculous situations. The player who is uncertain of where the line is, and catches the ball in touch, has prevented the QT - penalty. The player who is bundled into touch and drops the ball, where it bounces and hits the TJ, has prevented the QT.

So the degree of cynicism should really be a factor in the ref's decision to penalise (and card). The fact is that the ref very rarely exercises that discretion in the favour of the disadvantaged side. There's a lot to be said for awarding a FK 15m in for any cynical and deliberate action that invalidates a QT - unless the lineout is already formed (which will often be the case).