Mark from a PK

[chopper15]

Re. Dixie: 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:

19.2(d) 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.


Dixie, thank you for your considered and detsiled reply, it is much appreciated, but . . I am asking nothing of the sort.

If you had read 19.5(b) which is relevant to my scenario, ie., the FB catching the ball falling into the FoP with a foot in touch - instead of referring to 19.2d which reflected your opinion and prompted you to berate me, you would have been aware, as I was, that the FB most certainly did NOT take or carry the ball into touch . . . he is deemed to have 'picked the ball up in touch' hence my query and stated intrigue.

Sorry if I misled you and Phil, I can assure you both it was unintentional.

 

[Dixie]

the FB most certainly did NOT take or carry the ball into touch . . . he is deemed to have 'picked the ball up in touch' hence my query and stated intrigue.

Indeed. And given that he touched the ball after it was in touch, it's clear he was not the player who took it into touch and therefore is "another player" - so there can be no QT.

 

[crossref]

Indeed. And given that he touched the ball after it was in touch, it's clear he was not the player who took it into touch and therefore is "another player" - so there can be no QT.

but he could be YC for deliberately preventing one?

 

[Dixie]

but he could be YC for deliberately preventing one?

Don't be daft! If he hadn't caught it, there's no guarantee it would have gone into touch. We'd know the game has gone to the dogs when a ref YC's an onside player for touching a ball in open play and on the field of play.

 

[Simon Thomas]

but he could be YC for deliberately preventing one?

as crossref says the FB could have a sanction applied for preventing a QT.

whether that is a

a) quiet word
b) formal warning
c) PK
d) and YC

will depend on the context (score, field position, score at time, his history in match) and most of all the referee's management judgement.

 

[Taff]

.... he touched the ball after it was in touch ....

Don't be daft! If he hadn't caught it, there's no guarantee it would have gone into touch.

But it was already in touch before he trapped it. I still think its stretching the point a bit to consider a PK for deliberately preventing a QT though.

 

[OB..]

I still think its stretching the point a bit to consider a PK for deliberately preventing a QT though.

Law 19.2(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.

That is the only time a PK can be awarded under the QT laws.

There is a reference to an opponent who carried the ball into touch - he does not count for the purposes of denying the QT option. Law 19 does not specifically say so, but I presume all referees would insist he gives the ball up.

However there is no general prohibition on touching the ball when in touch in order to prevent a QT. I do not see that as unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

[crossref]

Law 19.2(i)That is the only time a PK can be awarded under the QT laws.

There is a reference to an opponent who carried the ball into touch - he does not count for the purposes of denying the QT option. Law 19 does not specifically say so, but I presume all referees would insist he gives the ball up.

However there is no general prohibition on touching the ball when in touch in order to prevent a QT. I do not see that as unsportsmanlike conduct.

interesting
-- I would agree that a player carrying the ball into touch must give it up (not stated in the Laws, but seems to be implied)
-- but to me logic suggests any other player deliberately playing the ball to prevent a QT must be guitly of the same offence, and penalisable?

Youngs carries ball into touch .. and throws it away to prevent QT = YC
Youngs carries ball into touch, drops it, and team mate falls on it to prevent QT.. is OK?

 

[Adam]

interesting
-- I would agree that a player carrying the ball into touch must give it up (not stated in the Laws, but seems to be implied)

2010 Law Book 19.2 (i)

 

[Taff]

interesting. I would agree that a player carrying the ball into touch must give it up (not stated in the Laws, but seems to be implied) -- but to me logic suggests any other player deliberately playing the ball to prevent a QT must be guitly of the same offence, and penalisable?

I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

19.2(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.
Sanction: Penalty kick on 15-metre line

 

[crossref]

19.2(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.
Sanction: Penalty kick on 15-metre line

that is when a player is FORCED into touch...
.. but common sense (to me) says that it also applies if he chooses, unforced, to carry it or tap it into touch..

.. and further common sense says it should apply if a team mate of his took the ball into touch..

but I realise my common sense is taking me further from the Laws, so perhaps needs to be reined in.

 

[Davet]

I think throwing the ball away is different to simply catching it and then placing it down for the opposition, or to passing it to the opposition.

Both actions prevent the QT, but frankly to see them penalised would be more than a bit rich.

 

[crossref]

so we're saying that if the ball is on the ground in touch, and QT is still potentially on.. .. it's a fair competition for players of either team to try and get their hands on it first to enable / deny chance of a QT?

this seems equitable.. but it's also in effect a contest for the ball outside the FoP, which seems a bit :chin:

 

[Davet]

it's a fair competition for players of either team to try and get their hands on it first to enable / deny chance of a QT?

That seems to imply it would OK for a player to race to the ball lying harmlessly in touch in order to tag it and prevent the QT.

That seems qualitatively different to that which we were discussing. I would suggest that you stop trying to equate all these things and come up with a unified theory of what's allowed, and concentrate rather on applying good judgement, involving ALL the factors at the time.

 

[crossref]

That seems qualitatively different to that which we were discussing. I would suggest that you stop trying to equate all these things and come up with a unified theory of what's allowed, and concentrate rather on applying good judgement, involving ALL the factors at the time.

I'll start a new thread as this one has rambled from topic to topic

 

[chopper15]

No need crossref, my thread #15 refers:


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?

PS . . . . and have we all to accept now that if a ball falling into the FoP is caught by a player with one foot in touch in the circumstances under debate it should be a YC and probably a PT as the action was deliberate?

PPS . . . as with my scenario above as that also could be considered for a PT?

 

[Davet]

No need crossref, my thread #15 refers:


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?

:nono:

Why do you insist on not allowing an attacking LO. You say it's a PK.

On what grounds could it possibly be a defending LO?:nono:

 

[chopper15]

:nono:

Why do you insist on not allowing an attacking LO. You say it's a PK.

On what grounds could it possibly be a defending LO?:nono:

QT unlawfully taken?:hap: also see my PS edits above, Davet. Do you agree?

 

[Davet]

If a QT is taken "unlawfully" the Law says form a line and the same team throws into that.

The one thing it has NO chance of being is a defending LO.

Any ref who awarded a Penalty in the PS and PPS scenarios you describe would be marked as SD, and awarding a YC or PT would simply result in the assessor realising that the ref would be better off gardening on a Saturday.

 

[SimonSmith]

I have never read such utter bollocks in my life. And given the amount of time I spend on this forum, that's saying something.

The FB catching the ball is an entirely legal action - why would it be penalizable? The ball is only in touch WHEN he catches it.

And I just don't understand the first scenario at all.