Mark from a PK

[chopper15]

Paul/Davet. I'm confused regarding 'another player touching the ball' coupled with 10.2(c) in those three instances. As you state the kicker put the ball into touch on a technicality.

 

[OB..]

Red chasing a Red PK kick catches the ball over the FoP with one foot in touch. Can he take a QT?

I don't see why not. Technically the ball was put into touch by the kicker.

However if he is chasing, he will be moving at speed when he takes the ball, so will overshoot the place for the QT. Not something I am going to worry about.

 

[chopper15]

I don't see why not. Technically the ball was put into touch by the kicker.

. . . . and deemed to have been picked up in touch by the catcher, of course..

That's what I'm trying to understand should an opponent be the catcher. My thread #88 refers.

 

[Davet]

Chopper - I cannot see what your problem is here.

General Play
Red kick, blue, foot on line catches ball. Ball is in touch, blue throw.

On a PK
Red kick, blue, foot on line catches ball. Ball is in touch, red throw. No QT available, but in 99% of cases none would be wanted anyway, since the ball will have arrived at touch far faster than any red chasers who were behind kicker.

I think you are getting your knickers in twist over something that is A) perfectly simple, and B) a non-problem.

 

[Account Deleted]

well it was pretty important during England v Ireland when Ben Youngs prevented a QT in a way that was not illegal*, technically, but nevertheless was PK and YC for it, preumably because it seemed unfair.


*the Laws restrict themselves only the scenario where a ball-carrier is forced into touch. He must release the ball, that's clear. But Youngs ran into touch.

you could argue: ran/forced, makes no difference. PK

or you could argue that running to touch and throwing ball into the crowd to prevent a QT is no different from making very sure that you kick the ball well into the crowd to prevent a QT. Ref was inventing Laws.

Youngs was forced into touch. True he was not physically held and forced. BUT he was forced by the pursuing players removing his options.

 

[Account Deleted]

Why is Chopper wasting time with such nonsense?

 

[chopper15]

Why is Chopper wasting time with such nonsense?

Come on, ATTR, why so ready with this unqualified 'nonsense' accusation?

If the law deems the ball to be put into touch by the kicker from a PK fielded in the FoP by an opponent with one foot in touch, why not include, by inference, taken into touch by the fielder to allow the advantage of a QT?

After all, should that fielder pick up a stationary ball from the ground instead of catching it, the ref would allow a QT for that.:hap:

 

[Davet]

After all, should that fielder pick up a stationary ball from the ground instead of catching it, the ref would allow a QT for that

From the ground where? In touch, then no - the QT would be disallowed. In FoP, then the picker up would almost certainly try not to go into touch. If he did - was forced into touch then yes he'd have to give up the ball and a QT would be possible. And might eve be attempted as the delay caused by the defender would allow attackers to advance.

You are clearly tring to make some point, but seem remarkably coy about spelling it out clearly. Just tell us - blow by blow, what yo are getting at - 'cos I'm starting to get fed up with trying to read between lines.

I know you keep refering back to previous posts, but frankly I can't be arsed to scroll back all the time.

 

[Dickie E]

Red chasing a Red PK kick catches the ball over the FoP with one foot in touch. Can he take a QT?

yes. Next.

 

[jewelryab]

If you are nearer the ball than any opponent when a QT is on, touching the ball first is legitimate. Between those two there is a wide range of possibilities and it is simply not possible to cover them all in the laws. The referee, as so often, has to use his judgement.

 

[PaulDG]

If you are nearer the ball than any opponent when a QT is on, touching the ball first is legitimate.

Is it?

I mean, at the moment, we don't really have anything clear in Law as until the ELVs and subsequent move into Law that a not-straight QT was OK, the QT was a pretty rare beast.

I don't think anyone's really sure if running to a ball in touch in order to touch it and deny the QT is legitimate or not.

The earliest origins of the game and the meaning of "touch" then perhaps suggest it is legitimate, but we don't actually know how the powers that be want this played.