No quick throw line out - "Marked!"

[dskit]

Reffing some youth 7s matches and I know there is a lot of bad or dated info floating around the youth coaches.

Ball is to touch - red line out (all quick throw line out criteria are met). Red attempts a quick throw line out. Blue stands in front of the person with the ball. Red throws in complying with all laws. Blue player complains " But he was marked?!?!".

My reading of the rules are quite clear:

18.5
A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:

1. A lineout had already been formed; or

Which means 2 players from each team (side question - does that mean 2 each in the 5-15 gap or does the thrower count?)

My take is that "player is marked" is some old interpretation of laws.

 

[Decorily]

Play on in this scenario...

Unless 2 players from each side at line of touch between 5.-15m.
Blue player subject to being penalised.

 

[dskit]

Regarding the 2 players from each side forming the line out - So blue could have 2 people standing there, in position, but red can still do a quick throw because they don't have 2?

Which leads me to my real question now that I think about it. What can (if anything) the blue team do to legally thwart the red quick throw once a clean ball has been picked up by red and is gearing up to throw.

 

[smeagol]

Regarding the 2 players from each side forming the line out - So blue could have 2 people standing there, in position, but red can still do a quick throw because they don't have 2?

Which leads me to my real question now that I think about it. What can (if anything) the blue team do to legally thwart the red quick throw once a clean ball has been picked up by red and is gearing up to throw.

Per 18.5b - a blue player touches the ball other than the player who carried it into touch.

If a red player is geared to throw and 18.5b is not met, then there is nothing Blue can do to deny the QTI.

 

[Decorily]

Regarding the 2 players from each side forming the line out - So blue could have 2 people standing there, in position, but red can still do a quick throw because they don't have 2?

Correct

 

[Decorily]

Which leads me to my real question now that I think about it. What can (if anything) the blue team do to legally thwart the red quick throw once a clean ball has been picked up by red and is gearing up to ththrow.

Defenders can be alert and mark potential receivers.

 

[BikingBud]

Be fit

Be there

Compete

 

[chbg]

Be fit

Be there

Compete

From at least 5m away from touch.

 

[chbg]

Reffing some youth 7s matches and I know there is a lot of bad or dated info floating around the youth coaches.

Ball is to touch - red line out (all quick throw line out criteria are met). Red attempts a quick throw line out. Blue stands in front of the person with the ball. Red throws in complying with all laws. Blue player complains " But he was marked?!?!".

My reading of the rules are quite clear:

18.5
A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:

1. A lineout had already been formed; or

Which means 2 players from each team (side question - does that mean 2 each in the 5-15 gap or does the thrower count?)

My take is that "player is marked" is some old interpretation of laws.

If Blue is within 5m of touch preventing/disrupting the QT, then penalise him immediately with FK in 15m (18.6).

 

[Decorily]

If Blue is within 5m of touch preventing/disrupting the QT, then penalise him immediately with FK in 15m (18.6).

Why?
Should dvantage and materiality not apply?

 

[Decorily]

If Blue is within 5m of touch preventing/disrupting the QT, then penalise him immediately with FK in 15m (18.6).

"Him"?

 

[didds]

My take is that "player is marked" is some old interpretation of laws.

More like a rugby myth.
I've never heard that terminology in 48 years of following rugby union. Thats not to say that I am some sort of oracle but if it were genuine Im sure I must have heard it sometime.

 

[smeagol]

Why?
Should dvantage and materiality not apply?

In this situation, no. In 7s specificially, HELL no.

The throwing side wants to go quickly, and the defenders are cynically and illegally preventing such.

 

[Decorily]

In this situation, no. In 7s specificially, HELL no.

The throwing side wants to go quickly, and the defenders are cynically and illegally preventing such.

Yes but I'm referring to the OP....
The ball was successfully thrown despite the illegal action of the defender.
In the OP scenario the offender should not be immediately penalised.

 

[BikingBud]

Yes but I'm referring to the OP....
The ball was successfully thrown despite the illegal action of the defender.
In the OP scenario the offender should not be immediately penalised.

You're wishing to give the maximum possible opportunity for advantage to the non-offending side? I'm all for that.

Blue are trying to block, red lobs it over the blue to his speedy gonzales who then trots under the post for a 7 pointer,

In the mean time red thrower is laughing at blue blocker for being a buffoon and there might be some afters to deal with

 

[dskit]

Be fit

Be there

Compete

Help a new guy out: I have no idea what this means in the context of this thread.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You're wishing to give the maximum possible opportunity for advantage to the non-offending side? I'm all for that.

Blue are trying to block, red lobs it over the blue to his speedy gonzales who then trots under the post for a 7 pointer,

In the mean time red thrower is laughing at blue blocker for being a buffoon and there might be some afters to deal with

If you start to deny advantage "in case of the possibility of afters" you many as well take advantage out of the book. I understand the issue of Foul play at youth and below levels

 

[smeagol]

Yes but I'm referring to the OP....
The ball was successfully thrown despite the illegal action of the defender.
In the OP scenario the offender should not be immediately penalised.

In the OP, yes.

If the defender is inside the 5m channel, then lay down the law to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Decorily]

In the OP, yes.

If the defender is inside the 5m channel, then lay down the law to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Or manage appropriately and ensure the non offenders aren't the ones discommoded!

 

[BikingBud]

If you start to deny advantage "in case of the possibility of afters" you many as well take advantage out of the book. I understand the issue of Foul play at youth and below levels

Sorry I was not going to inhibit advantage, it's the best law in the book. Just being aware that maybe a player that feels they have been conned might also be a player to erupt.