No quick throw line out - "Marked!"

[BikingBud]

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

You asked: 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.

For my mind if the Blues are fit enough to keep up with the game, they will be at the line out and will be able to compete.

If they are not fit enough then they will get run ragged!

The beauty of competitive sport

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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.

Play advanatge if appropriate. At the stoppage have a strong word or Yellow card are appropriate. Same
effect and the non-offending side have not been "punished" too!

Avoid using the whistle if you can.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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.

Who's been "conned" in your scenario? Blue cheated and Red scored.

The only problem is Red taking the piss. That can be dealt with as in any similar situation where players wind up the oposition. IIf Red's action is bad enought stop play and "guys we have a FK / PK against Blue and a PK agianst red. We are coming back for the second trumping the first So PK against RED.

 

[BikingBud]

Who's been "conned" in your scenario? Blue cheated and Red scored.

The only problem is Red taking the piss. That can be dealt with as in any similar situation where players wind up the oposition. IIf Red's action is bad enought stop play and "guys we have a FK / PK against Blue and a PK agianst red. We are coming back for the second trumping the first So PK against RED.

Please re-reread the thread. I didn't say he has been conned!

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.

So the Blue player is aggrieved

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.

As the blue feels aggrieved, he complained, he will also likely feel conned

And your second point is exactly why I suggested keeping an eye out for afters.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Of course you always have an eye for afters in ANY situation. But we still play advantage!

The Blue player is wrong in law. He may feel agrieved that you call a forward pass. That he might do so (withpout any justification) is not a reason not to play advantage.

 

[Dickie E]

Play advanatge if appropriate. At the stoppage have a strong word or Yellow card are appropriate. Same
effect and the non-offending side have not been "punished" too!

Avoid using the whistle if you can.

Presumably if you pull a card you'd have to upgrade to a PK too. Or not?

 

[Volun-selected]

As the blue feels aggrieved, he complained, he will also likely feel conned

Doesn’t every player who’s interpretation of the Law failed to align with the ref’s feel aggrieved, cheated, and generally hard done by?

 

[BikingBud]

Doesn’t every player who’s interpretation of the Law failed to align with the ref’s feel aggrieved, cheated, and generally hard done by?

Absolutely!

"What me ref? No way!" and you smile at them as you move on and provide a little advice if they keep pressing.

But I was at that stage responding to the query that had been asked:

Who has been "conned"?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Absolutely!

"What me ref? No way!" and you smile at them as you move on and provide a little advice if they keep pressing.

But I was at that stage responding to the query that had been asked:

Which was in reply to you duggesting somone might feel that way. "
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."

The game is full of such moments. If we start to inhibit advantage because "there might be a reaction" we are in for a crap game.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Presumably if you pull a card you'd have to upgrade to a PK too. Or not?

Not in every case. advantage played and try scored. Just issue the card. Why would you come back for a PK?

 

[Dickie E]

Not in every case. advantage played and try scored. Just issue the card. Why would you come back for a PK?

It would be unusual to pull a card in that situation.
But if there was no advantage, would you award a FK along with a card?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It would be unusual to pull a card in that situation.
But if there was no advantage, would you award a FK along with a card?

If there is an offence worthy of a card then I will issue a card irrespective of advantage being over. If no advantage is the call then, of course we go back for both the sanction and any appropriate card). At the top level, I agree, they rarely give a card if a ty is scored. I never understand why they don't.

 

[Dickie E]

Ok. To be clearer then, can you see a situation where you pull a card along with a FK restart or would the card require you to upgrade the restart to a PK?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A card would only appy where the sanction was to be a PK for me either as a first offence or for repeated FK offences.

 

[BikingBud]

Which was in reply to you duggesting somone might feel that way. "
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."

The game is full of such moments. If we start to inhibit advantage because "there might be a reaction" we are in for a crap game.

Yes of course!

I feel like I'm explaining to my wife

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes of course!

I feel like I'm explaining to my wife

So why did you introduce the notion?

I am getting the same feeling!

 

[smeagol]

So, I had the “defender cynically preventing a QTI inside the 5m channel” happen not once, but twice today at the same 7s event.

First time (pool play), defender blatantly illegally blocked a legal QTI before I had a chance to manage. YC, and afterwards the player admitted to knowingly doing it to prevent a likely try.

Second time (semifinal), I attempted to manage, but the offender was still dancing around to block the QTI. PK at the 15m

 

[Dickie E]

First time (pool play), defender blatantly illegally blocked a legal QTI before I had a chance to manage. YC, and afterwards the player admitted to knowingly doing it to prevent a likely try.

If a try was likely, did you consider a PT?

 

[Dickie E]

Second time (semifinal), I attempted to manage, but the offender was still dancing around to block the QTI. PK at the 15m

Why not a FK?

 

[didds]

Why not a FK?

1) Fks are useless
2) acts contrary is a PK innit ? ;-)