not 5 on QT

[David J.]

Watching a match last Saturday and Gold kicks to touch. Excellent Black 9 gathers and looks to take a QT. Gold 3 stands three meters from touch waving his arms. Black 9 throws and hits Gold 3 in the chest. Referee blows and awards the lineout to Black at the original LoT. Black coach and 9 unhappy, but they (and me) might be the only people on the field who understood what had happened.


My question, however, isn't about what happened, but what could have happened...

What would you have done if Gold 3 ducked and the ball went over his head and landed 6 meters from the touch line?

What if he ducked and the ball landed 4 meters from touch?

Would your answers change if Gold 3 hadn't been obviously trying to block the throw, but was obliviously standing in the tram lines?

 

[OB..]

Gold 3 is illegally trying to inhibit a QT. PK.

 

[ddjamo]

possible advantage but pk for sure

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I think it is a FK. Why PK OB and ddjamo?

Doesn't 19.2 (g) or is it (h) apply? Not sure of exact letter since ELV inserted,
At a quick throw in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown 5 metres. or (5 meters in US version)

 

[SimonSmith]

I suspect that they're applying 10.4.k - there's a difference between screwing up a lineout and stopping the ball, and preventing a quick throw knowingly and deliberately.

foul play, not a lineout offence

 

[ddjamo]

I was thinking more 10.2(a)

FK is more PC...but I think the law of the in the 5m trams is more for defending and not intentionally offending.

 

[Simon Thomas]

this sort oif blocking is 'round ball' behaviour and has no place in Rugby's Ethos & Culture. Ping the little b*stard with a PK (under 10.4 k)

 

[Dixie]

Is there a question to be asked about whether the QT was, in fact, "on"? there's no indication that there was anyone for the excellent Black 9 to throw to. Can the Gold player prevent a QT where none can reasonably take place?

Assume that Black #9 and Gold #3 are the only players in the 22. Black 9 could throw to himself, but such a throw would be high and looping, so wouldn't be prevented by Gold #3's antics - just dangerous, given Gold #3's proximity.

Given that the QT to himself was not "prevented", and that there was no-one else to receive the QT, is there not an argument that this is six of one, half a dozen of the other (i.e Gold is being a twat and is technically but not materially illegal, but black in the absence of options is trying to buy a PK or FK, and so should be ignored.

In those circumstances, I might well resort to the Black lineout on the original line of touch. That said, though, if there was a genuine QT option that Gold #3 has prevented, I'd go with the sanction, for all the reasons given above. PK or FK? I think I'd go with the PK; FK if there's a throw that doesn't cross the line for any reason, but a 10.4l PK for misconduct while the ball is out of play.

David J, you ask what might happen if the Black #9 tries to crystallise the offence by making the throw, but the ball does not go 5m (perhaps because Black doesn't want to be penalised for "unnecessary roughness", and so throws it gently at Gold #3). I think again I'd ask whether the QT was actually "on", and if it was I'd go with the PK against Gold, whose action has prevented a more meaningful QT. If not, I'd again go with the full line to Black. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Phil E]

For me the most relevant offence is:

19.2 Quick Throw In
(g) At a quick throw in, a player must not prevent the ball being
thrown in 5 metres.
Penalty: Free Kick on 15-metre line

This describes exactly what happened. While you could go with deliberately offending, you don't call that when a player goes off his feet or refuses to release the ball, you go with the relevant law. The relevant law for preventing the ball being thrown 5m is a FK.

Dixie. If Gold 3 was standing within the 5m line and waving his arms, you can gaurantee that if Black 9 throws a high ball and tries to run round him Gold 3 wil try ot prevent it in some way. However I think its irrelevant, he is preventing the throw going 5m, whether the throw was viable is not part of the law.

 

[SimonSmith]

That's a good point Phil, but one I think there could be room for debate on.

I would apply 19.2 in a situation where a player who was otherwise legitimately positioned reached into the trams and played it, thus preventing the ball traveling the requisite distance.

In our hypothetical situation, the ball is being prevented from being thrown in at all by a deliberate act of foul play.

Conceptually, I tend to see FKs (pre ELV anyway) as for 'technical' offences, and PKs as being for more serious stuff. This falls into that category. And to round this out by going back to an earlier thread, if the ball had been thrown hard into his face I would have probably let that go.

 

[OB..]

this sort oif blocking is 'round ball' behaviour and has no place in Rugby's Ethos & Culture. Ping the little b*stard with a PK (under 10.4 k)

I strongly agree.

Is there a question to be asked about whether the QT was, in fact, "on"? there's no indication that there was anyone for the excellent Black 9 to throw to. Can the Gold player prevent a QT where none can reasonably take place?

I have seen the penalty given in just those circumstances by a level 6 referee.

Why do you want to be lenient with an idiot who is clearly trying to cheat?

 

[AlanT]

So where do you give the penalty?

 

[TheBFG]

Hang on mo!

I have no issue with PK for a deliberate block of the QT :nono: (PK/YC for the professional foul if the match calls for it), but in the scenario David J describes it would appear that the #9 was “looking” for the PK by throwing it at the gold player with no intension of it being passed to his team.

Surely this is no better than the wendyball guys dying every time someone touches their highly gelled hair! :Looser:

Please let’s not go there! :Nerv:

 

[OB..]

The penalty offence occurred BEFORE the ball was thrown.

You may wish to count the throw as illegal retaliation (and speak to the player), but I would not support reversing the penalty in this case.

Throwing the ball at him demonstrates that this can become a flash point and underlines the need for firm action.

 

[Deeps]

Conceptually, I tend to see FKs (pre ELV anyway) as for 'technical' offences, and PKs as being for more serious stuff. This falls into that category.

I am with the 'ping the little b*stard brigade' too and might select 10.2 (a) Intentionally Offending as my text. SS sums it up well above; the action described is a premeditated, intentional and grossly unfair cheap shot and might even warrant a period off the field. It is the complete opposite of the Corinthian spirit which is woefully absent in the modern game.

For Alan T (Hi Alan), I would award the penalty 15 metres in and opposite where the offence took place.

 

[AlanT]

For Alan T (Hi Alan), I would award the penalty 15 metres in and opposite where the offence took place.

Hi.

I was wondering if this would be a 'where the offence took place' or a 'place of next restart'? They could be very different.

 

[Deeps]

Hi.

I was wondering if this would be a 'where the offence took place' or a 'place of next restart'? They could be very different.

The former probably applies so, under the 'Unless a Law states otherwise' clause, one could argue that as this is a line out offence the place for the resultant penalty is on the line of touch (i.e. from where the QT was taken, not the original LoT) at the 15 metre mark.

Pundits might argue that a QT is not a true line out and this does not apply however Law 19 covers both so I have no problem with the interpretation.

It would probably be better to invoke 10.4 (l) Misconduct while the ball is out of play which seems to have been written for this very situation. '...the penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart. If that place is on the touchline or within 15 metres of it, the mark for the penalty kick is on the 15 metre line, in line with that place.' Whether the ball was thrown or not is immaterial, the ball was not in play.

So, you are covered either way although I don't think there is justification for bringing the mark back to the original LoT, although of course a YC may be appropriate.

 

[chopper15]

To make any use of the ball with the required pre ELV 'straight quicky' and no team mate to receive, he would have to throw the ball over the opp’s head.

So what’s the decision for throwing the ball deliberately into an opp’s face who’s standing in front of him waving his arms, i) on the 5m line ii) over the 5m line?

And if there was a receiver behind the opp. waiting for a lofted throw, wouldn’t he be even more culpable?

Incidently, if the opp. stood in front on the 5m line would he have been obliged to step to one side to allow the thrower’s team mate to take his position for the required straight throw or were they permitted to barge one another?


Can’t resist this one; bearing in mind that the ball is required to travel at least 5m along or behind the LoT which runs from the touch-line thro’ the 5m line to the 15m line . . . remember that one, gents?.

If the game was in the SH and the thrower’s receiver was standing about 7m away back in the tramlines, do you think the opp. would be canny enough to position himself on the 5m line in front of the thrower? :hap:

 

[Deeps]

So what’s the decision for throwing the ball deliberately into an opp’s face who’s standing in front of him waving his arms, i) on the 5m line ii) over the 5m line?

i) Play on, providing the ball has travelled 5m.

ii) Play on.

These are unlikely occurrences for the opponent has plenty of opportunity to duck or play the ball, however, if the opponent is physically obstructing and therefore preventing the thrower from taking a QT then penalty kick to the thrower's team on the 15m line opposite where the restart would have occurred; YC against the opponent for wilful and deliberately offending; YC against the thrower for retaliation to the provocation.

 

[Dickie E]

had a similar issue on Saturday. I was standing on or about 15 metre line and penalised a player for interfering with the QT.

The non-offending player threw the ball towards the 15 metre line presumably for a team-mate to take a quick tap. There was no team-mate there so I stopped the ball with my foot near the mark. The non-offending team then took a tap kick.

"Farck!" thought I. "By stopping the ball I have inappropriately given one team an inequtiable & unfair advantage."

Agree?