prevents a quick throw

[crossref]

I got into a touchline discussion yesterday, I was watching a game with another ref also watching and red blocked a potential blue quick throw in, by standing about 2m from touchline, directly in front of him, with arms out etc.

The blue player wanting to do the quick throw made to throw a couple of time and gave up in digust, and dropped the ball obviosuly feeling the moment had gone and his throw had been blocked and denied him

Two questions arise from this

1 - would you penalise red, or did blue actually need to make an attempted Quick Throw in (eg throw it at his chest) to create an actual offence? (we had different opinions on this)

2 - would you give a FK or a PK? (again we differed : on the one hand the Laws specifies FK (h). On the other, the offence is cynical and essentially exactly the same as (i), so perhaps a PK would be warranted)

What do you think?


[LAWS]
(h)
At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

(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[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

PK every time.

 

[crossref]

and OB. the first question: is it necessary for blue to actually attmept a throw or blue abandons the throw would you PK him anyway

 

[chrismtl]

I think the laws you posted should answer your question of what the sanction should be had he thrown the ball in. It's a FK as the red player wasn't holding onto the ball and he would have only been preventing the ball from traveling the 5m required.

As for the specific scenario, I always tell players that complain when I don't call anything in this situation (happens a couple times a year, at least) that they should just throw the ball in. If it doesn't touch the player, they get the quick throw, and if it does, then FK at the 15. A player standing 2m away from touch isn't theoretically preventing a quick throw. Now if the red player does something stupid and slaps the ball out of the blue player's hands, that becomes a whole other story, and if it's at a proper level of rugby, :noyc:

 

[RobLev]

and OB. the first question: is it necessary for blue to actually attmept a throw or blue abandons the throw would you PK him anyway

For me; PK anyway on Blue abandoning. The offence might be contrary to 19.2(h) which is only a FK, but it is in your view deliberate offending and hence is liable to sanction under 10.2(a) as a PK. If your call is that he's preventing the ball going in 5m by standing there, the ball doesn't need to hit him to prove that. It's rather like obstruction; I shouldn't be required to risk playing an oppo player without the ball to demonstrate that he's in my way. In each case insisting upon contact is creating a flashpoint where none is necessary.

 

[Ian_Cook]

FK for me....

[LAWS]"(h)
At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line"[/LAWS]

By standing 2m from touch in the way of an opponent who wants to throw the ball in, he IS actively preventing the ball being thrown in 5m. Its no different in practice from a player placing himself in front of an opponent who has just kicked the ball; the player doesn't actually have to touch the opponent to be guilty of obstruction.

I do think the Law could do with clarification....

Blocking a quick throw in: after the the ball goes into touch, and before a line-out is formed, opponents of the team who have the throw in, must not stand between the touchline and the 5m line to block a quick throw in.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15m line

 

[Stuartg]

PK all day long. Cynical and against the spirit of the game.

 

[Dickie E]

FK for me....

+1 (msf)

 

[Simon Thomas]

No matter for me if ball thrown or not, but in avoiding flashpoint perhaps best it is not thrown !

FK if referee has not shouted a preventative, fully justified in PK if he has shouted and been ignored - gamesmanship, dissent, whatever you want to justify it under.

 

[OB..]

and OB. the first question: is it necessary for blue to actually attmept a throw or blue abandons the throw would you PK him anyway

PK him anyway. It is cynical. Last time I saw it was at Level 6, and the referee had no hesitation.

 

[crossref]

well, we have supporters of all of the possible views here on this thread!

 

[SimonSmith]

PK, and no mandated throw.

The FK, for me, is for the front pod over reaching, or someone getting timing wrong, not for a cynical act of foul play. I'd do him under Law 10.

And no throw, otherwise the winger may be tempted to throw it in his face, and then you have a flashpoint.

 

[Browner]

As described, its more 10.2 intentionally offending, than 19.10 (h) preventing 5m ball travel from a LINEOUT player, the OP isn't a bonafide lineout player.

For me anyway,

interestingly when i PK such gamesmanship in my matches, i never seem to get a second instance occur ....wonder why?!!!!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

well, we have supporters of all of the possible views here on this thread!

Well I don't think we have supporters of "no offence so no sanction"


FK is what the Law says for the actual infringement, but I can see that PK could be appropriate as it is a cynical and intentional offence.


Browner

19.2 (h), not 19.10 (h)

[LAWS]19.2 (h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

Well I don't think we have supporters of "no offence so no sanction"


FK is what the Law says for the actual infringement, but I can see that PK could be appropriate as it is a cynical and intentional offence.

Sure and always will be a judgement call. Similar to early scrum engagement. Normally a FK but can escalate to PK if a charge, is dangerous, repeated, etc

 

[Dixie]

PK, and no mandated throw.

The FK, for me, is for the front pod over reaching, or someone getting timing wrong, not for a cynical act of foul play. I'd do him under Law 10.

And no throw, otherwise the winger may be tempted to throw it in his face, and then you have a flashpoint.

This almost exactly, though there is no pod to overreach.

I fully understand the position Ian takes and others follow, and it is the natural interpretation of the words the iRB Youth Trainee has adopted. I believe, however, that before they left for lunch the iRB intended to instruct her to draft a wording that meant this:

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not catch the ball before it has travelled 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

and if they'd thought of it, they would have added:

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the thrower returning the ball into play quickly.
Sanction: Penalty Kick on 15-metre line

 

[Browner]

Oops typing error !!!!!

As described, its more 10.2 intentionally offending, than 19.2 (h) preventing 5m ball travel from a LINEOUT player, the OP isn't a bonafide lineout player.

For me anyway,

interestingly, when i PK such gamesmanship in my matches, i never seem to get a second instance occur ....wonder why?!!!!!

Sorry, crossref - forgot to say.....
No, the ball doesn't have to be thrown, any act of prevention (interference) closer than the 5m line is sufficient to get a PK against your team. This stance aligns with the game wanting Quick throw ins.

Rid the game of such gamesmanship.

**************

As an aside, there is a conflict in Law for Quick Tap 'free Kick' interference 21.8 (d) says intentional interference = another FK + 10m, but 10.2(a) says PK for the same intentional offending . In such a conflict I always prefer the PK, because it advantages the non offending team & a FK to PK upgraded sanction is better IMO.

As I say, players seem to immediately get the message to desist, I've never had to give even a warning of a YC for this repeat offending.

 

[crossref]

As an aside, there is a conflict in Law for Quick Tap 'free Kick' interference 21.8 (d) says intentional interference = another FK + 10m, but 10.2(a) says PK for the same intentional offending . In such a conflict I always prefer the PK, because it advantages the non offending team & a FK to PK upgraded sanction is better IMO.
.

the mark would be in a different place -
if you give the PK then I'd say this is new offence, and the mark is where the offence took place.
otherwise if you stick with the FK you advance 10m.

in some circumstances -- if they are going to choose a quick tap or a scrum the FK might be better.

 

[Browner]

the mark would be in a different place -
if you give the PK then I'd say this is new offence, and the mark is where the offence took place.
otherwise if you stick with the FK you advance 10m.

in some circumstances -- if they are going to choose a quick tap or a scrum the FK might be better.

Best fire this into another thread , it could run for a while.

 

[OB..]

I fully understand the position Ian takes and others follow, and it is the natural interpretation of the words the iRB Youth Trainee has adopted. I believe, however, that before they left for lunch the iRB intended to instruct her to draft a wording that meant this:

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not catch the ball before it has travelled 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

and if they'd thought of it, they would have added:

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the thrower returning the ball into play quickly.
Sanction: Penalty Kick on 15-metre line

Since the thrower could throw the ball at an angle, or over the head of the opponent, he has not entirely been prevented from returning the ball into play quickly. Wouldn't it be legal for the opponent to stand on the 5m line and thus restrict the thrower's options? Not so easy this law writing business.