QTI scenario

[crossref]

Camquin , no Law covers it, but that one seems closest to the situation .. he's not really preventing the ball going 5m he is preventing the throw itself

For me, this isn't a "manage it" offence .. it's a material and deliberate offence .. so think about a PK first time.

 

[didds]

That law doesn't really fit, it's about what happens when the throw is taken

I think this one is closer .. this is about preventing a throw from being taken at all
[LAWS]. A player who carries the ball into touch must release the ball immediately so that a quick throw may be taken. Sanction: Penalty. [/LAWS]

I'm not sure how that covers a non ball carrier that hasn't been physically immediate to the ball standing in the 5m channel blocking a QTI though?

Just let people throw the ball forceably into the blockers guts/face. And PK the blocker. They won't do it again in a hurry. Ditto lazy runners.

didds

 

[crossref]

That's encouraging a flash point, though.
Refs job is to avoid flashpoints ... PK are good for that

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

If it IS a PK ( intentionally infringing ) then where is the mark for it ? The ball is out of play so is it on the 15m line presumably ?

Just read the law book and answered my own question:

[LAWS]While the ball is dead.
At the point where play would have restarted or, if that place is on the touchline or within 15 metres of it, the mark is on the 15-metre line, in line with that place.[/LAWS]

 

[Na Madrai]

Just let people throw the ball forceably into the blockers guts/face. And PK the blocker. They won't do it again in a hurry. Ditto lazy runners.

didds[/QUOTE]

And if I was a ref (which thankfully i am not sir ;-) I may consider your act at least contrary to etc, and maybe even the same as a punch.

Not a very clever idea I might suggest. It is at the very least a provocative act, and assault.

didds

04 December 2014 'Prevents a quick throw'

Mellowing over the years!!!!!:chin:


NM

 

[didds]

i think the intervening 14 years has seen me get less accepting of idiots.

I do "get" that what others say above and what I said back then is of course the case. its just tedious.

Just award a PT then and card any protests from the blocking side. That'll learn 'em.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I'd give the FK - a player is stopping the ball going 5m. If it happens a second time, PK for intentional offending.

 

[didds]

Os oft mentioned by me, aside from the award maybe being deep in the oppo 22m frankly a FK is a "win" from the blocking team's perspective. Cghance of QTI and dynamic play halted, now we get a good chance to reset defences etc. UNLESS the BC manages to race infield and tap and go - but its still lost time for defences to be getting back and into place.

 

[crossref]

I'd give the FK - a player is stopping the ball going 5m. If it happens a second time, PK for intentional offending.

But he didn't just stop the ball from going 5m , he stopped the QTI completely.

A FK is a very soft punishment for that. A ball carrier who merely delays a QTI by hanging on to the ball for a short while will get a PK (and sometimes YC)

 

[Dickie E]

But he didn't just stop the ball from going 5m , he stopped the QTI completely.

How do you get that the throw was prevented? OP says the throw was blocked to prevent going 5 metres. In the end the player throws the ball into the opponent.

What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI. In reality, there is no-one to pass to or opposition players are already covering so there is not really a QTI option but the player throws the ball into his opponent to try and gain the sanction.

 

[Decorily]

How do you get that the throw was prevented? OP says the throw was blocked to prevent going 5 metres. In the end the player throws the ball into the opponent.

I think there are 2 different scenarios being visualised here....

Scenario 1. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender, also in touch, blocks/prevents throw.
Scenario 2. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender in 5m channel blocks/prevents throw.

Either one could be the scenario referred to in the OP!

 

[Dickie E]

I think there are 2 different scenarios being visualised here....

Scenario 1. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender, also in touch, blocks/prevents throw.
Scenario 2. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender in 5m channel blocks/prevents throw.

Either one could be the scenario referred to in the OP!

I don't see it that way.

Yes, there are 2 scenarios but they are:
1. opponent PREVENTS throw (eg wraps arms around thrower) - PK
2. opponent BLOCKS throw (ie makes intentional or reckless contact with the ball after it is thrown) - FK (unless you want to play the "deliberate infringing" card)

To me, the OP is fairly clearly scenario 2

 

[crossref]

What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't see it that way.

Yes, there are 2 scenarios but they are:
1. opponent PREVENTS throw (eg wraps arms around thrower) - PK
2. opponent BLOCKS throw (ie makes intentional or reckless contact with the ball after it is thrown) - FK (unless you want to play the "deliberate infringing" card)

To me, the OP is fairly clearly scenario 2

In your #2, how can it be anything other deliberate?

 

[Rich_NL]

In your #2, how can it be anything other deliberate?

You could say the same about a squint feed at the scrum. PK every time?

The offence isn't described as something that accidentally happens; some intention is required anyway.

 

[Dickie E]

What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

remember that scale you developed:

Level 1: simple discussion for entry level refs
down to
Level 5: esoteric, angels-on-pin-head stuff

I think we're at Level 6

 

[crossref]

remember that scale you developed:

Level 1: simple discussion for entry level refs
down to
Level 5: esoteric, angels-on-pin-head stuff

I think we're at Level 6

Really ?
I thiught that was what the discussion was all about !

Zebra in post 9

What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI.

That's what I was talking abiut anyway .. and my answer is PK

 

[Phil E]

 

[OB..]

Is the defender entitled to be inside the 5m area? No.
Is he there accidentally? No.

[LAWS]9.7

• A player must not:
  • Intentionally infringe any law of the game.[...]Sanction: Penalty.

[/LAWS]

This happened in a L6 game I was assessing a few years back. We discussed it because of the arguments I had seen from others and he was surprised to learn that anybody would have decided differently. I noted this "correct decision" in his report and the SMODO did not demur.

 

[Pinky]

What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

This is scenario 2 as mentioned in post 31 and replied to by DickieE.

In response to the challenge to DickieE of why not always a PK as deliberate, there needs to be a bit more context about this. A defender might be jogging or walking in the tramlines past the player with the ball heading for the LOT to be ready to be in the lineout. Indeed if he were the hooke, he would eventually be expected to be in the tramlines, so I do not think there is anything that says he has no right to be there. Now if he happens to be hit by a QTI, then I would FK. If he stands like a goalie (wendyball) at a PK - arms up and waving, then i would PK. There is probably a spectrum, but I would not allow a team to get a penalty by throwing the ball at an opposition player.