QTI scenario

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
This is scenario 2 as mentioned in post 31 and replied to by DickieE. r.

No.. and its important difference.. was there actually a throw , or not

There are two key questions

1 does the thrower actually have to throw it, at the blocker, for the blocker to be penalised ? Or will you penalise the blocker when he is successful in preventing even the atrempt at a throw (tjr thrower gives up)

2 when yii do sanctiin, which is better a FK or a PK
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
No.. and its important difference.. was there actually a throw , or not

There are two key questions

1 does the thrower actually have to throw it, at the blocker, for the blocker to be penalised ? Or will you penalise the blocker when he is successful in preventing even the atrempt at a throw (tjr thrower gives up)

2 when yii do sanctiin, which is better a FK or a PK

For me there is a bit more of a need to read the game. Preventing the throw is a PK offence, so as I said standing in front of the thrower like a goalie and I am going to PK whether the ball is thrown or not. If a player is in the 5 heading to the lineout and the ball is thrown, then if it hits him I am thinking FK, but I may also play advantage. It may even not be material assuming that the ball gets to a thrower's team mate and they play on.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI and

Someone raised the point about a thrower (QTI) throwing the ball towards a player in the tramlines even though he had no team mates to throw the ball to. He doesn't need a team mate to be in a position to catch the ball. He can throw the ball to himself.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,397
Post Likes
1,510
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI and

Someone raised the point about a thrower (QTI) throwing the ball towards a player in the tramlines even though he had no team mates to throw the ball to. He doesn't need a team mate to be in a position to catch the ball. He can throw the ball to himself.

Wasn't that in fact his second yellow?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,135
Post Likes
2,407
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI

I had to speak to a spectator for doing this last weekend. Reached over the barrier and touched his hand on top of the ball just as the player went to pick it up. Quietly told him if he did it again he would have to watch the rest of the game from inside the clubhouse.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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.

If you use this logic, every squint scrum feed would be a penalty.

Acknowledgement to the poster that previously pointed this out.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
If you use this logic, every squint scrum feed would be a penalty.
That shows the folly of trying to be too logical.

I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).

Generally speaking crooked throw-ins at lineouts are not considered to be deliberate, so you need evidence of intention.

The player I referred to is clearly acting illegally and intentionally.
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
718
Post Likes
234
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
That shows the folly of trying to be too logical.

I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).

Generally speaking crooked throw-ins at lineouts are not considered to be deliberate, so you need evidence of intention.

The player I referred to is clearly acting illegally and intentionally.

If a crooked line out is not deliberate, how come 95% favournthe throwing in team?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).

Be that as it may, the fact is that squint scrum feeds never end up as penalties eventhough the SH is "clearly acting illegally and intentionally."

And the "don't be too logical and just take my word for it" comment is ... odd.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
442
Post Likes
92
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Last weekend the 18yr old 9 of one team would dart went across touchline and handle the ball thinking he'd prevented the opposition from taking a QTI.

Ref - FK & "you've no business touching the ball"

2nd time he did it
ref - PK & " I told you you can't do that"

at the subsequent line out
9 -"all I'm trying to do ref is stop them taking a quick throw" -
Ref -"I know I replied, and you aren't permitted to"

9"- what can I do to stop them taking one then?"
ref - "nothing, other than keep the ball in play, or stand 5m in & dissuade the thrower from lobbing it , OR catch their throw !"

after match, we chat, he says his coach told him to do it & he does it every week and no other ref ever fk/pk's him.

:shrug:
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
VM75,

18.3 tells us:

[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]

but is there a law preventing the #9 doing what he did?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
Last weekend the 18yr old 9 of one team would dart went across touchline and handle the ball thinking he'd prevented the opposition from taking a QTI.

Ref - FK & "you've no business touching the ball"

2nd time he did it
ref - PK & " I told you you can't do that"

at the subsequent line out
9 -"all I'm trying to do ref is stop them taking a quick throw" -
Ref -"I know I replied, and you aren't permitted to"

9"- what can I do to stop them taking one then?"
ref - "nothing, other than keep the ball in play, or stand 5m in & dissuade the thrower from lobbing it , OR catch their throw !"

after match, we chat, he says his coach told him to do it & he does it every week and no other ref ever fk/pk's him.

:shrug:

We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?
[LAWS]18.5
  • A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:
    • [...]
    • The ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the player who carried the ball into touch; or
[/LAWS]
For me this implicitly allows the opponents to touch the ball and thereby prevent a QTI. A classic example is an opponent standing in touch to catch the ball.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
442
Post Likes
92
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?

CrossRef
Yes, "Option" should always apply to the team that's been offended against.

Dickie E,
the wide [game continuance quickly] permissions of a QTI should prevail, I can't imagine that 18.5 was written with the expectation that 'prevention' of a QTI could be achieved by a uninvolved player disabling a QTI opportunity in that way.

It's clearly gamesmanship [or unsporting] to do so, and in the age of a shrinking law book provision needs to retained to not allow opponents to curtail lawful activity in such a way.

I'd like to think most referees would agree, & also uphold those values.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
For me its not clearly gamesmanship, nor unsporting.
But happy to accept that most refs seem to think it is
 

VM75

Player or Coach
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
442
Post Likes
92
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
[LAWS]18.5
  • A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:
    • [...]
    • The ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the player who carried the ball into touch; or
[/LAWS]
For me this implicitly allows the opponents to touch the ball and thereby prevent a QTI. A classic example is an opponent standing in touch to catch the ball.

So,

Red player carries the ball into touch, releases it immediately [to allow the possibility of a 18.3 QTI for his opponents GREEN] which the game seems to want to promote [ie a specific law was written to speed up the ball back in play]

& rather than 18.5.b preventing the coach or a spectator [others] from handling/moving or kicking the ball, you want a non throwing player to be able to nullify the opportunity for the QTI to happen by interfering in some way [or merely touching the ball]

18.5.b is poorly worded, and I suspect it intended to deal with interventions of the 'others' , not to permit players to nullify bonafide QTI opportunities.

least that's my interpretation, & it makes little 'sporting' sense to interpret otherwise IMHO.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
VM, I think you have confused yourself a bit , and are reffing according to what you think is 'sporting' , rather than to the actual Laws

In post 52 you gave a FK and then a PK , but what is the actual offence , do you think, to justify those sanctions?

I reckon you might actually be going out on a bit of a limb.
As you say yourself neither the player, nor his coach, nor any other ref he has ever had , seemed to have considered what he did to be against the Law . ? "No other ref has ever FK or PK him " Only you ?
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
an interesting parallel:

Red player dots down for a 22 drop out and shapes to kick the ball to a team mate on 22 for a quick restart. Blue player prevents this by taking ball out of Red player's hands. Has an offence been committed?
 
Top