Quick Line-out question

[vidiego]

So...this happened to me last weekend:
Penalty to blue on his own 22, fly-half proceeded to kick for touch but the ball goes really high and short, blue wing saw that and chased the ball (he was on-side, nothing illegal there), the ball finally goes over the plane of touch near midfield, wing who was chasing the ball caught it clean outside the field of play and threw a quick line-out. The ball traveled 5m, but he was in in front of the mark of touch, so I blew the whistle and we played a "normal" line-out...
All this scenario makes me wonder, can he play a kick line out there? Nothing in the laws make me think other wise, but for some reason looks wrong.

 

[ianh5979]

You are correct, a quick throw has to be taken on the line of touch or behind it

 

[Locke]

I agree that a quick line out after a kick for touch from a penalty feels strange, presumably because it happens infrequently since the kicking team rarely sends more than one chaser and the opposing team’s natural set up usually makes a quick line out an unattractive option. But there’s nothing in the laws prohibiting the quick line out here, provided all the conditions of 18.4 and 18.5 are met. As you identified, the player threw the ball from in front of the mark of touch, so 18.4.a is not satisfied.

One thing to note, the sanction for taking a quick throw from in front of the mark of touch is choice of a line out or scrum to the opposition. I wasn’t clear from your post if the “normal” line out went to the the team who attempted the quick line out or to the opposition.

 

[crossref]

I have often there is a potential move here on a PK 5m out, .. PK to touch and then QTI

 

[didds]

I have often there is a potential move here on a PK 5m out, .. PK to touch and then QTI

I think it may be a difficult one to get working, without any danger of the oppo snaffling the ball before it goes "dead" - but worthy of some consideration

 

[Diego]

I agree that a quick line out after a kick for touch from a penalty feels strange, presumably because it happens infrequently since the kicking team rarely sends more than one chaser and the opposing team’s natural set up usually makes a quick line out an unattractive option. But there’s nothing in the laws prohibiting the quick line out here, provided all the conditions of 18.4 and 18.5 are met. As you identified, the player threw the ball from in front of the mark of touch, so 18.4.a is not satisfied.

One thing to note, the sanction for taking a quick throw from in front of the mark of touch is choice of a line out or scrum to the opposition. I wasn’t clear from your post if the “normal” line out went to the the team who attempted the quick line out or to the opposition.

Honestly, I'll manage this situation and give the same team the normal line-out instead scrum to the opposite team

 

[crossref]

Honestly, I'll manage this situation and give the same team the normal line-out instead scrum to the opposite team

why, though, because it's surprising?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree that a quick line out after a kick for touch from a penalty feels strange, presumably because it happens infrequently since the kicking team rarely sends more than one chaser and the opposing team’s natural set up usually makes a quick line out an unattractive option. But there’s nothing in the laws prohibiting the quick line out here, provided all the conditions of 18.4 and 18.5 are met. As you identified, the player threw the ball from in front of the mark of touch, so 18.4.a is not satisfied.

One thing to note, the sanction for taking a quick throw from in front of the mark of touch is choice of a line out or scrum to the opposition. I wasn’t clear from your post if the “normal” line out went to the the team who attempted the quick line out or to the opposition.

Is it? Not according to the Laws

Law 18 f Lineout Options

The opposition only get options when the incorrect throw was at the mark of touch (the place where the lineout took place), or in the case of a quick throw, behind the mark of touch e.g. not 5m, not straight, player with feet fully in field of play. When you disallow a quick throw for any other reason such as not in the right place, or wrong ball, or ball touched by another player, the original team gets to throw into the lineout.

The clue here is where the new lineout takes place. In any one of the four options above, only the second one allows the lineout to be formed in a place other then where the player took the quick throw. If you are going to award options, you will have to do so at the place where the quick thrown was taken, NOT the mark of touch. That could give the offending team a considerable territorial advantage.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I'd say that was a fair decision and manage it.
The attacking winger was probably guessing where the mark of touch was, as was everybody else, so I would not be looking to penalise positive play..
I'd manage it saying the mark of touch wasn't obvious restart attacking line.

 

[Dickie E]

The opposition only get options when the incorrect throw was at the mark of touch (the place where the lineout took place), or in the case of a quick throw, behind the mark of touch e.g. not 5m, not straight, player with feet fully in field of play. When you disallow a quick throw for any other reason such as not in the right place, or wrong ball, or ball touched by another player, the original team gets to throw into the lineout.

At a quick throw, the ball is thrown in:
Between the mark of touch and the thrower’s own goal line; and
Parallel to or towards the thrower’s own goal line; and
So that it reaches the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player; and
By a player whose feet are both outside the field of play.

Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.

Ian, I read it differently. Bold is mine

 

[Locke]

@Ian_Cook , believe it is law 18.5 that covers a “disallowed” quick throw.

I apparently don’t know how to use the forum’s features to paste the law as a quote or in a separate box or else I’d do it. But 18.4 has a clear sanction and law 18.5 uses the word “disallowed”, which should be covered by the table you included.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I question the premise based on what I see done in practice.
I personally have never seen a referee award options when a player (who was entitled to) took the quick thrown in the wrong place, and I think I would remember because it would be such a WTF moment. It has always been a case of coming back for a lineout correct place with the same team throwing in.

Same applies when a player takes a quick tap too far off the mark or in front of it. Do you ever see a referee award a scrum to the opposition for that? I never have.

 

[Dickie E]

Same applies when a player takes a quick tap too far off the mark or in front of it. Do you ever see a referee award a scrum to the opposition for that? I never have.

nor should you. That one got tidied up in Law 20 a few years ago. My bold

A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken.

 

[Diego]

why, though, because it's surprising?

Because is more about managing the game than punishing the player

 

[crossref]

Because is more about managing the game than punishing the player

perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you meant you'd disallow the QTI, and was asking why, as it seems to be legal.

 

[Diego]

perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you meant you'd disallow the QTI, and was asking why, as it seems to be legal.

Ho..on the OP scenario the player was in front of the mark of touch

 

[crossref]

Ho..on the OP scenario the player was in front of the mark of touch

yes, but his question was really whether a team can kick a PK for touch, and then take a QTI ...

which is something I have never seen, and I am sure would be disputed if it happened, but seems to me to be legal

 

[Diego]

I

yes, but his question was really whether a team can kick a PK for touch, and then take a QTI ...

which is something I have never seen, and I am sure would be disputed if it happened, but seems to me to be legal

I believe the QTI is allowed on a penalty (nothing on the law says otherwise) but on the OP the referee disallowed the QTI because the player was in front of the mark of touch

 

[Volun-selected]

I question the premise based on what I see done in practice.
I personally have never seen a referee award options when a player (who was entitled to) took the quick thrown in the wrong place, and I think I would remember because it would be such a WTF moment. It has always been a case of coming back for a lineout correct place with the same team throwing in..

I only ref down in the weeds and don’t see that many QTI. When I do, it’s usually a defending wing tearing back and just due to the angle of the kick and their momentum they invariably end up (usually well) behind the mark of touch and it’s just a case of were they outside the pitch and did it go 5. (There’s only one, highly prized ‘match’ ball in play at any time - the back-up is safe in the home coach’s bag - so they never have chance to use the wrong ball. And if it gets kicked into the woods/car park/municipal dump/swamp next to the pitch there is a mad scramble from the home team to rescue the precious.)

For this scenario, I have no issue with blue chasing the PK and then taking the QTI (whether planned or not).

However, assuming the PK was taken correctly then the QTI is an unrelated event and should be reffed separate from the PK. If the chaser throws in on the wrong side of the mark of touch then to me that is an incorrect QTI, not a disallowed one - so that would be a lineout or scrum to the oppo. Same if they’d been on the right side but didn’t throw 5 or stepped into the field.

So, the QTI after PK is fine - just get the QTI right or you’re going to lose possession, positive play or not … same as any other QTI.