Quick throw, interception, but.....

[Stuartg]

Blue kick the ball into touch. Gold get hold of the ball and throw in quickly, ball intercepted by blue who go on unopposed to score. Blue claim the ball had been touched by a non-player before they, blue took a quick throw. I go and check with the relevant (independent) TJ (not AR) who tells me the ball had been handled by a non-player (but not convinced he really was sure). I rule no try and go back for the throw in. Could I have played advantage? Comments please.

 

[chbg]

No. If the situation is true, the ball remains dead until thrown in to a correctly-constituted line-out.

(I assume that the third sentence should read Gold in both cases.)

 

[crossref]

I think if it's a TJ and not an AR perhaps you shouldn't consult him, because (as in this case) his answer won't necessarily help you, it just makes things more complicated.
Did you lose sight of the ball? Did you think it might have been touched

 

[Dickie E]

Could I have played advantage?

No, you have to decide if it was touched or not. Advantage is not relevant here.

In this case I'd come back for the lineout. Too many unknowns going on. Also, are you happy the Blue intercepter was onside from the kick ahead?

 

[ChuckieB]

One example where I believe you have to affirm your position as sole arbiter of fact.

is it in a refs remit to have a word with TJ's beforehand? A quick statement to the effect when handing out the flags perhaps? Might save a lot of agro down the line.

Better than a call during play politely reminding a biased TJ that you cannot take into account his opinions in respect of certain matters he might want to 'advise' you about on the state of a play. I have seen that happen.

 

[DocY]

is it in a refs remit to have a word with TJ's beforehand? A quick statement to the effect when handing out the flags perhaps? Might save a lot of agro down the line.

Not really with TJs. Their powers are limited to waving a flag when the ball goes out and even then, IME, you shouldn't rely on them. Getting them to tell you who touched the ball last is often hard enough!

 

[didds]

presuming that

Blue claim the ball had been touched by a non-player before they, blue took a quick throw

was supposed to read

Gold claim the ball had been touched by a non-player before they, gold took a quick throw

why did they even throw it in quickly then in the first place? Surely they wouldn't have been trying to cheat? Acts contrary to good sportsmanship etc?

didds

 

[Camquin]

There was a similar incident at Cambridge on Saturday, the appointed AR call a quick throw back for the thrower having a foot in play.
The incident proved pivotal, Red had "scored" from the quick throw and Black actually scored from the resulting scrum for a 14 point turn around.

Ideally a TJ who had seen that the ball had been touched before a quick throw should stand still with flag up and arm out - as instructed in Law 6.B.5 (d) Exception 3.

However, as DocY says getting them to do that is another matter.

 

[ChuckieB]

Not really with TJs. Their powers are limited to waving a flag when the ball goes out and even then, IME, you shouldn't rely on them. Getting them to tell you who touched the ball last is often hard enough!

I am aware, but I was meaning to suggest that they are advised form the off that the ref is pretty much required to disregard their "protestations" and there will be times he will overall on the few matters they are invited to involve themselves in. A moment invested will help set the tone from the outset? We brief the key players, why not the volunteer officials? Seems like a sensible approach.

I've called touch on my own side in the past when I could have let it go. I'm incorruptible! I take a lot of stick for it though,especially the one where it cost us a try.

 

[VM75]

Gold gave 'implied' validity to the interception when they executed a QTI, I say they can't deny the truth of their own actions !

 

[Dickie E]

Gold gave 'implied' validity to the interception when they executed a QTI, I say they can't deny the truth of their own actions !

there is a certain rough justice to this.

Similar to Blue score try and, unbeknownst to the ref, kicker uses a different ball for the conversion. Kick is good, kicker stays stum. Kick misses "ref, ref, I used the wrong ball. I have to take kick again"

 

[Taff]

Blue kick the ball into touch. Gold get hold of the ball and throw in quickly, ball intercepted by blue who go on unopposed to score. Blue claim the ball had been touched by a non-player before they, blue took a quick throw. I go and check with the relevant (independent) TJ (not AR) who tells me the ball had been handled by a non-player (but not convinced he really was sure). I rule no try and go back for the throw in.

... Also, are you happy the Blue interceptor was onside from the kick ahead?

Exactly. Assuming the ball had not been touched, if Blue were offside before the ball went to touch, then they have benefited from being offside, and the book tells us that shouldn't happen.

... Could I have played advantage? Comments please.

We can't play advantage after the ball has gone dead. Personally, I reckon you can play advantage before the ball goes dead and continue it while the ball is still a "zombie". Remind me, what were you playing advantage for?

 

[OB..]

there is a certain rough justice to this.

Similar to Blue score try and, unbeknownst to the ref, kicker uses a different ball for the conversion. Kick is good, kicker stays stum. Kick misses "ref, ref, I used the wrong ball. I have to take kick again"

A principle of Equity called estoppel.

 

[VM75]

there is a certain rough justice to this.

Similar to Blue score try and, unbeknownst to the ref, kicker uses a different ball for the conversion. Kick is good, kicker stays stum. Kick misses "ref, ref, I used the wrong ball. I have to take kick again"

law exists to ensure that kickers don't swap in 'more easily kicked equipment' for their own benefit.

If you're unsuccessful in your kick then you haven't benefited, the onus is on the kicker to comply with correct ball usage, failure to comply doesn't create a second opportunity.

No retake.

 

[ChuckieB]

law exists to ensure that kickers don't swap in 'more easily kicked equipment' for their own benefit.

If you're unsuccessful in your kick then you haven't benefited, the onus is on the kicker to comply with correct ball usage, failure to comply doesn't create a second opportunity.

No retake.

I really do hate to ask : (no I don't)

Question.

Does the law specifically prevent the retake for a failed kick on an incorrect ball.

I am reminded of our good friend TJP and his "no kick" quick tap penalty. He got to take it again after it got highlighted within the TMO review as an issue incidental to the main review. We might not have believed that could happen, but then it did!

In this case the kicker might have been thrown a ball from a ball boy, unbeknown to all, missed his kick and his spotter in the booth picks it up an alerts him etc....

It has to be considered in the same mould. It's certainly not highlight as an infringement.

I invite the house to discuss!

 

[VM75]

In this case the kicker might have been thrown a ball from a ball boy, unbeknown to all, missed his kick and his spotter in the booth picks it up an alerts him etc....

It has to be considered in the same mould.

I invite the house to discuss!

Ball boy's aren't required to ensure Law compliance, the player kicking is.

Post kick Spotting is too late , they've all missed that bus.