Quick throw - who the ball touches ...

[PeterH]

I have just read the thread on the "hands on ball" and was wandering around the web sites before I go off the AR i the Lancs Cup later today when I saw this...

http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/super14/news/2340090.htm

The key bit is the AR copping it on the chin for "Williamson allowed Crusaders halfback Andy Ellis to take a quick throw-in despite the ball being touched by Hurricanes players and replacements." They scored from this QT.

Is it the replacements touching the ball cos surely the oppo players are allowed to have touched the ball for a QT to be allowed...

 

[OB..]

Law 19.2 (d)
For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is
not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and
an opponent who carried it into touch. The same team throws into the lineout.

There is only that one exception for the opponent who carried it in.

 

[Adam]

If the replacements have moved towards the ball and touched it on purpose to disallow the QT then I think equity would trump law and I would permit the QT.

I had this on Sunday, luckily they didn't want to take a QT so it gave me time to severely bollock the person who'd stuck his foot out on purpose to prevent the QT.

 

[Davet]

so it gave me time to severely bollock the person who'd stuck his foot out on purpose to prevent the QT.

On what grounds?

What action would you take if he did it again?

 

[Simon Thomas]

If the replacements have moved towards the ball and touched it on purpose to disallow the QT then I think equity would trump law and I would permit the QT.

I had this on Sunday, luckily they didn't want to take a QT so it gave me time to severely bollock the person who'd stuck his foot out on purpose to prevent the QT.

where was the replacement standing ?

outside rope barrier ? inside technical area ? somewhere else ?

 

[Dixie]

On what grounds?

What action would you take if he did it again?

where was the replacement standing ?

outside rope barrier ? inside technical area ? somewhere else ?

AJ Carter referees at L.11-ish, if memory serves. Therefore, the sub was (by definition) on the touchline.

As to action he might take, the threat of suspending the game until rope and supports can be found, allowing all non-participants to be behind said rope, coupled with a complaint to the CB about the club's non-compliance with RFU regulations, may be overkill. But hey - a bit of melodrama never goes amiss in community-level reffing.:wink:

 

[Dickie E]

I think equity would trump law and I would permit the QT.

I would suggest that you take other action such as a YC but don't let the QT happen.

 

[Davet]

YC whom - the sub on the sideline? The coach, the spectator...

For what?

 

[Adam]

In my case at the weekend, it was a spectator who touched the ball on purpose. As Dixie says, there was no barrier, or rope as this was an U16 Friendly match. I should have insisted in a rope as for Cup matches they have no problem putting one up.

My reasoning behind it was that the spectator has moved towards the ball to prevent the QT. It would have been different if he was moving away from the ball and it had touched him due to luck of the bounce etc. I believed that this was unfair on the other team as I believed that some unsportsmanlike conduct had occured to prevent the QT. It therefore seemed equitable (if the situation arose) to allow the QT.

My stance may not be correct in law, but in my mind at least it seemed equitable.

 

[Davet]

Are spectators required to be sportsmanlike?

If they whistle at a kick and it misses do you allow re-kick?

Be careful of imposing your personal morals on the game.

 

[OB..]

My stance may not be correct in law, but in my mind at least it seemed equitable.

It is a slippery slope, and I would advise against stepping on to it. You do not want to find yourself judging that the action was deliberate and unsportsmanlike on some occasions, and at other times unintentional. You will probably be the only person to understand the rationale, and that will not help your authority.

 

[triage]

Are spectators required to be sportsmanlike?

If they whistle at a kick and it misses do you allow re-kick?

Be careful of imposing your personal morals on the game.

however would it also be safe to say that if a spectator deliberately stopped a quick throw in being that close to the pitch you could give him a warning that you would have him removed if he repeated such an action? The fact that he shouldn't have been that close in the first place? or am I disagreeing just for the sake of it

 

[Dixie]

Agree with Davet - spectators may broadly do as they please, subject to the laws of the land. The club, however, is responsible for ensuring that they don't ruin the game, and they are supposed to do this by keeping them away from the playing enclosure.

 

[Davet]

Go watch the ball boys in the Magners League.

Or Premiership

Or S14

Or...

Law says if ball is touched no QT, it doesn't suggest that deliberately touching it to prevent QT is unsporting.

Witnessed not long ago

Red 15 kicks for touch, Blue half charges it down, playing Red 14 onside - ball continues past him and into touch. Blue 11 steps into touch catches ball, tosses it to Red 14 who takes a quick one to his centre - <peep> "not available, touched".

Not a problem that I could see.

Though I thought it brave of Red 14 to trust the ref quite so much at that level