Quick throw

[jcas1403]

I am just watching a recording of the Worcester v Bath game tonight. Just noticed the Bath winger taking a quick throw in to himself, no way did the ball pass the 5M mark before he re-caught the ball..... should the line out be brought back and Worecester get the throw?

 

[ckuxmann]

If this is the case, then yes it should be brought back and Worecester get the choice of scrum/LO, at the point of the QT.

 

[Dixie]

I believe the correct sanction is FK to opposition on the 15m line - the winger actively prevented the ball travelling 5m.

 

[ckuxmann]

I believe the correct sanction is FK to opposition on the 15m line - the winger actively prevented the ball travelling 5m.

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form.

(e) At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5-metre line along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a lineout where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the lineout, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.

Which I think you may be confusing with:
(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line


Cody

 

[SimonSmith]

I could be wrong Cody, but I suspect that Dixie may know that.

You may want to check both your Ironymeter and the sarchasm

 

[chopper15]

I am just watching a recording of the Worcester v Bath game tonight. Just noticed the Bath winger taking a quick throw in to himself, no way did the ball pass the 5M mark before he re-caught the ball..... should the line out be brought back and Worecester get the throw?

Since when did the LoG require that a QT has to 'pass the 5m mark'?

19.2 (e) requires the ball to travel ' at least 5m . . . behind the line of touch'.

PS. with this new layout how do I select a grinning icon and italicised text when using my iPad, please?

 

[ckuxmann]

19.2(e) At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres TO THE 5-METRE LINE along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player.

 

[OB..]

Since when did the LoG require that a QT has to 'pass the 5m mark'?

19.2 (e) requires the ball to travel ' at least 5m . . . behind the line of touch'.

You have tried arguing this one before. Why bring it up again? Your law quote is incomplete.[LAWS]Law 19.2 (e) [...] if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5 metre line along or behind the line of touch [...][/LAWS]

 

[chopper15]

Come off it you two, you know as well as I do the wording allows the ball to be thrown 'at least 5m' to that section of the 5m line that is further along 'in the direction of the opposition's goal-line'. I was just reminding you that refs' interpretation ignores it.

And if you read my PS, my comment would've had a grinning icon if I knew how to conjure one up with this new format.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Come off it you two, you know as well as I do the wording allows the ball to be thrown 'at least 5m' to that section of the 5m line that is further along 'in the direction of the opposition's goal-line'. I was just reminding you that refs' interpretation ignores it.

And if you read my PS, my comment would've had a grinning icon if I knew how to conjure one up with this new format.

Like this :biggrin:

That's colonbiggrincolon

 

[chopper15]

That's colonbiggrincolon. :biggrin: . . . got it. Thanks, Lee. :clap: . . . but I had to change the sites format to get the choice.

 

[Dixie]

You have tried arguing this one before. Why bring it up again? Your law quote is incomplete.[LAWS]Law 19.2 (e) [...] if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5 metre line along or behind the line of touch [...][/LAWS]

Come off it you two, you know as well as I do the wording allows the ball to be thrown 'at least 5m' to that section of the 5m line that is further along 'in the direction of the opposition's goal-line'. I was just reminding you that refs' interpretation ignores it.

And if you read my PS, my comment would've had a grinning icon if I knew how to conjure one up with this new format.

Chopper, Robbie is actively working to try to restore the bold, italic, underline, hyperlink etc capability in the reply function, so it's not just your iPad that is affected.

I don't believe that your argument on this point has any merit following the change to the law. Before it was amended to read as OB quotes it above, there was genuine doubt about whether a QT that travelled 5m but failed to cross the 5m was acceptable; now, I can't see any doubt, given the wording quoted above. The abll must travel AT LEAST 5m to the 5m line. The shortest distance it could travel to that line is 5m; by saying it has to travel AT LEAST 5m to the line the lawmakers have acted specifically to close the loophole you originally identified.

Cody, I didn't confuse the two provisions, but just as there is doubt about what to do with a lineout participant who takes the ball inside the tramlines and thereby prevents it travelling 5m, there is similar doubt here. Since I started playing the game in 1974, it has consistently been the case that a player who takes a QT to himself and catchs the ball inside the 5m channel is sanctioned by a FK. In all the upheaval regarding the amendments to the QT laws, I've not seen anything that asserts that this should change (or has been changed). In light of that, I reiterate my view that the answer to the OP's question is: FK to non-throwing side rather than the retake with turnover.

 

[ckuxmann]

The biggest thing is that he isn't actively preventing the throw going 5, I see prevent as being deliberate, whereas the man catching throwing it to himself just didn't throw it well, but if it was deliberate, then I'd be thinking FK

 

[OB..]

Come off it you two, you know as well as I do the wording allows the ball to be thrown 'at least 5m' to that section of the 5m line that is further along 'in the direction of the opposition's goal-line'. I was just reminding you that refs' interpretation ignores it.

If you are asserting that the ball does not need to reach the 5m line as long as it travels 5m, your interpretation of the law is wrong. Smilies or not.

 

[chopper15]

I don't believe that your argument on this point has any merit following the change to the law.

Dixie, of course it has merit. :hap:

Before the QT law was introduced the LoG merely required the ball to travel at least 5m along the LoT.

For convenience refs understandably used the 5m line as a convenient reference (ie. not an interpretation) should a 'quick straight' throw be taken . . . then 'twas no problem.

Introduction of the QT law which allows the ball to be thrown diagonally back still only required that the ball 'travel at least 5m' and, as before, no mention of having to reach or cross the 5 line.

Refs have now used a convenient reference as a 'learned' interpretation without as much as a by your leave to the law lords for clarification. The ball can travel more than 5m diagonally back and not reach or cross the 5m line and be within the law, yet refs will still rule it unlawful thinking that the once 'convenient reference' is the 'official' interpretation.

 

[ckuxmann]

Maybe back when you played that was the case but now it isn't, now it's in law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Since when did the LoG require that a QT has to 'pass the 5m mark'?

19.2 (e) requires the ball to travel ' at least 5m . . . behind the line of touch'.

PS. with this new layout how do I select a grinning icon and italicised text when using my iPad, please?

Selective quoting chopper :nono:

[LAWS]LAW 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(e) At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5-metre line along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a lineout where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the lineout, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.[/LAWS]

Is there something about the phrase "to the 5-metre line" that escapes you?

 

[OB..]

:deadhorse:

 

[chopper15]

Selective quoting chopper :nono:

[LAWS]LAW 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(e) At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5-metre line along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a lineout where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the lineout, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.[/LAWS]

Is there something about the phrase "to the 5-metre line" that escapes you?

8m throw angled back to the 5m line. Is there something about that phrase that escapes you (and OB:hap, Ian?

Pre and post QT there is no requirement that the ball has 'to reach or cross the 5m line', yet refs not only won't allow that 8m back throw but won't even bother to seek clarification now that it really matters.:sad:

 

[Ian_Cook]

:deadhorse:

Yup!!