Quick throw

[gillburt]

Just wanted to see what others thought of this....

Team green have the throw.
QT is eligible.

Green send one man into the lineout
Purple form up with the standard seven

This is all happening pretty quickly, but not fast (i.e. slower than usual for a QT, but no slower than for a non-QT lineout)
I don't feel there an adverse delay in forming the lineout by Green either
Green then throw the ball to their fly-half.

I felt this was OK:
1. Lineout had not been formed (2+2 not satisfied)
2. Ball was elligble for the QT.

Purple thought this was taking the piss
I didn't - so played on.


Do others feel this is OK? (I know it's OK in the rules having just re-read them)
but, I'd be interested to know how long would you allow a team to form a lineout before you'd ping 'em for delaying?

I just put it down to Green being a far superior side than purple, both mentally and physically.

 

[PaulDG]

Purple thought this was taking the piss
I didn't - so played on.

Purple need to get their act in order so they don't get caught out by this again.

Play on, as you did.

 

[beckett50]

Although if Green had 2 players loitering near the LoT then oppo have a point.

Remember that the LotG refer to any player approaching the LoT is presumed to be doing so to form the line.

 

[chopper15]

I don't feel there an adverse delay in forming the lineout by Green either
..

The pertinent ques. to visualise the scenario is;

Was the FH behind/with another approaching the LoT. If he had been the nearest and stopped to have the ball thrown back to him, shouldn't that act be considered 'an adverse delay in forming the lineout'?

If he had been alone or ahead, he would have to take it on the move to the LoT to make it a lawful QT . . . Yes?

 

[Phil E]

The pertinent ques. to visualise the scenario is;

Was the FH behind/with another approaching the LoT. If he had been the nearest and stopped to have the ball thrown back to him, shouldn't that act be considered 'an adverse delay in forming the lineout'?

If he had been alone or ahead, he would have to take it on the move to the LoT to make it a lawful QT . . . Yes?

Chopper your talking gibberish. 99.

 

[gillburt]

Although if Green had 2 players loitering near the LoT then oppo have a point.

Remember that the LotG refer to any player approaching the LoT is presumed to be doing so to form the line.

Yes, see what you are getting at, BUT... until they reach the LoT, the QT is still an option, as the lineout isn't technically formed - otherwise this starts to get very quantum....
Also, what is "near".... within 10m (i.e. in the offside zone)?

EDIT: Plus I think the law you are refering to was more to stop players joining the LoT and then disappearing again to try and gain a penalty in those ancient days when equal numbers in the line did matter.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper your talking gibberish. 99.

It's, you're talking gibberish', Phil. 99.:clap:

 

[Phil E]

It's, you're talking gibberish', Phil. 99.:clap:

That would make your sentence into:

It is you are talking gibberish, Phil !

I rest my case.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

Sorry Phil - I think that's 1-0 to Chopper!

 

[Phil E]

Sorry Phil - I think that's 1-0 to Chopper!

At least he understood what I was trying to say!

 

[chopper15]

At least he understood what I was trying to say!

1-1.:hap:

 

[tim White]

I suspect this hinges on where the fly-half was standing. If he was in his usual position and a very long throw went to him then fine. If he was approaching the line of touch 'as if to be part of the line out' I would be unhappy as well.

 

[Dixie]

I would say that the Green team had successfully worked their plan, and purple need to be brighter next time. I can see where those who speak in terms of approaching the LoT are coming from, but it seems to me to risk sliding into an insoluble set of definitions - someone described it beautifully as "quantum".

Several of those advancing the LoT issue are pretty senior refs, so may well have been appointed as ARs in their time. What would their non-flag arm be doing at this point? It seems to me that the question is not where the fly half is, or where the redundant lineout players are, but whether the lineout has been formed by 2+2. If not, that arm should surely be down rather than out.

This for me raises the question: what about the receiver? Back 2m from the LoT and advancing no further, has he joined the lineout as the second person? Again, would an AR (seeing one jumper and a receiver in position), raise the non-flag arm to point to the throwing side? I don't know - help appreciated.

I had a variant of this issue on Saturday, which I'll post elsewhere to avoid hijacking this interesting thread.

 

[tim White]

It also highlights the fact that teams can work out a move on the training ground that is far too quick and clever for many refs, only to find themselves brought back for a full line. I usually ask if teams have any "Funny" moves I should know about.

 

[chopper15]

(d) When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of
touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout.

Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay.

(g) A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.



Scenario; 2+1 formed, thrower position at the LoT, and a 2nd player 8m away trotting, apparently, to join the line.

i) If he stopped and then recvd a throw back, wouldn't he violate (d)?

ii) If he didn't stop and recvd the ball on the trot, wouldn't he be OK?

iii) If the thrower was just short of the LoT and threw it to him, stopped or trotting, wouldn't that also be OK?

 

[OB..]

(d) When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of
touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout.

Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay.

(g) A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.



Scenario; 2+1 formed, thrower position at the LoT, and a 2nd player 8m away trotting, apparently, to join the line.

i) If he stopped and then recvd a throw back, wouldn't he violate (d)?

Intending to form a lineout is not the same as actually forming a lineout.

ii) If he didn't stop and recvd the ball on the trot, wouldn't he be OK?

No different.

iii) If the thrower was just short of the LoT and threw it to him, stopped or trotting, wouldn't that also be OK?

Yes.

If there is sufficient confusion, it may well be sensible refereeing to disallow the QT and declare a lineout had formed.

 

[gillburt]

Intending to form a lineout is not the same as actually forming a lineout.


No different.


Yes.

If there is sufficient confusion, it may well be sensible refereeing to disallow the QT and declare a lineout had formed.

But don't forget, if 2+(2+1) is satisfied then the ball must be thrown in straight, irrespective of players still approaching the LoT.
EDIT: Damn, was trying to get both OB's and Chopper text in the above box... blast.


The down side of the quick throw I was talking about was that it was bl**dy exhausting....

 

[chopper15]

But don't forget, if 2+(2+1) is satisfied then the ball must be thrown in straight, irrespective of players still approaching the LoT.
....

Before, with only the quick-straight-throw (QsT) available, taking it at the LoT was much too risky.

Now with the intro’ of the quick-back-throw (QbT), there needn’t be any competition at all if the thrower judges it lawfully and throws it directly back to the next approaching player - even if he’s way back.


The problem, of course, has to be, for both coaches and refs . . . if the thrower judges it lawfully,???? Shouldn’t more exacting parameters be agreed to accommodate this new law when taken at the LoT?

A melee around the LoT - with obviously enough players for 2+2 lines but not yet in position could be just one query that needs clarifying. Particularly for players and coaches. They obviously don’t appear to be au fait with taking a QbT at the LoT, ‘cause you don’t see it attempted.

If the ball had gone over the 5m line in last weeks international following that QbT - which did have such a melee, I just wonder what the decision would’ve been?

 

[gillburt]

Expanding upon this theme....

The thrower in lined up on the LoT, but 2+(2+1) isn't satisfied
A number of players from both sides are approaching the LoT

Thrower then runs down the side of the pitch and throws it to the fly-half (5m+)
Still play on?

Key difference here is the initial positioning of the thrower.
Does running down the touchline consitute leaving the lineout?

 

[OB..]

If you try to take a QT after the lineout has formed (in the referee's opinion), it does not cost you. Law 19.2 (c) says it is disallowed and you get to take the normal throw.

The thrower is not part of the lineout, so he cannot be said to leave it.