Quick Throws and Sin Bin Returns

[Bryan]

A recent discipline decision report prompted me to look at an interesting management issue with regards to quick throw-ins and players returning from the sin bin.

How would you manage the following:

1. A player is in the sin bin, but his time is about to expire. During the next phase of play, the 10 minutes does expire.
2. The ball is kicked into touch and a player takes a quick throw to put the ball back into play.

Would you blow your whistle to prevent the quick-throw from occuring and allow the sin-binned player to return to the field of play, or would you allow the Quick-throw to play and wait until the next stoppage?

My own view is that this is no different from a quickly-taken penalty; there is no reason to prevent the quick-tap PK from going ahead and the player in the bin is simply going to wait for the next appropriate stoppage. I'd just be interested to hear how others would manage the situation above without going into Law.

If it has been discussed before, I'll happily redirect and merge the posts into that thread, or just delete mine entirely.

I might even submit a question to the Biltong-lovers of the world to see what they reckon...

 

[crossref]

is there another option -- to allow the quick throw and at the same time also give the nod to the the binned player to return to pitch.

 

[OB..]

Would you blow your whistle to prevent the quick-throw from occuring and allow the sin-binned player to return to the field of play, or would you allow the Quick-throw to play and wait until the next stoppage?

Allow the QT.

The sin binned payer requires the referee's permission. The QT doesn't.

is there another option -- to allow the quick throw and at the same time also give the nod to the the binned player to return to pitch.

I'm not in favour. The other team is surely entitled to be clear that the player has returned.

Standard procedure is for the referee to call the player back on and remind him of his position now.

 

[DrSTU]

Tricky one. If they score off the QT then it's going to be claimed that the extra defender would have made the difference.

normal weekend

Personally, if I had been asked when the YC player could return and I said "next dead ball" then I'd stop it and let the player return. If no one had asked I'd let it play out and then bring the player on at the next "dead ball".

When I have ARs and a number 4

I'd expect the number 4 to have told the player their time was ending and to prepare to return. I would stop the QT to allow the player to return as the ball is dead. I'm not keen on making a rod for my own back if the attacking team did score off the QT.

CAVEAT

I have no grounding in law for this. This is simply how I would deal with the situation. Thanks for making that clear in your original post Bryan; it should make things much easier.

 

[Davet]

Agree with OB.

 

[Dixie]

This is a great question! The law is very unclear (unsatisfactorily so) about how the period of suspension ends. Law 3.11b is the best we can do:

[LAWS](b) A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.[/LAWS]

OB and Davet feel that the offender's permissive "right" to return is outweighed by their opponents' absolute right to play the ball. While this is a superficially attractive point of view, it does rather depend upon the referee having a right to refuse to allow the offender back onto the pitch once his time has been served. For myself, I take the view that there are many Laws that indicate the referee has no such right. The player was suspended for 10 minutes, served 10 minutes, the ball was dead and I take the view that the referee has to pay attention to the contest for the ball. It may be another 10 minutes until the ball next becomes dead; requiring one side to play with one fewer players is a huge disadvantage, and cannot be seen as comparable to the relatively trivial advantage to be obtained by the election to take a QT.

I'd pull it back and allow the offender back on. I'm pretty sure that elite referees would do the same (though Sod's Law indicates that while I've been t[ping this,Bryan has posted an instruction from PoB to allow the QT).

 

[tim White]

I suspect it would depend on me blowing the whistle before the QT to allow the player back on. If they throw the ball before I blow the whistle we play it out without the returning player.

It would seem logical, Captain (I believe James T Kirk out-ranks POB)

 

[Dixie]

It would seem logical, Captain (I believe James T Kirk out-ranks POB)

But I don't think Mr Spock does.

 

[Bryan]

I'd expect the number 4 to have told the player their time was ending and to prepare to return. I would stop the QT to allow the player to return as the ball is dead. I'm not keen on making a rod for my own back if the attacking team did score off the QT.

Would your approach be the same in 7s?

 

[ddjamo]

personally I try to find ever single little reason to NOT blow the whistle when I am out there....too bad for the binned player...play on...QT is good.

 

[beckett50]

I go with OB because the ball is not dead.

Would you all stop a quick tap to allow the player to return?

 

[crossref]

hmm..still quite like the idea of allowing the qt AND the player back on...

If you want to talk to him .. Well we commonly wait for ball to go dead to talk to player. Not a great reason to keep him off the pitch , not to stop the qt

nod to player, loud call 'yc over'

 

[Davet]

I suspect it would depend on me blowing the whistle before the QT to allow the player back on. If they throw the ball before I blow the whistle we play it out without the returning player.

It would seem logical, Captain (I believe James T Kirk out-ranks POB)

Ball goes into touch you must blow the whistle.

The QT is a restart, not a continuation. You blowing the whistle does not place a hold on the QT.

Yes the ball was dead when it went into touch - but if there were a tap PK we wouldn't let the bin return if they tapped and went, why a QT?

 

[DrSTU]

See, I'm seeing the player down as being a large disadvantage to the defending team and (almost) everyone else is seeing it as an advantage to the attacking team.

The person has "served" their time and the ball is dead as is it in touch (I wouldn't stop a quick tap as there's something inherently different about penalising the attack through denying them quick ball at a penalty vs from a ball in touch) so yes, I think I would do the same thing in 7s.

Would your approach be the same in 7s?

 

[DrSTU]

I'm seeing the QT differently to the tap as the QT isn't due to a teams "cheating" and therefore, they aren't gaining from their "cheating". I think the ball is "dead" differently in the two examples :drool:

Ball goes into touch you must blow the whistle.

The QT is a restart, not a continuation. You blowing the whistle does not place a hold on the QT.

Yes the ball was dead when it went into touch - but if there were a tap PK we wouldn't let the bin return if they tapped and went, why a QT?

 

[Dickie E]

I would likely favour the most "enthusiastic" team.

If the sin-bin return was on the touchline ready to go and the throwing team were dicking around I'd probably stop play and bring the player back on.

If sin-bin return was still taking off his tracksuit and thrower had ball in hand ready to throw, I'd likely tell #4 (or AR) to wait til next breakdown.

 

[Drift]

is there another option -- to allow the quick throw and at the same time also give the nod to the the binned player to return to pitch.

Not a fan of that, I like to stop time when a YC is returning and talk to the player if it was for foul play and if it was for repeat infringements then I like to talk to the captain to put the onus on him to ensure discipline is kept.

 

[Drift]

See, I'm seeing the player down as being a large disadvantage to the defending team and (almost) everyone else is seeing it as an advantage to the attacking team.

The person has "served" their time and the ball is dead as is it in touch (I wouldn't stop a quick tap as there's something inherently different about penalising the attack through denying them quick ball at a penalty vs from a ball in touch) so yes, I think I would do the same thing in 7s.

Why wouldn't you "reward" the positive play of the QT? I am happy to let the QT happen and the YC player comes on next stoppage.

 

[DrSTU]

They've had their reward of the player being off the pitch for the last 10 mins. Once that has elapsed and the ball is dead the player should return. I don't view it as rewarding one team but punishing the the other.

Why wouldn't you "reward" the positive play of the QT? I am happy to let the QT happen and the YC player comes on next stoppage.

 

[Drift]

They've had their reward of the player being off the pitch for the last 10 mins. Once that has elapsed and the ball is dead the player should return. I don't view it as rewarding one team but punishing the the other.

I understand where you are coming from, I don't think I would stop the QT especially if a player caught the ball on the full and threw it in straight away before I could call time off.