Quick Throws and Sin Bin Returns

[DrSTU]

I agree with both sides of this and can easily see why people wouldn't stop the game. I just don't like the fact that you could have carded someone in the 69th minute and they are due to return when a QT leads to a try that "may" have been stopped by the extra defender on the pitch.

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.

 

[didds]

I just don't like the fact that you could have carded someone in the 69th minute and they are due to return when a QT leads to a try that "may" have been stopped by the extra defender on the pitch.

Absolutely.

the othetr side of the coin of course is if the stopping of the QT to allow the YC'd player to return prevents a possible try from occutring had the QT been allowed (4 on one overlaps or whatever).

didds

 

[crossref]

I just don't like the fact that you could have carded someone in the 69th minute and they are due to return when a QT leads to a try that "may" have been stopped by the extra defender on the pitch.

Absolutely.

the othetr side of the coin of course is if the stopping of the QT to allow the YC'd player to return prevents a possible try from occutring had the QT been allowed (4 on one overlaps or whatever).

didds

so... let both things happen! QT and Player returns.

the only objection seems to be that the referee would like a moment to speak to the returning player, I say: sure, but in thes particualr circumstance there's no time for that so wait for the next dead time.

Let's think of a regular ordinary game. For some reason there's somethnig you want to say to a player or captain, a warning tyou want to give, you make a mental note for next time the ball is dead.
Ball goes into touch
--great, a lineout is the perfect time for a quick word
-- but there's a QT!
Now you don't stop the game, to allow you to say your piece .. you keep it for when the ball is dead..

Same in this circumstance.
- it's not right to deny the non-offending team the QT
- it's not right to stop the YC player returning
so allow the throw, let the player come on, and have your word with him later.

(I am assuming the player is there and ready to come on instantly. If he's sitting down with his tracksuit on then he's missed his chance)

 

[OB..]

I don't view it as rewarding one team but punishing the the other.

Whatever you do will benefit one team and disadvantage the other.

On balance I favour the team that has NOT committed a YC offence.

 

[Davet]

Whatever you do will benefit one team and disadvantage the other.

On balance I favour the team that has NOT committed a YC offence.

So if Red 7 went for 10 mins, then 5 mins later Blue 8 goes to the bin?

 

[OB..]

So if Red 7 went for 10 mins, then 5 mins later Blue 8 goes to the bin?

At the moment in question, the Blue team (if I understand you right) is the one with the YC. If each side has players in the bin, I would make them all wait.

For me, the player should return at a suitable break in play. A time when the opponents are wanting to take a QT is not a suitable break. I see that as the fairest option. YMMV.

 

[Jacko]

When the 10 minutes expires, I would stop the QT and allow the player back on.

Purely from a self-protection point of view, I don't want to be defending my position if a try is scored with them still at 14 when they have a case for being back at full strength. If you disallow the QT any gripes the attacking side have are purely hypothetical, whereas a controversial try is very much hard fact.

 

[Jacko]

PS. Position exactly the same in 7s. Possibly even more so given the massive advantage an extra man is in 7s.

 

[Davet]

Jacko

Would this apply at a PK well?

 

[Davet]

OB - I agree with you; I was simply a little wary that being against the side with an extant YC was why we agreed.

 

[Jacko]

Jacko

Would this apply at a PK well?

Yep - I cannot think why not (unless I've forgotten a bit of law). I'd allow him on if there were a shot at goal, so why not at every penalty?

Only difficulty I can think of is that, in both cases, by the time the 4th has contacted the AR to radio me that the player is back on, we're already under way. I would hope the 4th is switched on enough to have had a word as the AR passes that he's due on next play and the AR is quick on the mic when the ball is dead.

 

[Davet]

I understand your point, but I am not sure that denying the side in possession the ability to act quickly at PK or QT is one I want to support.

I say that in all honesty, as in "not sure" means I want to think about it. Certainly my initial instinct is not to let the bin back on if it means the referee has to prevent quick tap or throw to do so; and to interrupt the natural flow of the game, as opposed to allowing the player back at a "natural break", where we have definitely stopped for a moment or two.

However, I will think further on it.

 

[crossref]

letting the YC player back on doesn't have to hold up the quick tap.

what will hold up the quick tap is if the referee requires the the game to stop in order to have the customary 'word' with the retunring player..


In this specific, uncommon, situation -
- let him on quickly (asuming he's ready)
- allow the quick throw
- wait for the ball to be dead
- and THEN peep and have the customary 'word'

 

[Davet]

Crossref

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think that your approach sacrifices too much management.

 

[ddjamo]

when in doubt - play on. there's a little bit of doubt here...let the boys play.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

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]

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

Looking at it from a slightly different point of view. 3.11b says the referee must not let the player rejoin the match until the ball is dead - isn't the implication that the referee must allow the player to rejoin once the ball is dead.

The YC sanction is to be off the field for ten minutes and then until the ball is dead and the ref gives him permission. The moment it goes into touch it is dead. Can the referee refuse the player permission to return once the first two criteria have been met? Just because he wants a word isn't good enough.

 

[PaulDG]

Ball goes into touch you must blow the whistle.

Actually, we were told at our start of season conference that we should not blow the whistle when the QT is no longer on.

I don't think I'm the only one in the society ignoring that "advice".

 

[OB..]

[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]
Looking at it from a slightly different point of view. 3.11b says the referee must not let the player rejoin the match until the ball is dead - isn't the implication that the referee must allow the player to rejoin once the ball is dead.

The YC sanction is to be off the field for ten minutes and then until the ball is dead and the ref gives him permission. The moment it goes into touch it is dead. Can the referee refuse the player permission to return once the first two criteria have been met? Just because he wants a word isn't good enough.

It is not just because he wants a word. It is also because it does not seem fair to deny the other team a QT.

Furthermore it can create confusion since the expected formalities for his return have been skipped.

 

[crossref]

It is not just because he wants a word. It is also because it does not seem fair to deny the other team a QT.

but simply letting him on (assuming he's standing there ready) just requires a nod, and DOESN'T prevent the QT which can be taken anyway

Furthermore it can create confusion since the expected formalities for his return have been skipped.

ah, and there's the issue -- it's not letting him on that requires you to stop the QT, it's the expected formalites that require the game to stop.


You could phrase the OP another way
- red kick the ball in touch
- a previously YC red play is on the touchline, ready to return
- would you prevent the QT by blue, in order to perform the expected formalities of letting red player return, or could you instead defer the formalities until a suitable break in play?

 

[Davet]

Actually, we were told at our start of season conference that we should not blow the whistle when the QT is no longer on.

I don't think I'm the only one in the society ignoring that "advice".

When the ball goes into touch the Law require that you blow your whistle, a short peep is considered sufficient to confirm your agreement with the TJ, a louder one if the TJ has inexplicably failed to raise his flag.

When the QT is no longer on the the TJ/AR will raise an arm horizontally and indicate whose throw it is (Good luck with that one below about L6) - which has given rise to a second whistle to indicate the same thing.

I assume that it is this second whistle compensating for lack of competent TJ that people have been told not to give.