Quick Throws and Sin Bin Returns

[OB..]

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.

I have given three reasons.
1. the value of doing it properly
2. the scope for confusion if you don't
3. the fact that we are choosing which team to disadvantage. I side with the one trying to play the game (by taking a QT).

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?

However you slice it, my view is the same. Allow the QT.

The law is unclear, so it is a judgement call.

 

[Account Deleted]

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.

The none offending side is not rewarded by a card for the offender. It is indeed a punishment for the other side.

If the ball did not go dead then the 10 mins could be much more.

There is no simple answer to which approach is right. I guess I would play it by ear and could allow or disallow the QT depending on the game dynamics. Highly charged = slow it down.

 

[crossref]

It's actually a very good question, and I think well worth posing on the SA ask the ref column

 

[DrSTU]

Seconded,

Bryan, we'll leave this in you capable hands.

It's actually a very good question, and I think well worth posing on the SA ask the ref column

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

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?

I don't know the answer, I am genuinely asking.

If the defending side were attempting to make a substitution, because they were an injured man down, and had been trying to do so for a while but had been waiting for the ball to go dead and the ref to give his permission, would anyone also allow an attacking QT and therefore not allow the substitution? What about a tap PK?

Essentially the same question but without an "offender"

 

[Bryan]

Seconded,
Bryan, we'll leave this in you capable hands.

Fair enough. I'll shoot PaulD an email tomorrow and copy a couple of their Panel in case they want to chime-in. It might also be worth sending it to Scotty Young / Steve Lander and find out what the protocol is on the Series. I'll ask a few current/former 7s kids what they reckon.

 

[crossref]

I don't know the answer, I am genuinely asking.

If the defending side were attempting to make a substitution, because they were an injured man down, and had been trying to do so for a while but had been waiting for the ball to go dead and the ref to give his permission, would anyone also allow an attacking QT and therefore not allow the substitution? What about a tap PK?

Essentially the same question but without an "offender"

definitely allow the sub on AND allow the QT/quickPK.

As it's a just a sub, not an offender, there's no need to time off for the quick word, or formalities that seem to be the only argument for not letting a YC player come quickly on.

 

[crossref]

I have given three reasons.
1. the value of doing it properly
2. the scope for confusion if you don't
3. the fact that we are choosing which team to disadvantage. I side with the one trying to play the game (by taking a QT).


However you slice it, my view is the same. Allow the QT.

The law is unclear, so it is a judgement call.

that's only one reason, really
1 - the value of doing it properly. That's the argument, I am saying that perhaps this is outweighed by the need to not disadvantaging either team. If you allow EITHER the QT OR the player on, so as do it properly, then one or other team loses out. Be a bit more flexible and neitehr team has to be disadvantags

2 - I think a shout of Red #9 YC time over, player back on will do the trick

3 - see 1, you don't HAVE to choose one or the other.

 

[crossref]

Fair enough. I'll shoot PaulD an email tomorrow and copy a couple of their Panel in case they want to chime-in. It might also be worth sending it to Scotty Young / Steve Lander and find out what the protocol is on the Series. I'll ask a few current/former 7s kids what they reckon.

Bryan can you not phrase it as either or, but ask them for their opinion on all three options
- allow the QT, not allow player back on
- prevent the QT to allow the player back om
- allow both to happen

 

[Dixie]

we are choosing which team to disadvantage. I side with the one trying to play the game (by taking a QT).

Personally, I also side with the team that is trying to play the game - but the one trying to do so by having enough players on the park to do so effectively. Yours seems to me to be an artificial distinction. You have said before that you go with that at least in part because the QT players are not the side the has committed the YC offence. But a YC offence is over and done with 10 minutes of game time after the start of the bin - so at the time of the QT, neither side has committed a YC offence. I'm fairly sure that five minutes after a binned player has returned, you wouldn't be advocating continuing to favour the other side on the grounds that they have been better behaved to date.

the quick word, or formalities that seem to be the only argument for not letting a YC player come quickly on.

I don't think it is just that. Early on in the thread, someone mentioned the legitimate expectation of the other side that they'll receive clear notification when something as fundamental as a change to legitimate playing numbers occurs.

 

[crossref]

I don't think it is just that. Early on in the thread, someone mentioned the legitimate expectation of the other side that they'll receive clear notification when something as fundamental as a change to legitimate playing numbers occurs.

so you are letting the YC player on (fair enough, I agree) -- but then preventing the other team from taking the QT .... for their own benefit? but I bet they'd rather have the quick throw!

especially as you can tell them anyway - shout loudly "red #13, yellow card over, yes you can come back on"

 

[Davet]

What if its the team with one in the bin who take the quick throw...

 

[OB..]

I really do dislike the attempt to have your cake and eat it as well.

The problem arises because the ball is "semi-dead" when it goes into touch. By that I mean play can restart very quickly, just as it can at a tap penalty. There is essentially no pause for dealing with other matters, which is normally implied by the ball being dead. If you call a player back on at a QT, he will almost certainly be coming back on during play, and could make an unexpected difference to the other team's play. I see it as muddled management.

 

[OB..]

What if its the team with one in the bin who take the quick throw...

For me it is very clear that they have exercised their option.

 

[Bryan]

Here's the letter I sent off to Paul at the SA Referees. Dont whine and moan if you dont like it; send your own GD letter.

Paul,

A recent Heineken Cup 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. Could you please ask the next Duty Referee the following:

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 (2 minutes in 7s) does expire.
2. The ball is kicked into touch and a player takes a quick throw to put the ball back into play.

A) Would you blow your whistle to prevent the quick-throw from occurring and allow the sin-binned player to return to the field of play?
B) Would you allow the Quick-throw to occur and wait until the next stoppage before formally allowing the sin-binned player to enter the field of play?
C) Alternatively, with the aide of a 4/5/6[SUP]th[/SUP] official, would you allow the player to return to the field of play as well as allow the quick-throw to occur simultaneously (with the 4/5/6[SUP]th [/SUP]helping in getting the player back on the field)?

It seems to be an interesting management toss-up: either you’re preventing a quick-throw in to restart play in order to allow a player to return; however, continuing on with the quick throw in may mean that the player serves a longer period in the bin than they are required to serve.

Of course, referees like to talk to players when they return from the sin bin to ensure they understand the consequences of further acts of foul play, and allowing both events to occur doesn’t really give a lot of structure to any sort of management process but might be the fairest to both teams (though the hardest for a referee to manage!).

I’ve copied Marius and Mark on this, though in fact this probably has bigger ramifications on the 7s series, where quick throw ins are more prevalent (and a 6 on 7 is a HUGE advantage) so it might be worth sending this to Jason, Stuart, or even Steve Lander / Scotty Young.

Keep up the great work!
-Bryan

 

[Simon Thomas]

Spot on Bryan.

 

[lawsons]

I wouldn't stop play.

This happened to me in last saturday's game. Team with 14 took a quick tap and scored one pass later, which was the winning score. Had I stopped play to allow their player back on, the try would not have been scored. Quite rightly they would have been outraged had I done that " sorry lads your player must come back on ". Preventing advantage to the team with 14 seems wholly illogical.

Having followed that logic, I cannot therefore stop play should the binned player be one of the defenders. I have to be consistent.

If I allow the player to return as well as play on, I can only do that if the binned player is behind the oppo's posts and thus returns without interfering with play. It seems in many of your games they are on the sidelines, which if you allow them on mid play could cause problems re timing and positioning "hey where did he come from?"

If your lucky enough to have a 4th official, it's all different, but in the normal park rugby we all ref, I can't see how you can stop play without being caught out at some point. Who will know that time is up on the bin anyway ?

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

This happened to me in last saturday's game. Team with 14 took a quick tap and scored one pass later, which was the winning score. Had I stopped play to allow their player back on, the try would not have been scored. Quite rightly they would have been outraged had I done that " sorry lads your player must come back on ". Preventing advantage to the team with 14 seems wholly illogical.

I'm not sure I agree. Surely you can only take a quick tap, or for that matter a QT, if there are no contraindications to being allowed to do so. There are some occasions when it's not a team's absolute right to continue with play. It's shouldn't be up to the ref to decide how long the punishment for a YC is. Once the 10 mins has been served it is the players right to come back on at the next dead ball.

You can't base your judgemnet of a possible scenario on a singe example, such as yours, when a team appears to be disadvantaged.

Just as you would pull them back if they took a QT when the correct conditions weren't met so you should pull the team back and say "Sorry, lads. No quick tap. Player HAS to come back on"

 

[OB..]

Once the 10 mins has been served it is the players right to come back on at the next dead ball.

And their opponents have the right to take a QT. There are conflicting rights. The law does not tell you which is trumps.

Of course the law doesn't actually say either of them has a "right", whatever that may mean to you. It gives the circumstances, which in the case of the chap in the bin is when the referee gives permission for him to return.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

And their opponents have the right to take a QT. There are conflicting rights. The law does not tell you which is trumps.

Of course the law doesn't actually say either of them has a "right", whatever that may mean to you. It gives the circumstances, which in the case of the chap in the bin is when the referee gives permission for him to return.

I don't think the law allows the referee to NOT give the player permission to return once his penalty has been served and the ball has gone dead.