Quickly taken lineout throw

[damo]

Rebels v Blues Super XV game. Blues kick ball into touch. Rebels hooker has ball thrown to him by a ball boy and then throws in quickly to a team mate in line with the Line of Touch. Blues players are not lined up or waiting for a lineout. Not clear if it was the same ball or not.

Rebels then run 30 metres and score. Goes upstairs and TMO rules a fair try. Right decision?

 

[Jacko]

Rebels v Blues Super XV game. Blues kick ball into touch. Rebels hooker has ball thrown to him by a ball boy and then throws in quickly to a team mate in line with the Line of Touch. Blues players are not lined up or waiting for a lineout. Not clear if it was the same ball or not.

Rebels then run 30 metres and score. Goes upstairs and TMO rules a fair try. Right decision?

Was the hooker on the line of touch?
Was the throw in straight?
Did the throwing in side have 2 (or more) participants in the correct position?
Was everyone else from the throwing in side back 10?

If yes to all the above, I don't see why not award it. There is no requirement in law to wait til the opposition are ready.

 

[damo]

Was the hooker on the line of touch?
Was the throw in straight? YES
Did the throwing in side have 2 (or more) participants in the correct position? YES, Defending team probably didn't though.
Was everyone else from the throwing in side back 10? NO, in fact many of the throwing team were in front of the line of touch.

If yes to all the above, I don't see why not award it. There is no requirement in law to wait til the opposition are ready.

Comments to your questions in RED.

 

[crossref]

Did the throwing in side have 2 (or more) participants in the correct position?
.

if it's less than seven then did they give the other team time to adjust numbers and retire 10m ??

 

[Dickie E]

Farck, its hard enough for the Rebels to get a win without all these pesky law issues

 

[RobLev]

I hesitate to argue with a National Panel ref, but:

Was the hooker on the line of touch?
Was the throw in straight?
Did the throwing in side have 2 (or more) participants in the correct position?
Was everyone else from the throwing in side back 10?

If yes to all the above, I don't see why not award it. There is no requirement in law to wait til the opposition are ready.

The QTI was not on - the ball-boy touching the ball is the reason for that.

It looks from the answers given by damo to your questions above that many of the throwing-in team were offside.

Assuming however that the throwing in-side had two line-out players at the line of touch, and the rest of the team was onside; why would not 19.2:

[LAWS](a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form.[/LAWS]

followed by a list of conditions (in (b), (c) and (d)) to be satisfied for the QTI to be legal, not mean that if the QTI isn't on, the throwing in team must wait for the lineout to form. If they throw in before then, they are attempting a QTI without satisfying the conditions making a QTI legal.

Law 19.8:

[LAWS](a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout. [/LAWS]

[LAWS](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....[/LAWS]

[LAWS](g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.[/LAWS]

all sanctioned by a 15m FK, between them deal with the other team being slow about getting to the LoT.


Or, to put it another way - there may not be a requirement in law to wait till the opposition are ready - but any throw in before the lineout is formed is by definition a QTI, and there is a prohibition in law against taking a QTI with a ball that has touched someone else - so in this instance the throwing in team had to wait for the lineout to form (or for the ref to sanction the other side for delay).

 

[TheBFG]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1101974369816408

it's on the Rugby Banter pages

I would suggest that attackers only have 1 in the LO and then a lot of other players stood around not sure what's going on, including at least one in front of the LO

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]19.2 (d) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. The same team throws into the lineout.[/FONT][/LAWS]Given the ball boy had played the ball, I don't see how any of the other questions are relevant.

 

[Jacko]

I hesitate to argue with a National Panel ref, but:

Don't - we're only human!
As pointed out, a quick throw in was not permissible due to the ball boy touching the ball.
The questions I posed were a brief, off the cuff attempt to see whether this was a "lineout taken speedily" (rather than a quick throw in which is specifically defined in law). Interesting question as to whether the throwing in side has to wait until the defenders fulfil requirements such as man in the channel.
As the answer to at least one of the questions I posed was "no", I personally would have made them set it up "normally".
What did the ref ask the TMO??

 

[crossref]

seems to me
- we have lineouts, which are quite formal with lots of Laws, we do them properly.
- to speed the game up we have QTI.

There isn't anything in between.

 

[OB..]

seems to me
- we have lineouts, which are quite formal with lots of Laws, we do them properly.
- to speed the game up we have QTI.

There isn't anything in between.

Why not? I see no reason why a side that has got it's own house in order should not throw in without waiting for the opposition. It may well be that teams accept that, which is why you see the defenders arriving first.

 

[Womble]

A ball thrown down the line of touch is not a QTI in my book . I'm with OB on this, play on. its a QTLO :wink:

 

[crossref]

A ball thrown down the line of touch is not a QTI in my book . I'm with OB on this, play on. its a QTLO :wink:

Even if there are players from the throwing team offside? Perhaps even in front of the lot?

And what about allowing the non throwing team time to match numbers?

 

[ChrisR]

And what about allowing the non throwing team time to match numbers?

The way I see it if the throwing team does not allow the opponents time to match numbers then they have relinquished the right for the FK but can play on.

 

[OB..]

Even if there are players from the throwing team offside? Perhaps even in front of the lot?

They have not formed a proper lineout.

And what about allowing the non throwing team time to match numbers?

That only applies to reducing numbers if the throwing team put in fewer players than usual. The assumption is that the defenders will put in the usual number.

 

[Taff]

Rebels v Blues Super XV game. Blues kick ball into touch. Rebels hooker has ball thrown to him by a ball boy (Well that's killed the QTI option right there) and then throws in quickly to a team mate in line with the Line of Touch. Blues players are not lined up or waiting for a lineout. (So no LO was formed - you need at least 2 players from each side to form a LO). Not clear if it was the same ball or not. (Doesn't matter - the fact that the ballboy had touched the ball had already killed the QTI option). Rebels then run 30 metres and score. Goes upstairs and TMO rules a fair try. Right decision? (I would say "No. Disallowed QTI. LO here please gents - Blue throw in")

So it was a QTI not a quickly taken LO - because the LO hadn't even formed. For a quickly taken LO, surely having a formed LO is essential.

Should have been disallowed though surely, as the ball had been touched.

Why not? I see no reason why a side that has got it's own house in order should not throw in without waiting for the opposition. It may well be that teams accept that, which is why you see the defenders arriving first.

Nothing stopping them chucking the ball in early in my book ... as long as they realise it's a QTI and not a quickly taken LO.

I reckon defending teams arrive early because they want to form a LO asap and kill the option of a QTI. The longer the defenders hold back, the longer the throwing in side have to take a QTI.

A ball thrown down the line of touch is not a QTI in my book . I'm with OB on this, play on. its a QTLO :wink:

I can' tell from the wink if you're on a wind-up mission Womble. There's nothing stopping a player taking a QTI by chucking the ball down down the LoT. The only thing he can't do is throw it forward. But straight down the LoT or backwards is allowed.

 

[Dickie E]

A ball thrown down the line of touch is not a QTI in my book . I'm with OB on this, play on. its a QTLO :wink:

I'm in the black & white camp.

Rebels couldn't take a QTI (because ball was touched).

So its a lineout and offside lines apply. They can take that quickly but still need to comply with lineout laws not least of which are offside requirements.

 

[Taff]

... So its a lineout and offside lines apply. They can take that quickly but still need to comply with lineout laws not least of which are offside requirements.

But how can just one side form a LO? There were no opponents yet to form a LO.

 

[Dickie E]

What did the ref ask the TMO??

Their focus was on 1. was throw taken from the mark and 2. was throw straight.

It was confused because there was a potential obstruction issue (not related to the lineout) that also needed to be addressed.

I don't remember any discussion re. offside or numbers or hooker in channel

 

[ddjamo]

A ball thrown down the line of touch is not a QTI in my book . I'm with OB on this, play on. its a QTLO :wink:

This....