Quickly taken lineout throw

[Drift]

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

Do you enjoy splitting hairs?

 

[Baylion]

The incident (Facebook link)

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

Youtube from 40:00 min

https://youtu.be/uqdcu_AGKoY

 

[crossref]

Well I think that's bullocks
That's not a lineout. That's an illegally taken QTI

1 the throwing team don't form a line, only one person on l o t
2 throwing team have another player about 6m *in ffont* of the line of touch, so 16m offside

Blues haven't formed a line either

If anyone is saying that is a formed line out, you would be saying you would have called back a legally taken QTI?

Nope that was a QTI taken after the ball boy had touched the ball

 

[Dickie E]

This....

So let me see if I have this straight. According to you, Womble & OB there are 3 ways to restart after ball goes into touch:

1. QTI
2. quickly taken lineout where only obligations on throwing side is that throw is straight and taken on the LoT, and
3. normal lineout where obligations on throwing side include straight throw, on LoT, players onside.

Is this a fair summary?

 

[damo]

So let me see if I have this straight. According to you, Womble & OB there are 3 ways to restart after ball goes into touch:

1. QTI
2. quickly taken lineout where only obligations on throwing side is that throw is straight and taken on the LoT, and
3. normal lineout where obligations on throwing side include straight throw, on LoT, players onside.

Is this a fair summary?

I think you can leave OB off that list. He says:

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.

Here the Rebels didn't have their house in order (players offside, multiple halfbacks, players outside 15m etc) so they couldn't take the throw until they do.

But perhaps I should let OB speak for himself.

 

[RobLev]

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:

How can you have a QTLO when you have no LO?

 

[OB..]

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.

Most of the time a QTI is not an option. so that does not seem to be the reason. They probably feel it is the best way to be prepared for whatever the other side choose to do eg they can insist on time to leave if a shortened lineout is chosen. If they don't arrive first, then your view would allow the throwing side to start as soon as two opponents had arrived.

Would you allow defenders to straggle into the lineout one by one, and make the thrower wait until they had all taken up their position? The laws do describe what a fully formed lineout looks like, but they do not say the thrower has to wait for it.

This was more of a problem when a QTI had to be thrown straight, but since the benefits of throwing it backwards are usually clear, there is unlikely to be confusion very often.

 

[RobLev]

Most of the time a QTI is not an option. so that does not seem to be the reason. They probably feel it is the best way to be prepared for whatever the other side choose to do eg they can insist on time to leave if a shortened lineout is chosen. If they don't arrive first, then your view would allow the throwing side to start as soon as two opponents had arrived.

Would you allow defenders to straggle into the lineout one by one, and make the thrower wait until they had all taken up their position? The laws do describe what a fully formed lineout looks like, but they do not say the thrower has to wait for it.

This was more of a problem when a QTI had to be thrown straight, but since the benefits of throwing it backwards are usually clear, there is unlikely to be confusion very often.

No; I'd penalise them under some combination of Laws 19.8(a), (d), (g) or (j), which all provide for a 15m FK against the offending team. But until I have an lineout per 19.8(a) in front of me, the ball cannot be thrown in, because 19.2 permits the thrower to throw in before the lineout is formed only in certain circumstances.

 

[OB..]

No; I'd penalise them under some combination of Laws 19.8(a), (d), (g) or (j), which all provide for a 15m FK against the offending team. But until I have an lineout per 19.8(a) in front of me, the ball cannot be thrown in, because 19.2 permits the thrower to throw in before the lineout is formed only in certain circumstances.

19.2 defines when a QTI can be taken. It does not say when a throw in at a lineout can be taken. That is not specified anywhere. At what stage is a lineout sufficiently formed for a throw-in to be allowed? Would you be happy with a couple of opponents who were in roughly the right place?

 

[ddjamo]

So let me see if I have this straight. According to you, Womble & OB there are 3 ways to restart after ball goes into touch:

1. QTI
2. quickly taken lineout where only obligations on throwing side is that throw is straight and taken on the LoT, and
3. normal lineout where obligations on throwing side include straight throw, on LoT, players onside.

Is this a fair summary?

there is the QTI and lineout. I am not aware of obligations requiring the throw in side to wait for the opposition to form...only to allow them to drop as we all know. as OB mentions - we don't see this often due to the non throwing side getting to the mark first. the non throwing side can have less and not more. where's the rub?

the non throwing side needs to get the lead out!

 

[Dickie E]

there is the QTI and lineout. I am not aware of obligations requiring the throw in side to wait for the opposition to form...only to allow them to drop as we all know. as OB mentions - we don't see this often due to the non throwing side getting to the mark first. the non throwing side can have less and not more. where's the rub?

the non throwing side needs to get the lead out!

yeah, I get all that.

Yes or no answer please: does the throwing team (all 15 of them) need to be onside for a quickly taken lineout to be legitimate?

 

[RobLev]

19.2 defines when a QTI can be taken. It does not say when a throw in at a lineout can be taken. That is not specified anywhere. At what stage is a lineout sufficiently formed for a throw-in to be allowed? Would you be happy with a couple of opponents who were in roughly the right place?

Not quite - 19.2 defines when a throw in can be taken before a lineout has formed.

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

etc...

19.8(a) states that:

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

The ball however goes dead when the QTI option goes; it can no longer be "zombie". I as referee then blow the whistle (6.A.8(e)). Don't I have to blow again to restart play?

 

[Dickie E]

I as referee then blow the whistle (6.A.8(e)). Don't I have to blow again to restart play?

You blow for a knock-on. Do you then blow again at the resulting scrum?

 

[RobLev]

You blow for a knock-on. Do you then blow again at the resulting scrum?

No, because you direct the restart using CBSY9; but they don't restart until you tell them to. In what circumstances, after the referee has blown the ball dead, does play restart without the ref's say-so or a specific Law? Isn't that the whole point of describing the ball as "zombie" while a QTI is still on - it's not dead because the throwing-in team still has the option of continuing play?

 

[Dickie E]

No, because you direct the restart using CBSY9; but they don't restart until you tell them to. In what circumstances, after the referee has blown the ball dead, does play restart without the ref's say-so or a specific Law? Isn't that the whole point of describing the ball as "zombie" while a QTI is still on - it's not dead because the throwing-in team still has the option of continuing play?

every restart has a specific law. I've lost your point.

 

[ChrisR]

After the ball goes to touch the restart is either a quick throw in or a lineout.

Since, in the OP, the ball was touched by the ball-boy then the QTI is not allowed, therefor there must be a lineout.

Law 19 uses the term "lineout" ambiguously. Lineout is both the formal restart action (with specific requirements for numerous players) and the two rows of players at the line of touch.

The minimum requirement for a lineout is two players from each team, Law 19.8(a). The sanction is a FK but the Law doesn't indicate which two players or to whom the sanction applies. I think it's fair to assume that "lineout" refers to the players at the LOT. Does the sanction apply to the non-conforming team or to the team throwing in?

Can a lineout (the action) begin without meeting the minimum requirement of 19.8(a)? If your answer is no then the throw must be retaken once the minimum requirement is met.

If your answer is yes then advantage must apply. Therefor play advantage to the team that meats the minimum two players. Except, in the OP neither team meets 19.8(a) so a re-throw is required.

Is there such an animal as "quick line-out" (QLI)? I don't think there is. It is not defined in Law.

What does exist is a throw in that occurs before all requirements of a lineout (the restart) are fully met. In those instances advantage should apply.

Again, the question in the OP is: "Can a lineout begin before the requirements of 19.8(a) are met?". Your call.

My call is no. You either have a QTI or a lineout. Law 19.8(a) is clear. The minimum requirement for a lineout is two players from each team (at the line-of-touch).

If the sanction for offending this law were removed it would be clearer. But then, that's Law 19.

 

[RobLev]

every restart has a specific law. I've lost your point.

When the ball goes out of play (and after a QTI ceases to be permitted) the ball is dead. Once the ball is dead in circumstances where detailed law provides for the teams to take up specific positions (as opposed simply to be onside), can play ever restart without the referee's say-so?

 

[Dickie E]

After the ball goes to touch the restart is either a quick throw in or a lineout.

Since, in the OP, the ball was touched by the ball-boy then the QTI is not allowed, therefor there must be a lineout.

Law 19 uses the term "lineout" ambiguously. Lineout is both the formal restart action (with specific requirements for numerous players) and the two rows of players at the line of touch.

The minimum requirement for a lineout is two players from each team, Law 19.8(a). The sanction is a FK but the Law doesn't indicate which two players or to whom the sanction applies. I think it's fair to assume that "lineout" refers to the players at the LOT. Does the sanction apply to the non-conforming team or to the team throwing in?

Can a lineout (the action) begin without meeting the minimum requirement of 19.8(a)? If your answer is no then the throw must be retaken once the minimum requirement is met.

If your answer is yes then advantage must apply. Therefor play advantage to the team that meats the minimum two players. Except, in the OP neither team meets 19.8(a) so a re-throw is required.

Is there such an animal as "quick line-out" (QLI)? I don't think there is. It is not defined in Law.

What does exist is a throw in that occurs before all requirements of a lineout (the restart) are fully met. In those instances advantage should apply.

Again, the question in the OP is: "Can a lineout begin before the requirements of 19.8(a) are met?". Your call.

My call is no. You either have a QTI or a lineout. Law 19.8(a) is clear. The minimum requirement for a lineout is two players from each team (at the line-of-touch).

If the sanction for offending this law were removed it would be clearer. But then, that's Law 19.

A well thought out post. Thanks.

Here's what I would do. Provided the throwing team had met all of their obligations, I would allow them to take the throw even if the opponents had not met theirs. This is what i would deem as a quickly taken lineout.

However, if the throwing team had NOT met all of their obligations then I would not allow the quickly taken lineout to occur.

 

[ChrisR]

When the ball goes out of play (and after a QTI ceases to be permitted) the ball is dead. Once the ball is dead, can play ever restart without the referee's say-so?

Yes, as long as the restart complies with the specified laws.

Examples are 22 drop-out, quick tap PK or FK.

 

[Browner]

IF the QTI had been allowed ( it shouldn't have been , because 19.2(d) does not permit a QTI when its been touched by the ball boy)
Then .....
All LO laws that apply after a LO is formed are not applicable here, because the LO wasn't formed.

All the requirements of a QTI were met, apart from having the ' critical error ' of having a bonafide right to take one!


.....…..............

As an aside, if the throwing team are on route to the LoT and then as the first player arrives they throw him the ball, what do we have ???? Its not yet a formed (2+2) LO, so presumably they could also throw it in unstraight to one of the arrivees under the permission of a QTI?????

If not, why not? I'm thinking it can, but it doesnt feel right.