Quickly taken lineout throw

[RobLev]

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

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

All are specifically provided for in the Laws; in each case there is specific provision for what happens when the kick is taken when the other side are caught out of position by it. Again, for qt PK or FK, the kick can't be taken until the referee has made the mark. The 22 is the only semi-exception

There are no equivalent laws for scrums and lineouts (apart only from the QTI, which is not the issue here), where the law makes detailed provision for how the teams must be deployed.

 

[ChrisR]

...for qt PK or FK, the kick can't be taken until the referee has made the mark.

In practice when a PK/FK is awarded due to a scrum infraction the mark already exists and we frequently see the quick tap taken from behind the scrum without any further mark made by the referee.

 

[crossref]

So focusing on this specific incident,
It clearly wasn't a legal QTI
Does anyone think it was a lineout?

 

[OB..]

...for qt PK or FK, the kick can't be taken until the referee has made the mark.

In practice when a PK/FK is awarded due to a scrum infraction the mark already exists and we frequently see the quick tap taken from behind the scrum without any further mark made by the referee.

The Law only requires the referee to formally indicate the mark if he advances it 10m.

 

[ChrisR]

The Law only requires the referee to formally indicate the mark if he advances it 10m.

However, following some advantage play the referee returns to the original point of infraction. At that time he may make a mark, point to a mark or just stand at some point then move away. All of which is, essentially, "making a mark".

 

[Dixie]

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.

So focusing on this specific incident,
It clearly wasn't a legal QTI
Does anyone think it was a lineout?

Clearly not - it was a mistake by the officials. The debrief would have been fun - TMO arguing he couldn't alert the ref due to protocol, ref arguing that the AR should have kept his flag up, AR arguing that the ref had turned it over to the TMO who had slo-mo and the ability to pause the frame and see a) the offside player; b) the lack of a lineout; c) the forward pass.

 

[Browner]

So focusing on this specific incident,
It clearly wasn't a legal QTI

Does anyone think it was a lineout?

[LAWS]19.8(a) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Minimum. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]At least two players from each team must form a lineout.
[/FONT]Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][/LAWS]

It wasnt a QTI , as it didnt meet the qualification criteria. ( ballboy intervention)
It can't then be a lineout, as their aren't enough players from the throwers team to form one

So what is the next course of action?
19.2(d) .... another throw

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The same team throws into the lineout.[/FONT]

Or
19.8(a) ....FK against throwers team, for not having the required number of players in position to receive the non QTI throw ?

:shrug:
Given the conflicting in these pair of outcomes , which way are you ( Q? To all) going to decide? and why?

 

[Dixie]

Given the conflicting in these pair of outcomes , which way are you ( Q? To all) going to decide? and why?

The ball was thrown in when no lineout was formed. The only way that can happen is at a QTI. The QTI was not possible, as the ballboy handled the ball. 19.2(d) - try again.

 

[OB..]

The ball was thrown in when no lineout was formed. The only way that can happen is at a QTI. The QTI was not possible, as the ballboy handled the ball. 19.2(d) - try again.

Blue have all their players in the correct places for a lineout, but Red are still arguing about their defence. Blue throw. You could penalise Red for not having 2 players up, or for failing to form a lineout. Can you penalise Blue for throwing in? The lineout is a phase where the players restart play without input from the referee. You can call it playing advantage if you like.

 

[Taff]

... Does anyone think it was a lineout?

For what it's worth, I don't.

...Given the conflicting in these pair of outcomes , which way are you ( Q? To all) going to decide? and why?

Disallowed QTI. Proper Lineout please gents. Simples.

 

[Browner]

The ball was thrown in when no lineout was formed.
FK under 19.8(a) then ?????

The only way that can happen is at a QTI. The QTI was not possible, as the ballboy handled the ball. 19.2(d) - try again

No, its not the only way a ball can be thrown in , one of the features of a bonafide QTI , is that ball delivery doesn't have to be thrown straight .... In this clip it was thrown straight (ish) & as we know it wasnt a bonafide QTI coz of the ballboys intervention, so if its not one of those QTI classifications then surely it reverts to being nothing more than a normal throw????? that was actioned before his team had arrived, which means that it is a 19.8(a) FK ????

Unless you can find a way in which 19.8(a) ever gets a FK without it being a QTI , if so share ......

Maybe 19.8(a) is redundant , probably possibly maybe , but it still exists at the moment, Hense my "conflict" point

QTI is a misdescription , its a TIBLF ( Throw in Before Lineout Formed ) but only a QTI if meets the various tests of qualification within all of 19.2

 

[Browner]

For what it's worth, I don't.


Disallowed QTI. Proper Lineout please gents. Simples.

What a "proper" lineout ????

 

[Ian_Cook]

For the throw in to a line-out to be taken quickly...

► There MUST be a minimum of two players from each team at the LoT. That is the Law and it is unequivocal.

► All players (at least on the throwing side) MUST either be 1/2m on their own side of the LoT (and between the 5m & 15m lines) or 10m back from LoT. This is also the Law and unquivocal.

If BOTH of these criteria are not met then it is not a quickly taken line-out, its a QTI, which should have been ruled out due to the ball-boy touching the ball.

The RED arrowed players are at the LoT (although the one near the 15m is marginal)

The BLUE arrowed player I would accept as being the receiver.

So long as the throwing side has their house in order (even if the opposition didn't) I would be happy to allow a QTLO (but they have chosen to play-on so no PK for opponents offside at the line-out).

In this case, however, the throwing side had at least four players offside (the YELLOW arrowed players)

No try. Restart with a line-out at the LoT, original team to throw in

 

[Ian_Cook]

Clearly not - it was a mistake by the officials. The debrief would have been fun - TMO arguing he couldn't alert the ref due to protocol, ref arguing that the AR should have kept his flag up, AR arguing that the ref had turned it over to the TMO who had slo-mo and the ability to pause the frame and see a) the offside player; b) the lack of a lineout; c) the forward pass.

Not a valid argument. A ball that has been incorrectly thrown in (other than causing an infringement such as not straight or not thrown at least 5m) is effectively still in touch, and the TMO protocols allow him to tell the ref that the ball/player is in touch.

 

[The Fat]

First mistake in all of this cock-up is the AR not watching the ball in-touch until the QTI is no longer on.
If the referee allowed the play to go on, as is what happened here, the AR should alert the referee, pre awarding the try, they need to review.
Had the AR seen the ball-boy handle the ball (as he should have), the in-goal conversation between the AR and ref would have been,

AR: "The QTI was not an option as the ball was touched by the ball-boy, so are you thinking QTLO?"

Ref response #1: "I was thinking QTI. If the ball-boy touched the ball, no try and we will go back for the LO"

OR

Ref response #2: "I'm thinking QTLO. TMO, I want to check that the QTLO was OK, If so we have a try, if not we'll go back for the LO".


The only "contentious" issue to decide here is who gets the throw in to the LO.
The laws say the QTI was not an option (therefore 19.2(e) does not apply), so we now treat it as a QTLO.

19.6 How the throw is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

19.7 Incorrect throw in
(a)If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.



My decision would be:
QTI not an option.
Go back for the LO with original (white) team to throw the ball in.

 

[Dickie E]

First mistake in all of this cock-up is the AR not watching the ball in-touch until the QTI is no longer on.

No - the team of 4 were quite clear that the ball boy had touched the ball and the QTI wasn't on. They allowed the quickly taken throw because 1. the throw was on LoT and 2. throw was straight.

As I said earlier there was also a seperate obstruction issue that they had to deal with.

 

[The Fat]

No - the team of 4 were quite clear that the ball boy had touched the ball and the QTI wasn't on. They allowed the quickly taken throw because 1. the throw was on LoT and 2. throw was straight.

As I said earlier there was also a seperate obstruction issue that they had to deal with.

So they therefore ignored that no LO had formed (2+2)?

Do we have a video link with To4 communication? I haven't seen one yet as the previous youtube link has been pulled.
My post was based on not hearing the To4 conversation.

 

[The Fat]

For the throw in to a line-out to be taken quickly...

► There MUST be a minimum of two players from each team at the LoT. That is the Law and it is unequivocal.

► All players (at least on the throwing side) MUST either be 1/2m on their own side of the LoT (and between the 5m & 15m lines) or 10m back from LoT. This is also the Law and unquivocal.

If BOTH of these criteria are not met then it is not a quickly taken line-out, its a QTI, which should have been ruled out due to the ball-boy touching the ball.

The RED arrowed players are at the LoT (although the one near the 15m is marginal)

The BLUE arrowed player I would accept as being the receiver.

So long as the throwing side has their house in order (even if the opposition didn't) I would be happy to allow a QTLO (but they have chosen to play-on so no PK for opponents offside at the line-out).

In this case, however, the throwing side had at least four players offside (the YELLOW arrowed players)

No try. Restart with a line-out at the LoT, original team to throw in

Whilst I agree with your overall summary, the offside players can be in an offside position when the QTLO throw is taken PROVIDED they are making their way back to their offside line without delay although the players in this clip do seem to be out for a Sunday stroll.

 

[menace]

I

For the throw in to a line-out to be taken quickly...

► There MUST be a minimum of two players from each team at the LoT. That is the Law and it is unequivocal.

► All players (at least on the throwing side) MUST either be 1/2m on their own side of the LoT (and between the 5m & 15m lines) or 10m back from LoT. This is also the Law and unquivocal.

If BOTH of these criteria are not met then it is not a quickly taken line-out, its a QTI, which should have been ruled out due to the ball-boy touching the ball.

The RED arrowed players are at the LoT (although the one near the 15m is marginal)

The BLUE arrowed player I would accept as being the receiver.

So long as the throwing side has their house in order (even if the opposition didn't) I would be happy to allow a QTLO (but they have chosen to play-on so no PK for opponents offside at the line-out).

In this case, however, the throwing side had at least four players offside (the YELLOW arrowed players)

No try. Restart with a line-out at the LoT, original team to throw in

Although I agree that this was not a legal QTI nor a lineout, IMO the argument about offside players seems moot here as a reason for ruling it was not a lineout. Ie
[LAWS](b) Players not yet onside when the ball is thrown in. A player may throw in the ball even if a team-mate has not yet reached the offside line. However, if this player is not trying to reach an onside position without delay, this player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line opposite the place of infringement, at least 15 metres from the touchline[/LAWS]

None of those offside players got involved and as far as I could tell from the FB clip, they were either heading back to o/s line or heading to the lineout.

I must admit I'm glad this thread was here. In my colts game yesterday at the brief, one team indicated they wanted to take quick lineouts (not just QTI). It reminded me to remind them that I'd only allow it if his team had at least 2 and the rest were onside. Oppo also was to have 2 but if they were delaying getting there I said I'd still allow a quick lineout. But don't ask me for numbers! No issues. Oppo was awake to it and always was quick to get to lineout.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Although I agree that this was not a legal QTI nor a lineout, IMO the argument about offside players seems moot here as a reason for ruling it was not a lineout. Ie
[LAWS](b) Players not yet onside when the ball is thrown in. A player may throw in the ball even if a team-mate has not yet reached the offside line. However, if this player is not trying to reach an onside position without delay, this player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line opposite the place of infringement, at least 15 metres from the touchline[/LAWS]

None of those offside players got involved and as far as I could tell from the FB clip, they were either heading back to o/s line or heading to the lineout.

None of the three Rebels players top right look like they are ..."trying to reach an onside position without delay."