Quickly taken lineout throw

[Dickie E]

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

If we look at Ian's photo it looks to me like there are 2+2

 

[menace]

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

I can't tell from your still frame? And the game from YouTube is gone and the FB clip showed them moving in that direction. But was it 'without delay'? That's up for interpretation and I don't have all the evidence.

What I could tell was their offside position was not material to play at the point the ball was thrown nor afterwards.
I certainly would not be automatically penalising them simply because they were there!

 

[Blackberry]

To me, this thread is gold dust, it leaves me clear on what to look out for. First off, a Quickly taken throw in (QTTI) is permissible but, unlike a Quick Throw In, must conform to all the laws of a line out. Herein lies the rub, it is so unlikely that these laws are being met that I think the chance of a QTTI coming off are thin.

I would reckon the defending team are in a surprisingly good position, as they should have been given reasonable time to match numbers, hence they are unlikely to fall foul off offside laws (any thoughts here?). The attacking team, however, don't get this leeway so they are likely to have people in an offside zone, so ping (again any thoughts here?).

The over riding thought for the refs to hang onto here is that a QTTI does not have any of the leeway of a QTI.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To me, this thread is gold dust, it leaves me clear on what to look out for. First off, a Quickly taken throw in (QTTI) is permissible but, unlike a Quick Throw In, must conform to all the laws of a line out. Herein lies the rub, it is so unlikely that these laws are being met that I think the chance of a QTTI coming off are thin.

I would reckon the defending team are in a surprisingly good position, as they should have been given reasonable time to match numbers, hence they are unlikely to fall foul off offside laws (any thoughts here?). The attacking team, however, don't get this leeway so they are likely to have people in an offside zone, so ping (again any thoughts here?).

The over riding thought for the refs to hang onto here is that a QTTI does not have any of the leeway of a QTI.

Most often, when there is a quickly taken line out, the throw in happens after the two lines are well formed but before it the lineout is "set". The trick is to fool the opposition into thinking your are still getting the call and throw sorted out and so to catch them off guard.

To see a throw in taken this early in the setup is unusual, and I would not have allowed it. DickieE said earlier that from the photo I posted in post #59, it appeared as if the 2 + 2 requirement had been met, but I don't really think the red arrowed Rebels player out near the 15m line is "at the line of touch". For me, "at the line of touch" means at the place where he would be expected to stand if he were a line-out player, and that is ½m on his own side of the LoT, between the 5m and 15m lines. The Laws define "Near" as being within one metre so I would accept a player 1m from the LoT as being at the LoT. This player is well beyond that distance.

 

[OB..]

I would reckon the defending team are in a surprisingly good position, as they should have been given reasonable time to match numbers

It is not a right to match numbers as such, but only a right to have time to remove players if the throwing teams decide on a shortened lineout.

It does not arise unless the defenders arrive first. In this case the question is about what happens if the defenders are slow to get organised.

 

[The Fat]

Just looking at Ian's still with coloured arrows, there is only 1 white player at the line-of-touch. The white player (red arrow) near the junction of the 10m & 15m lines is almost 5m from the line-of-touch and not moving towards the line-of-touch. The adjacent blue player may have been considered to be the 2nd required blue player to form a LO but there is no way the blue player making a b-line towards the white catcher can be considered the player in opposition to the thrower. He is on the 5m line and at least 6m from the line-of-touch.
There are simply not enough boxes ticked for this to be considered a LO.

In similar fashion to menace's earlier post, I have had teams tell me during the pre-match brief that they would like to go early at some lineouts.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just to be clear, the shaded areas are where I expect players to be before I would consider them as "at the line of touch" ( Blue players in the blue shaded area, White players in the white shaded area)

 

[Crucial]

What's wrong here?

Take your pick on why this try shouldn't have been allowed.

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

 

[Blackberry]

Re: What's wrong here?

I'll get the ball rolling;
If it was a QTTI the lines needed to have formed..they hadn't and some of the attacking team were within 10 metres of the line of touch, and there was only one of their players at the lineout.
If it was a QTI...the ball boy had touched the ball making it dead.

Not sure if the ref's presence can be somehow factored in to the situation in terms of a scrum back?

 

[Crucial]

Re: What's wrong here?

So many things wrong.

Can't have been a quick throw (different ball, touched by ball boy), Lineout hadn't formed, players offside, 5 halfbacks....

Yet the try went to the TMO only to check whether thrower's feet were outside, ball went 5 and did BC touch ref. When those items were checked off the try was awarded. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees. The whole reffing team failed in this one.

 

[talbazar]

Re: What's wrong here?

Just playing devil's advocate here... But:
1. There are at least two players of each team in the line out. So, legally the line out is formed.
2. The throw is on the mark and straight(ish)

Could that be a quick line out instead of a quick throw in???

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Taff]

Re: What's wrong here?

Haven't we already kicked the crap out of this in a different thread?

 

[menace]

Re: What's wrong here?

Shhhh...that was fun, let's do it all again!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: What's wrong here?

Just playing devil's advocate here... But:
1. There are at least two players of each team in the line out. So, legally the line out is formed.
2. The throw is on the mark and straight(ish)

Could that be a quick line out instead of a quick throw in???

Cheers,
Pierre.

I don't think so. See this thread


http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18882-Quickly-taken-lineout-throw&p=298367#post298367


and in particular, these posts

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-lineout-throw&p=298342&viewfull=1#post298342

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-lineout-throw&p=298367&viewfull=1#post298367

 

[Crucial]

Re: What's wrong here?

Haven't we already kicked the crap out of this in a different thread?

Apologies. I didn't spot where it was being discussed.

as this was a Pro Rugby Game in the SH, I thought this would be the place.

Feel free to delete

 

[talbazar]

Re: What's wrong here?

I don't think so. See this thread


http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18882-Quickly-taken-lineout-throw&p=298367#post298367


and in particular, these posts

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-lineout-throw&p=298342&viewfull=1#post298342

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-lineout-throw&p=298367&viewfull=1#post298367

Apologies for missing the earlier thread...
I couldn't see any picture (which I guess you've created) with all the arrows, but watching the video again, I got the points you're raising.
No more comments from my side :biggrin:
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

*** threads moved and merged ***

 

[Taff]

Re: What's wrong here?

Apologies. I didn't spot where it was being discussed. As this was a Pro Rugby Game in the SH, I thought this would be the place. Feel free to delete

No need to apologise mate.

My comment was more of an observation than a criticism. I owe you an apology, if it came across as I was knocking you.

 

[Browner]

So,
It wasn't a bonafide QTI, so QTI Laws are not applicable.
It failed to be formed, so offsides 'post formation' are not applicable,

So,
we're back to_a FK for blue ,under 19.8(a) , which was my initial thought.

PS...TMO was needed because referee wasnt looking over his shoulder so couldn't have seen that a second white player ( near the 15m) hadn't arrived to form the LO.

 

[ChrisR]

we're back to_a FK for blue ,under 19.8(a) , which was my initial thought.

Do over. No need for FK.

19.8(a) The sanction doesn't state that the ball must not be thrown in and it doesn't name a beneficiary.