Quickly taken lineout

[ianh5979]

Interesting one in my game today, Ball kicked into touch by black, hits a spectator and bounces back to blue player, who moved to correct line of touch and threw the ball in (straight ) to a team mate, black complained because it hit a spectator so blue couldn't take a quick throw. I was happy that it was a quickly taken proper lineout not a quick throw. Opinions?

 

[The Fat]

Did you have 2 players from each team at the line-of-touch when the ball was thrown in and did the trower actually throw the ball in along the line-of-touch?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I always believed that the ball cannot touch anyone in order for a quick throw... So I would disallow it and (if needed ) remind the spectators/coaches to not touch the ball.

 

[peperami]

Did you have 2 players from each team at the line-of-touch when the ball was thrown in and did the trower actually throw the ball in along the line-of-touch?

As said he can't take a quick throw due to it touching something other than the ground outside the field of play.

However if a line formed he may throw into the line out as soon as he likes.

 

[Pegleg]

I always believed that the ball cannot touch anyone in order for a quick throw... So I would disallow it and (if needed ) remind the spectators/coaches to not touch the ball.

A bit harsh considering the events!

"Interesting one in my game today, Ball kicked into touch by black, hits a spectator and bounces back to blue player, who moved to correct line of touch and threw the ball in (straight ) to a team mate, black complained because it hit a spectator so blue couldn't take a quick throw. I was happy that it was a quickly taken proper lineout not a quick throw. Opinions? "

No suggestion of the spectator deliberately touching the ball.

 

[crossref]

The original post doesn't mention any lineout being formed, so the throw should be disallowed

 

[Blackberry]

A big problem with quickly taken throw ins is that many players don't know that the option exists. A few refs too if truth be known. Can we just promulgate their existence to our clubs, it will ensure proper defending and no surprised whinging

 

[Taff]

The original post doesn't mention any lineout being formed, so the throw should be disallowed

True, but it doesn't say it wasn't formed either, so it needs to be clarified.

Ian, did you have at least 4 players (2 from each side) in 2 parallel lines straddling the LoT and between the 5m and 15m lines?

If you did, then you had a formed LO and the thrower can chuck the ball in when he's ready.

If you didn't, then you had a QTI - which should have been disallowed, because the ball had been touched.

Easy to be caught out with these QTI mind. I've lost track of how often it's happened to me - which is why a good AR is brilliant.

 

[crossref]

A big problem with quickly taken throw ins is that many players don't know that the option exists. A few refs too if truth be known. Can we just promulgate their existence to our clubs, it will ensure proper defending and no surprised whinging

Fwiw, I don't really believe in the quickly taken lineout. In my mind it's either a QTI, or its a proper lineout.

An unexpected quickly taken lineout is to me about as hard to pull off as an unexpected quickly taken scrum.

 

[Taff]

Fwiw, I don't really believe in the quickly taken lineout. In my mind it's either a QTI, or its a proper lineout.
An unexpected quickly taken lineout is to me about as hard to pull off as an unexpected quickly taken scrum.

Good point. It is possible, BUT it's not as straightforward as it first seems, and the throwing in side can't cheery-pick the laws they want.

Eg, once formed the throwing in side don't have to wait for the opposition, but once a LO has formed, then so do the offside lines (theirs as well as their opponents) so if their own players aren't back 10m behind the offside line and take part in the game, then surely it's a material offside. Personally, I like teams to take time at LOs and scrums to get it right - I don't think I'm good enough to think of all these things at the same time.

 

[ChrisR]

Once the minimums have been met of two from each team then the throwing team should be allowed to proceed given that they are meeting all other requirements, ie. off-sides. The defenders buggering about should not hold up the show to their advantage.

 

[ianh5979]

There were 2 players from Blue but no black players there, in my opinion black can not force blue to wait until they arrive to have a lineout, which is why I allowed it

 

[Pegleg]

As asked did they meet ALL the criteria of a legal line out. Offside lines etc?

 

[SimonSmith]

What Pegleg said.

a QTLO smacks to me of slightly disorganized chaos, with little chance of the throwing team being compliant with all requirements.

 

[crossref]

Do the oppo even realise they are in a lineout? If not then I don't think you have a lineout.

 

[crossref]

There were 2 players from Blue but no black players there, in my opinion black can not force blue to wait until they arrive to have a lineout, which is why I allowed it

If you had no black players present then clearly you didn't have a lineout. .. They can't throw

If you think black are time wasting the sanction is a FK (which of course blue CAN take quickly)

 

[The Fat]

If you had no black players present then clearly you didn't have a lineout. .. They can't throw

If you think black are time wasting the sanction is a FK (which of course blue CAN take quickly)

This ^^^
Ball in touch and hitting/touched by a spectator, (or others except for the player who may have carried it into touch & the player wanting to take the quick throw), negates the quick throw in. If you have two players from each side at the line-of-touch, then a quickly taken line out is on but you now have lots to look at as the ref and yes, it can be a bit like organised chaos.
If the throwing in team get two players to the line-of-touch quickly (as it seems happened in the OP), you can't force the opposition to hurry/run to form a lineout just so the throwing side can take a QTLO. I'm afraid the OP got it wrong on this occasion.
Most QTLOs occur when as soon as the numbers are right as a proper lineout has formed, the throwing in side already know where they are throwing to and IMMEDIATELY throw the ball in without any dicking around.
In my experience, a team will usually tell you during the PMB that, "We'd like to go quickly at our lineouts please ref", so that you are forewarned of their intention. It just means that as soon as the LO is formed, they will be throwing the ball in.

 

[SimonSmith]

Unless they go short numbers in which case the non throwing team get a reasonable time to adjust

 

[Ian_Cook]

Scenario: Gold v Blue - Blue has put the ball into touch. There are at least two players from each team on the LoT

As I see it, if Gold takes the throw into the Lineout quickly, (as opposed to a quick throw in), then

1. They better have any players not involved in the lineout back at the 10m offside line or at least retiring really quickly.
2. They cannot complain about unmatched numbers
3. They cannot complain about opposing backs being ahead of the 10m offside line.

If they want to have the reward of an unexpected (and therefore, likely uncontested) throw to the line out, then the risk is all theirs

 

[crossref]

Scenario: Gold v Blue - Blue has put the ball into touch. There are at least two players from each team on the LoT

As I see it, if Gold takes the throw into the Lineout quickly, (as opposed to a quick throw in), then

1. They better have any players not involved in the lineout back at the 10m offside line or at least retiring really quickly.
2. They cannot complain about unmatched numbers
3. They cannot complain about opposing backs being ahead of the 10m offside line.

If they want to have the reward of an unexpected (and therefore, likely uncontested) throw to the line out, then the risk is all theirs

If the QTI is on.. then it's up to Blue to be watch out for a quick throw and if they are asleep more fool them

However if the QTI is not on, then Blue known there is going to be a lineout.
I can imagine a lineout being conducted more rapidly than blue were expecting . That's ok.
I can't see a valid lineout happening at a moment when blue don't even realise they are standing in a lineout.

As others have said that sounds like chaos, and if you allow it (and the try that, let's face it, probably results) you are making a rod for your own back.

I think
We have lineouts, which are formal structures with lots of Laws and requirements
We have QTI,
There isn't really anything in between