Quickly taken lineout
- Thread starter ianh5979
- Start date
My understanding is that spectators or subs/coaching staff have to touch the ball deliberately to negate the QTI. So a ball hitting the back of a bloke carrying 2 pints with his back to the pitch means the QTI is still on.
From the rest of the description the QTI sounds valid to me.
From the rest of the description the QTI sounds valid to me.
here's the Law
[LAWS]
19.2(d)
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.[/LAWS]
I guess we now have a discussion about whether 'person touches ball' is the same as 'ball touches person'
I think the orthodox view is that a ball hitting the back of a bloke carrying 2 pints with his back to the pitch, would mean a QTI was NOT possible.
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
I suspect Ian's point is that if you elect to start a lineout while your own players are offside, then you should expect the referee to award a penalty against you. This applies equally if the forwards are on the LOT 16m away from the touchline (and thus 10m offside), or are within 15m of the touchline but less than 10m back from the LOT.
I'm not sure I agree with his point. Generally, such affairs are "managed" by signalling the offside players to get legal before they materially affect the game.
I agree.
Moreover
[LAWS]19.8 (a) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Minimum. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]At least two players from each team must form a lineout.
[/FONT]19.8 (g) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Failure to form a lineout. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.[/FONT][/LAWS]
Is (a) there to force the throwing team to wait for their opponents, or to provide the basis for (g)?
As with a restart kick, I don't really see why the opponents should have the right to delay matters.
In practice the opponents usually get to the line first, if only to pre-empt QTIs and other ploys. The throwing team are sorting out their tactic.
We discussed this point in depth during my IRB 2 course and we were instructed that the touch of the ball has to be deliberate. So bouncing off someone's back or hitting the dog on a leash, were not deliberate and thus QTI was still an option.
I guess we could argue the toss here between us and would get nowhere, another of those less-than-clear law sections.
this is true, and results of your discussion may very well closer to what was in the mind of the Law makers, who knows.
I think in the context of the games I ref, and the way the Law is generally understood then if the ball hit a spectator in the back I think it would be a controversial call to allow a QTI - The safe call is to say no.
Last edited:
I agree but neither can the throwing team throw the ball in to a "line out" that doesn't yet exist.
The Law actually is
[LAWS](g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]
So blow the whistle, go to the 15m line, award the FK and watch them take a quick tap.
[LAWS]19.6[FONT=fs_blakeregular] How the throw-in is taken [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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.[/FONT][/LAWS]The thrower can comply with this without waiting. The law seems to assume that the opposition will be present without specifying that they must be (though I suspect that is what the law makers meant).
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
And yet we see elite and other senior ARs putting up the flag if a ball carrier gently ensures that the ball touches them as he releases it ....
Surely they are not flummoxed by something at the level of an iRB L.2 scenario (without meaning to diminish the skill needed at that level)?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
If you are standing at the LoT with a team-mate, and there are two opponents (whose throw it is) also at the LoT, then you should be aware enough to realise that the ball could be thrown down the LoT at any time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I would expect the referee to manage them back to the LoT... motion in the direction of the 10m offside line ... "Gold back 10! Now"
for a normal line out we all spend a bit of time making sure lines are straight, counting numbers, gaps are maintained, non-throwing hooker is in the channel, everyone is 10m back.
If *none* of this is important if one side want to take the other by surprise, why is it ever important, why do we bother?
If *none* of this is important if one side want to take the other by surprise, why is it ever important, why do we bother?
We need to do it anyway in case it is material and therefore negates the throw. It is similar to spotting everything at a quick tap penalty or a major brawl ie it can be difficult.
As I said in an earlier post, a QTLO is most likely to be as per a normal LO where all requirements have been met and the thrower just takes the throw as soon as all is in place without going through a series of calls or place changes by his Lineout players.
You have to remember that just having 2 opponents at the line of touch is not sufficient trigger for the throw. One of those players would have to be at 2 & 2 as a direct opponent to the thrower. Having 2 players from each team at the LoT is not a green light for the thrower, it just means that a QT is no longer an option.
You have to remember that just having 2 opponents at the line of touch is not sufficient trigger for the throw. One of those players would have to be at 2 & 2 as a direct opponent to the thrower. Having 2 players from each team at the LoT is not a green light for the thrower, it just means that a QT is no longer an option.
Last edited:
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
You have to remember that just having 2 opponents at the line of touch is not sufficient trigger for the throw. One of those players would have to be at 2 & 2 as a direct opponent to the thrower. Having 2 players from each team at the LoT is not a green light for the thrower, it just means that a QT is no longer an option.
I disagree as this creates a timing no-man's-land.
RobLev
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,170
- Post Likes
- 244
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Offside players are truly offside whether or not their being offside is material. You may decide in the flow of the game that a player being offside isn't material if the team gains no advantage from it and hence not penalise their being offside.
But in this instance, if their team mate wants to take a quick lineout their being offside is inevitably material - taking the lineout while they are still offside is gaining an advantage for the team simply from the timing, whether or not their field position gives an advantage.
Last edited:
Your rationale is presumably that it is an advantage because the opposition assume a quick lineout is not allowed. However if the opposition are wrong, that train of thought is not valid, and so there is not necessarily any advantage in the timing