Quickly taken lineout

[ChrisR]

From The Fat's post #51:

If we have a normal LO and players are milling about, the referee manages the situation which may include dealing with numbers, telling the opposing hooker to stand at 2&2, telling the backs they're not back 10 yet, making sure the gap is maintained etc.

This is what I'm talking about.

 

[crossref]

my point is - if you are prepared to allow a no-notice throw-in, why would you feel the need to give a warning before awarding a FK ?

if one team are deliberately arsing about to delay things - just FK them. the opo will undoubtedly take a quick tap.

 

[didds]

the fact that 10.2(b) this is, essentially, repeated in Law 19 shows that, for once, the Law makers are ahead of the game, and have specifically thought about this scenario, and the correct action when a disorganised side fails to form a lineout is NOT 'go ahead and throw it in anyway, that'll teach them' it's 'peep, FK'

I don't disagree with the facts, but unfortunately "peep, FK" is pretty toothless in most of the pitch, whereas "throw it in anyway" may be more useful.

didds

 

[crossref]

comapred to 'just throw it in' you get 10m of clear space

 

[ChrisR]

Unless we're inside our 22 I'd take the scrum instead of the FK and trade the 10m downfield for the better attacking platform and space wide.

But I'd really much prefer a QTLO with the ops in disarray. They'll be a lot smarter to the mark the next time.

 

[RobLev]

Unless we're inside our 22 I'd take the scrum instead of the FK and trade the 10m downfield for the better attacking platform and space wide.

But I'd really much prefer a QTLO with the ops in disarray. They'll be a lot smarter to the mark the next time.

Happy to extend that to a quickly-taken scrum?

 

[ChrisR]

Different animal.

 

[ChrisR]

Now, if we're allowed the QTLO I would not then expect the ops to be FKd because of numbers or any other irregularity.

 

[didds]

But I'd really much prefer a QTLO with the ops in disarray. They'll be a lot smarter to the mark the next time.

That being my entire point. anything else gives a set defence pretty much. even a tap FK - because that wastses time getting the ball to the 15m mark to even just start etc.

didds

 

[didds]

Now, if we're allowed the QTLO I would not then expect the ops to be FKd because of numbers or any other irregularity.

Indeed. but you wouldn't "need it".

didds

 

[didds]

comapred to 'just throw it in' you get 10m of clear space

??

at a QTLO you get 20m of space for the backs, and still 10m of space between the forward that catches it/receiver and the oppo backline?

didds

 

[RobLev]

Different animal.

There's a reason why they're both called "set-pieces".

 

[Pinky]

Now, if we're allowed the QTLO I would not then expect the ops to be FKd because of numbers or any other irregularity.

Wouldn't quite say "any other irregularity" but that's the gist.

 

[The Fat]

I'm interested to know how many or how often referees on here see a so called QTLO taken as soon as there are just the minimum 2 players from each side at the LoT?
From memory, there has only been one such incident from an international game discussed on here (was it Jonathon Kaplan???) and I don't think we managed to get a consensus on that thread either. Anyone remember the thread I'm talking about so we can do a search?
There is nothing in the laws that reference a QTLO so who exactly has determined that if the QTI is no longer an option, a LO with only some of the requirements for a LO having been met, can be taken?
As I have said before, the only QTLOs I have had in any game I have either refereed or have been AR for occur when the throwing in team are set and ready to go and as soon as the non-throwing sides LO players get to the LoT.

 

[crossref]

??

at a QTLO you get 20m of space for the backs, and still 10m of space between the forward that catches it/receiver and the oppo backline?

didds

yes, if the lineout is all set up, with two lines, and everyone in the right place, and 20m of space - then of course they can throw it in.

I thought we were talking about 'quickly taken lineouts' when the oppo are generally milling about, unaware that a lineout is taking place (manage it) or deliberately trying to prevent one take place (FK)

 

[crossref]

As I have said before, the only QTLOs I have had in any game I have either refereed or have been AR for occur when the throwing in team are set and ready to go and as soon as the non-throwing sides LO players get to the LoT.

nothing wrong with that.
and the other scenario - which you do see - is that the non - throwing team are all formed up ready first (which is normal) the throwing team approach the LoT and then exactly as the line forms the ball comes in.
Nothing wrong with that either.

In those scenarios we have a properly formed lineout with all requirements met, taken more rapidly than the oppos expected. All is well and good.

 

[The Fat]

I'm interested to know how many or how often referees on here see a so called QTLO taken as soon as there are just the minimum 2 players from each side at the LoT?
From memory, there has only been one such incident from an international game discussed on here (was it Jonathon Kaplan???) and I don't think we managed to get a consensus on that thread either. Anyone remember the thread I'm talking about so we can do a search?
There is nothing in the laws that reference a QTLO so who exactly has determined that if the QTI is no longer an option, a LO with only some of the requirements for a LO having been met, can be taken?
As I have said before, the only QTLOs I have had in any game I have either refereed or have been AR for occur when the throwing in team are set and ready to go and as soon as the non-throwing sides LO players get to the LoT.

So I have found the old thread I was talking about (way back in 2011), and it was indeed Jonathon Kaplan and it was the Mike Phillips try, Wales v Ireland. Thread only went for 21 pages mainly debating who was more at fault, the AR or JK the referee but there is still some discussion in there regarding QTI v QTLO. Even a few comments from Chopper towards the end of the thread.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?11963-Ireland-v-Wales&highlight=quick+lineout

Interesting comment from Brian Ravenhill National Panel TJ in post #126,
"Where does the phrase ‘Quickly taken throw in’ come from?
In my opinion you either have a quick throw in, which must take place behind where the ball went in to touch and with the same ball, a line out must not have formed, those duties are normally delegated to the AR. OR a line out, formed with two lines of players, a player in the channel for the defending side and if desired receives at least 2m away from the other players.
ARs are normally instructed to put up their arm as soon as the ball is confirmed as being in touch and their arm out to indicate that a quick throw cannot be taken."

 

[crossref]

I remember it well

If the AR was counting that as a "quickly-taken-lineout" (which he seemed be), then it neatly illustrates all the pitfalls of inventing such a beast.
To me a lineout taking place without the referee realising makes about as much sense as a scrum taking place while the referee isn't watching.

 

[ChrisR]

With a scrum the ball cannot be put in until a signal from the referee. That is clearly stated in law.

A better analogy would be a tap PK or FK, not a scrum. At a FK/PK once the mark has been made (or indicated) the kick can be taken.

 

[ChrisR]

There's a reason why they're both called "set-pieces".

Yet another term in common usage but not defined in law. Like "immaterial", which is how I consider your post.