silly question?

[ddjamo]

I say yes - try. the 5m is only for the lineout - not the actual point where the ball went into touch.

 

[SimonSmith]

I say yes too.

A QT is NOT a lineout

 

[ExHookah]

I say yes too.

 

[Simon Thomas]

on a QT, it is a yes from me too, as long as it is taken behind where ball went out over touchline.

I would expect the defending coach to be apopletic though at his players !

 

[Dickie E]

I'd say yes but only after conferring at length with TJ/AR

 

[Dixie]

I'd say yes but only after conferring at length with TJ/AR

Interesting: the effect of the lengthy conference is to prevent the QT. This is presumably to make sure that any QT is taken at precisely the right spot; do you do the same for a QT on half way? If not, why the inconsistency?

 

[Dickie E]

Interesting: the effect of the lengthy conference is to prevent the QT. This is presumably to make sure that any QT is taken at precisely the right spot; do you do the same for a QT on half way? If not, why the inconsistency?

No, the effect of the lengthy conference may result in allowing the QT and the try.

This is a red zone decision and getting it wrong will result in a critical mistake (unlikely on 1/2 way). Getting it right is paramount.

 

[Dixie]

Oh, I see. The conference follows the QT and try, rather than precedes it. I'd misunderstood your previous post. My mistake.

 

[chopper15]

To distinguish between the two; QbT = Quick back Throw. QsT = Quick straight Throw (no different to a LO throw taken quickly!):hap:

'unlike any other flagged touch'. . . . just pointing out, Davet, that this situation is unique, ie., if the 2+2 isn't present you can't attempt a QbT at LoT but you can a QsT. . . . and this then is the agreed answer to my query?


PS. Thanks for the detailed answer, Davet. Much appreciated.:hap:

 

[Phil E]

if the 2+2 isn't present you can't attempt a QbT at LoT but you can a QsT. . . . and this then is the agreed answer to my query?

er....no.

If 2+2 IS present then you can't attempt a QT (backwards), but can attempt a quickly taken lineout throw.......might be called back though as there isnt 2+2+man in opposition to hooker................. (advantage might be played).

 

[chopper15]

er....no.

If 2+2 IS present then you can't attempt a QT (backwards), but can attempt a quickly taken lineout throw.......might be called back though as there isnt 2+2+man in opposition to hooker................. (advantage might be played).

Unlike the 'imposed' 5m LO, which we're discussing, Phil, if the thrower is at the LoT and the 2+2 is not yet present he can take a QT back or straight and no advantage need be considered.

So, for this 'imposed' 5m you confirm that no QT can be taken, only a quickly taken throw when advantage has to be considered?

 

[Dixie]

So, for this 'imposed' 5m you confirm that no QT can be taken, only a quickly taken throw when advantage has to be considered?

Any QT can be taken behind where the ball went into touch, so if that occurred less than 5m from goal, a QT at the 5m is permissible until 2+2 exists. Thereafter, no QT is possible but once the line has formed, the lineout can be executed more rapidly than normal, as with any other lineout. As someone else has said, advantage may be played if there is no "trammer" present from the opposition, and the ref will probably not react to an attempt to draw a penalty from the lack of that player if the throw was taken faster than normal.

 

[chopper15]

Any QT can be taken behind where the ball went into touch, so if that occurred less than 5m from goal, a QT at the 5m is permissible until 2+2 exists. .

But your decision blatantly contradicts;

19.2(b) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field
of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the
player’s goal line.

which was the focus of my original query, Dixie. You are allowing a QT to be taken between the place where the ball went into touch and the
opp's goal line

 

[SimonSmith]

I think Dixie's "behind" is his way of expressing 19.2.b.

Blue attack, kick the ball into touch 3m from Red goal line. Red may take a quick throw on the 3m line. They can't take it any closer to the BLUE goal line than that.

 

[Dixie]

Chopper, we are clearly looking at it from the point of view of different protagonists. Let's be a bit clearer.

Red (attacking) puts in a grubber kick for the corner. It just catches a Blue defender's leg as it clears the defensive back line, and then dribbles into touch 2m out. Red winger picks up the ball on the 2m line, walks back to the 5m line and takes a QT to his inside centre on the burst. Centre scores - all is fine.

Same scenario, but where the ball does not hit a Blue defender. Blue fullback picks up the ball on the 2m line, dashes to the 5m mark where the TJ has his flag up, and takes a long QT infield to the opposite winger who's covering across. In that case, the QT has to be pulled back, because it has been taken in front of where the ball crossed the touchline - albeit that that is the mark for the line of touch.

If the blue fullback waits at the 5m line until 2+2 exists, then hands the ball to his hooker who immediately throws in straight without any call being made, then play continues, the lineout having been duly taken, albeit before the player in the tramlines had a chance to get into position. The opportunity to take the opposition by surprise is its own advantage, so we see how it all unfolds from there.

 

[David J.]

I wonder how many posts Chopper has written on the single subject of the QT. I bet it's at least 98. Maybe even a little more.

 

[Dixie]

But this one was valuable - I would have done the wrong thing in a game

 

[chopper15]

But this one was valuable - I would have done the wrong thing in a game

Getting there, Dixie. ie., An ELV QT cannot be taken at LoT should the ball go into touch beyond the throwers 5m line.

Thanks for your patience. The terminology was/is the problem.

With reference to your second eg.

Now that the ELV QT law allows both back and straight throws, how is a ref. supposed to distinguish between a ‘premature throw’ (PT) and the ELV QT when taken at the LoT?

The PT is subject to being straight and, if not, with advantage considerations. . . . the QT, if not fwd, is not.

Either you interpret 19.2(b) literally (ie. 'between' as not being inclusive) and exclude the LoT for a QT; or accept that a prematurely taken throw IS a QT and subject to ELV law.

Convenient refs for thread discussion;

PT = Premature Throw. QT = Quick Throw. (QbT/QsT refers ‘back’ and ‘straight’ variants).


PS. See what you would've missed if I didn't persist, David. So over to you! :hap:

 

[David J.]

If it walks like a duck...

 

[Phil E]

If it walks like a duck...

You can put lipstick on a pig....