silly question?

[OB..]

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?

Once the referee decides a lineout has formed, then he will disallow any attempt at a QT. That does not cost the throwing side anything (19.2 (c) ).

 

[chopper15]

David, Phil and OB;

Is this what the expression 'Kick into the long grass' refers to? :sad:

You don't get it do you? :wow:

 

[chopper15]

David, Phil and OB;

Is this what the expression 'Kick into the long grass' refers to? :sad:

You don't get it do you? :wow:


You did give an answer, OB, for which I'm grateful. David are Phil are just being unnecessarily facetious in the circumstances of the query, which is a pity as there is a serious point of law to debate.

Pre-ELV; with a 'premature throw' (PT) at the LoT, should the ball not be thrown in straight, advantage is considered should the LO not be 'properly' formed.

In the same circumstances with an ELV QT, advantage need only be considered if the ball happens to be thrown forward.

Hence my; 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.

 

[David J.]

I'm not being facetious. By definition there won't be a lot of time to analyze whether a situation is a quick throw or a lineout, so I'll be using my judgement. If it looks like a lineout, it's a lineout. If it looks like a QT, it's a QT.

I'm not going to spend time on this thread shaving the LOTG, deciding whether "between" includes the line of touch. The game of rugby doesn't fall in that kind of analysis.

And I don't consider this a "serious point of law". It's a situation I've never actually encountered in 17 years of playing, watching and refereeing rugby. I'm sure whatever you decide Chopper will work for you.

 

[OB..]

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.

A Quick Throw-in is not permitted if a lineout has formed (2+2).
An early throw-in can still be taken - the throwing side does not have to wait until the defenders have combed their hair and brushed their teeth.

Normally, of course, a QT is taken some distance from the line of touch, so there is no confusion as to what the thrower is trying to do.

 

[Deeps]

I'm not being facetious. By definition there won't be a lot of time to analyze whether a situation is a quick throw or a lineout, so I'll be using my judgement. If it looks like a lineout, it's a lineout. If it looks like a QT, it's a QT.

I'm not going to spend time on this thread shaving the LOTG, deciding whether "between" includes the line of touch. The game of rugby doesn't fall in that kind of analysis.

And I don't consider this a "serious point of law". It's a situation I've never actually encountered in 17 years of playing, watching and refereeing rugby. I'm sure whatever you decide Chopper will work for you.

Do you want a flake with that Chuck?

 

[chopper15]

I'm not being facetious. By definition there won't be a lot of time to analyze whether a situation is a quick throw or a lineout, so I'll be using my judgement. If it looks like a lineout, it's a lineout. If it looks like a QT, it's a QT.

I'm not going to spend time on this thread shaving the LOTG, deciding whether "between" includes the line of touch. The game of rugby doesn't fall in that kind of analysis.

And I don't consider this a "serious point of law". It's a situation I've never actually encountered in 17 years of playing, watching and refereeing rugby. I'm sure whatever you decide Chopper will work for you.

So, David, if the LO looks not properly formed and the ball was thrown, i)straight to his man on his side of the LoT you would accept it as a QT and play on? And if it, ii) went fwd to the opp. side you would play advantage?

I state this, because if you were to consider it a premature throw, you would have to ping scenario i).

And as far as you, or any other ref for that matter, are concerned both PT and QT would 'look' the same but can result in different calls.

Hence my; 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. Either option, if agreed, would solve the problem.:hap:

 

[OB..]

Hence my; 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. Either option, if agreed, would solve the problem.:hap:

What problem? Please see my previous post above.

 

[chopper15]

What problem? Please see my previous post above.

If the LO looks/is not properly formed ..... both PT and QT would 'look' the same but can result in different calls.

 

[Phil E]

David, Phil and OB;
You don't get it do you? :wow:

Au contraire my English friend, I think it is you who don't get it.....and haven't got it in the 99 previous posts

 

[OB..]

If the LO looks/is not properly formed ..... both PT and QT would 'look' the same but can result in different calls.

The referee takes a view as to whether or not the lineout is formed.

If it is, then no quick throw-in is allowed. If a player tries to take one, it is disallowed and a normal lineout takes place with the same team throwing in.

It is rare for a Quick Throw-in to be taken at the place for a normal lineout. The ball crosses the line at an angle and is collected in touch further down field. For speed the player will come up to a point on the line nearest him. This distinguishes a QT from an early throw-in.

A further distinguishing point is that a QT is thrown to a team-mate (thought to be) in the open and free to play it. An early throw-in is to a line of at least 2 team mates with opponents.

I think you are straining at a gnat, and I am not even sure the gnat exists.

 

[chopper15]

Au contraire my English friend, I think it is you who don't get it.....and haven't got it in the 99 previous posts

Don't you come the old 'English' friend with me . . . 'au contraire' indeed. It was 99 posts the last time you mentioned it.:bday:

 

[chopper15]

The referee takes a view as to whether or not the lineout is formed.

If it is, then no quick throw-in is allowed. If a player tries to take one, it is disallowed and a normal lineout takes place with the same team throwing in.

It is rare for a Quick Throw-in to be taken at the place for a normal lineout. The ball crosses the line at an angle and is collected in touch further down field. For speed the player will come up to a point on the line nearest him. This distinguishes a QT from an early throw-in.

A further distinguishing point is that a QT is thrown to a team-mate (thought to be) in the open and free to play it. An early throw-in is to a line of at least 2 team mates with opponents.

I think you are straining at a gnat, and I am not even sure the gnat exists.

Address the point I raised you ol' waffler you. I know all that, that's why I was able to create that scenario. :clap:

 

[Davet]

Chopper, you seem determined to conflate two different things.

A Quick Throw-in may be taken under certain rigidly defined circumstances. Amomg these, specifically it cannot be taken if 2+2 are present at the place for the Line-out. If those 2+2 are present then what is being attempted, cannot - by defintion - be a Quick Throw, and must be a Line-Out; and the ref will then simply apply the Laws relating to Line-out.

Conversly, if 2+2 is not in place then what is being attempted can only be a Quick Throw, and the ref will apply the relevant laws, and if all met, play goes on.

There simply cannot be a situation where there is doubt. If a Line-out is formed (2+2) then the QT is impossible, if it has not formed then the Line-out is impossible.

The only possible doubt is in the refs mind - has a linout formed, is it the same ball, etc. ... in that case he simply makes a judgement and what he says becomes fact, and the game moves on from there as described above. (and following a discussion later with an assesor so may the referee)

It's either a duck, OR it's a pig with lipstick - the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[andyscott]

or 2 from one side and the other failing to make a linout FK.

 

[OB..]

Address the point I raised you ol' waffler you. I know all that, that's why I was able to create that scenario. :clap:

What scenario? If that was not a useful analysis, then please explain why, instead of throwing out unhelpful comments. Obviously you have not got your point across. Please spell out the actual scenario, instead of the abstract version using your own jargon.

 

[chopper15]

What scenario? If that was not a useful analysis, then please explain why, instead of throwing out unhelpful comments. Obviously you have not got your point across. Please spell out the actual scenario, instead of the abstract version using your own jargon.

Sorry. Point accepted. Will work at it now, while watching recent recording of 'Desperate Houswives'.

I think once I get it over to you all, you'll all be impressed.:hap:

PS So's we're all riding the same wave I'll assume these abbrv. are acceptable for thread discussion;

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

. . . and we all accept that a QT, as opposed to a PT, cannot be taken on the 5m line if the ball went into touch between there and the GL as per our thread.

 

[Davet]

Chopper, a premature throw cannot be taken anywhere.

You must keep in mind that the Line-out and the Quick Throw are mutually exclusive possibilities.

If the conditions exist for a Line-out then you cannot take the QT.

If conditions exist for a Line-out then the throw must be made under legal conditions - or sanctions will apply. e.g.The thrower MUST NOT have a foot in play, The thrower's team MUST have those not participating in the line out 10m back - so if 2+2 forms a line and he still has forwards approaching LoT, within 10m, and he throws - then those forwards are all offside.

I hope that example illustrates what I mean - there may be many others - but the principle is simple - if it's Line-out then follow line-out LAW. If it's a Quick Throw then follow QT law. There can NEVER be a case where it could be either - it must always be either one thing or the other.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Classic last night on Eurosport French Premiership - Biarritz v Perpignan.

Line out is formed immediately 2 + 2; ref is still marking middle and defending lines at 5m. Hooker takes fast throw to his front prop into his midrift (ref alongside so blocking any tackler), ref blows, "not straight, no advantage, scrum 15m to non-throwing side".

 

[chopper15]

Classic last night on Eurosport French Premiership - Biarritz v Perpignan.

Line out is formed immediately 2 + 2; ref is still marking middle and defending lines at 5m. Hooker takes fast throw to his front prop into his midrift (ref alongside so blocking any tackler), ref blows, "not straight, no advantage, scrum 15m to non-throwing side".

With ref. to Davet's resume (Thanks, Davet);

If ref wasn't obstructing and throw was straight;

i) Play on or still blow . . . no trammer? (eg PT)

ii) No trammer, throw not straight to Opp.? (eg PT adv.)

iii) 1+2, throw direct to team mate ? (eg QbT)