silly question?

[Dickie E]

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)

is there an English language version of this?

 

[chopper15]

Originally Posted by 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".

Sorry!

So, if ref wasn't obstructing and throw was straight;

i) Should ref. play on or still blow with no trammer present?
Is this an eg of a premature throw (PT)?

ii) No trammer, throw not straight opp. catches?
eg. of allowing adv. for PT?

iii) 1+2; throw direct to team mate.
eg.to allow quick back throw (QbT)?

Watched Redruth v Stourbridge yesterday. Opp's throw on Red's 5m. Opp about to take a PT. Ref holds play pointing for Red to bring in a trammer when there were two or three players standing in GL in line with trams.

What could've justified this move?

 

[PaulDG]

Chopper, you're missing the point again.

Remember the Laws are a framework that we use to manage the match. So:

So, if ref wasn't obstructing and throw was straight;
i) Should ref. play on or still blow with no trammer present?

IMHO, play on. Thrower has decided not to wait because perhaps he perceives a tactical advantage. Up to him that there's no trammer present, not due to intentional foul play on part of non-throwing in side. Play on.

Is this an eg of a premature throw (PT)?

As I understand your description, yes.

ii) No trammer, throw not straight opp. catches?
eg. of allowing adv. for PT?

The thrower has chosen not to wait for the trammer so IMHO has given up his right to expect a FK for it (unless non-throwing side were blatantly attempting to delay the throw by not putting a many in). He's thrown not straight and opposition have caught the ball. Advantage to non-throwing in side for not straight. And advantage very quickly over as opposition now have ball - which is the best result they could expect from a scrum.

iii) 1+2; throw direct to team mate.
eg.to allow quick back throw (QbT)?

As I understand it, you're describing a situation where a line out has not yet been formed. Assuming a Quick Throw hasn't been taken off the menu by the other ways it can be prevented (e.g. not same ball in use, etc.), then it's an allowable QT under the ELVs. Play on.

Watched Redruth v Stourbridge yesterday. Opp's throw on Red's 5m. Opp about to take a PT. Ref holds play pointing for Red to bring in a trammer when there were two or three players standing in GL in line with trams.

What could've justified this move?

Management.

 

[chopper15]

All understood, Paul. Thanks.

Would've appreciated a bit more on 'management' answer, tho'.

My point was there was a trammer present within the 10m albeit on the GL.

Ref. pointed to 'usual' trammer pos. and took away opp's initiative.

Unjustified interference by ref.?

 

[Phil E]

Unjustified interference by ref.?

No such thing.

 

[PaulDG]

...Would've appreciated a bit more on 'management' answer, tho'.

My point was there was a trammer present within the 10m albeit on the GL.

Ref. pointed to 'usual' trammer pos. and took away opp's initiative.

Unjustified interference by ref.?

There are around 20 regulations that, in theory, should be satisfied before a line out can legally proceed. Almost all, if infringed, can be the cause for a FK against the offending team.

So that we actually do have line outs - and not a rugby league FK on the 15m every time the ball goes into touch, referees always "manage" the lineout.

Sometimes that will mean a team is denied the advantage of taking a throw quickly, sometimes it will mean a team that is mucking about for gamesmanship purposes will get away with not giving away FKs.

That's the game though.. In general, most referees get it right enough for the level of the game we're assigned to such that our margin of error is well below the score difference. And most of the time the game keeps the "shape" we all expect.

And that's what we're aiming for. That and no one getting seriously hurt.

That help?

 

[chopper15]

No such thing.

You missed out an appropriate 'thingie', Phil.

Without one I could think you're serious.

 

[chopper15]

Many thanks again, Paul.

I only wish some other refs were as forthcoming and informative as you.

My theory is they're not too sure themselves so attempt to earn kudos by trying to amuse.:hap:

 

[Phil E]

Many thanks again, Paul.

I only wish some other refs were as forthcoming and informative as you.

My theory is they're not too sure themselves so attempt to earn kudos by trying to amuse.:hap:

Alternatively they could be sick to the back teeth of repeating the same answer, to the same question, ad infinitum!

PS: You can keep your kudos; I don't like foreign food.