The ball hit by a tent or tree outside the field.

sungwon

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2022
Messages
5
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Can a ball hit by a tent or tree outside the field be quick thrown in?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Below is from law 18. Note condition 2. Has to touch or be touched by a person:

A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:
1. A lineout had already been formed; or
2. The ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the player who carried the ball into touch; or
3. A different ball is used from the one that originally went into touch.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
a dog is a harder question :)

in practice I wouldn't allow a quick throw if the ball hit a dog, and that was material in making the ball easier to retrieve. But if it was a glancing touch that made no differnece, I'd allow it :)
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,209
Post Likes
2,205
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
How about a horse? 😁
 

Attachments

  • images.jpeg.jpg
    images.jpeg.jpg
    22.6 KB · Views: 2

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,816
Post Likes
869
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
a dog is a harder question :)

in practice I wouldn't allow a quick throw if the ball hit a dog, and that was material in making the ball easier to retrieve. But if it was a glancing touch that made no differnece, I'd allow it :)
Not sure this is valid. By your thinking why not say "I wouldn't allow a quick throw if the ball hit a tree, and that was material in making the ball easier to retrieve...."

A dog is treated, in law, in the same way as a tree etc.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,135
Post Likes
2,407
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Not sure this is valid. By your thinking why not say "I wouldn't allow a quick throw if the ball hit a tree, and that was material in making the ball easier to retrieve...."

A dog is treated, in law, in the same way as a tree etc.

Not really, its all about equity.
The tree is there for both teams and will be there all match.

The dog wont be in the same place if the other team had a ball in touch, so that's not fair and equitable.

I was always taught fixed object are fine, moving/roving objects are not.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
Not sure this is valid. By your thinking why not say "I wouldn't allow a quick throw if the ball hit a tree, and that was material in making the ball easier to retrieve...."

A dog is treated, in law, in the same way as a tree etc.
In the same way only in that neither are mentioned

I think that if ball hits a dog, bounces back and team takes a QTI (and let's face it probably scores a try due to the confusion) then the options are

Play on , and one team is really upset with you and the other team , while not upset, probably mostly think that was a terrible decision by you.

Peep, sorry lads fixed object is play on, moving or living object QTI not allowed . And 30 players nod approvingly

Second one is better
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,490
Solutions
1
Post Likes
450
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
In the same way only in that neither are mentioned

I think that if ball hits a dog, bounces back and team takes a QTI (and let's face it probably scores a try due to the confusion) then the options are

Play on , and one team is really upset with you and the other team , while not upset, probably mostly think that was a terrible decision by you.

Peep, sorry lads fixed object is play on, moving or living object QTI not allowed . And 30 players nod approvingly

Second one is better
It's lucky that all the players in your scenarios follow your line of thinking ...
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
248
Post Likes
150
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Peep, sorry lads fixed object is play on, moving or living object QTI not allowed . And 30 players nod approvingly
In May, I was AR for a game where a bird dropped a fish on the field just a few minutes before kickoff. I moved it (with my foot :D) a couple meters into touch. It was still alive at that point.
What if, a few minutes later, the ball went into touch, hit the fish, and the bounce off the ball off the fish was clearly advantageous for a team to take a QTI? Would it affect your decision if the fish was now dead? What if the fish was very large or very small? What if it wasn’t a fish but a four legged mammal that wasn’t a dog, like a squirrel or a horse?

Obviously, all of this is nonsense. The law is quite clear here. We have enough situations to debate about where the law is not clear. If it touches a person, QTI not allowed. If it touches anything else, QTI is still on.
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
249
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Not really, its all about equity.
The tree is there for both teams and will be there all match.

The dog wont be in the same place if the other team had a ball in touch, so that's not fair and equitable.

I was always taught fixed object are fine, moving/roving objects are not.
Ahh but what if it's a really windy day and the ball hits a swaying branch that won't be in the same position for the other team later in the half 🤔🤔
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,145
Post Likes
1,838
... or an open door that may be closed later and "not there" ...

... or in the first half a westerly wind that affects the flight, that could change to an easterly wind in the second half...

:D
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
All these incidents are so unlikely that we can't realistically expect the Laws to cover them all unambiguously, so we wil need to apply some common sense and empathy

I don't think the players will be expecting a law book reference
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,010
Post Likes
269
Most players DO expect a law book reference, they do not expect the ref to vary them to suit him/herself.

"I have a law book here chaps/ladies, I have crossed out the ones I do not think I will apply today?"
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,135
Post Likes
2,407
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Safety
EQUITY
Law

In that order.

But if you need a law reference then it's 6.5a
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,816
Post Likes
3,154
Safety
EQUITY
Law

In that order.

But if you need a law reference then it's 6.5a
And also 6.8.b

I think live ball hits dog is pretty much perfect example of why we might want to use 6.8.b

(And, if material, I am quite surprised that any experienced ref would be tempted to play on)
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,869
Post Likes
380
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
I can understand Peep, sorry lads fixed object is play on, moving or living object QTI not allowed . And 30 players nod approvingly.

What about a semi moving object e.g. hand crate full of water bottles which move every stoppage?
 
Top