[Line out] When is Quick Throw-In No Longer Possible?

Voetap


Referees in America
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
11
Post Likes
4
When is a lineout deemed to have formed, so that a quick throw-in is no longer possible?

And where are the offside lines at a quick throw-in?

These questions bothered me in a recent match where I allowed Red to throw in quickly every time that they would have been awarded a lineout. Red did so while players from both sides were still retreating towards their offside lines or trundling towards the line of touch. Most forwards from either side were still some way from the line of touch when Red threw the ball to one of their players (see Law 19.2.a: “A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form”).

Much complaining ensued from Green, who sometimes also had one or two players in the general vicinity of the throw-in. Green insisted that if
two of their players were present, then the lineout has been formed, and Red's quick throw-in should be disallowed (Law 19.2.c: “A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed”; and Law 19.8.a: ”At least two players from each team must form a lineout”).

But does Law 19 actually say that:
a. the lineout is
formed if two players from one side are present?
or merely,
b. two players are
the minimum number of players for a lineout to take place?

I took position b), thinking that the stipulation is similar to the one that limits scrums to a minimum of five players from each side (Laws 3.3 & Law 20.1.e, although these address a situation where there are fewer than 15 players on the field of play).


If I was correct, then a lineout had not yet properly been formed here, which would require players from both sides forming two lines along the line of touch, with players standing onside in various positions.

Was I wrong, and Green right, that the presence of two players from each team means a lineout has
formed?

If so, has a lineout been formed when two Green players and one Red player are standing along the line of touch, but other players have not yet arrived?

Even if Green was right, and a lineout had formed, does Law 19.8 prevent Red from operating a quick lineout under these circumstances?


As if the match progressed, I actually became more worried about another issue: where are the offside lines when a quick throw-in is taken? Are they non-existent until a tackle, maul or ruck develops (i.e. governed by Law 11.1, Offside in General Play)? Or does the ball form the offside line (Law 19.3.b)?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Hi Voetap, you were correct. As you state Law 19.8.a says [LAWS]At least two players from each team must form a lineout[/LAWS] which means a minimum of 4 players, 2 from each team.

In a practical sense, if these 4 players are within a metre or so of the LoT and preparing to be lineout players, I would give a quick blow with a crisp "lineout formed, no quick throw".

And there are no offside lines for a QTI, not even the ball.

There will now be a debate about the status of players who were offside (particularly under 10 metre law) at the time the ball went into touch. At what point are they allowed to participate in the game, post QTI?
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,855
Post Likes
364
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Sounds like red had thought this through and it was a tactic in which case green need to cover it until you call line out formed. I would just watch if rede were running up and down the line trying to find a gap and call it formed after a few seconds. Don't forget it has to be the player who has recovered the ball.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
1 When is a lineout deemed to have formed, so that a quick throw-in is no longer possible?

2 And where are the offside lines at a quick throw-in?

3 These questions bothered me in a recent match where I allowed Red to throw in quickly every time that they would have been awarded a lineout. Red did so while players from both sides were still retreating towards their offside lines or trundling towards the line of touch. Most forwards from either side were still some way from the line of touch when Red threw the ball to one of their players (see Law 19.2.a: “A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form”).

4 Much complaining ensued from Green, who sometimes also had one or two players in the general vicinity of the throw-in. Green insisted that if
two of their players were present, then the lineout has been formed, and Red's quick throw-in should be disallowed (Law 19.2.c: “A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed”; and Law 19.8.a: ”At least two players from each team must form a lineout”).

5 But does Law 19 actually say that:
a. the lineout is
formed if two players from one side are present?
or merely,
b. two players are
the minimum number of players for a lineout to take place?

I took position b), thinking that the stipulation is similar to the one that limits scrums to a minimum of five players from each side (Laws 3.3 & Law 20.1.e, although these address a situation where there are fewer than 15 players on the field of play).


If I was correct, then a lineout had not yet properly been formed here, which would require players from both sides forming two lines along the line of touch, with players standing onside in various positions.

Was I wrong, and Green right, that the presence of two players from each team means a lineout has
formed?

6 If so, has a lineout been formed when two Green players and one Red player are standing along the line of touch, but other players have not yet arrived?

Even if Green was right, and a lineout had formed, does Law 19.8 prevent Red from operating a quick lineout under these circumstances?


As if the match progressed, I actually became more worried about another issue: where are the offside lines when a quick throw-in is taken? Are they non-existent until a tackle, maul or ruck develops (i.e. governed by Law 11.1, Offside in General Play)? Or does the ball form the offside line (Law 19.3.b)?

I'll take your post point by point in order to hopefully provide correct answers to each. Please be aware that there will be some debate as to interpretation of the LoTG and in fact, my own interpretation of some aspects has changed from those posted not too long ago in another thread (due to clarification last weekend whilst attending a referee's course).

1 A LO requires a minimum of 2 players (LO players) from each team at/near the Line-of-touch. Therefore, as soon as this requirement has been fulfilled, a Quick Throw-In (QTI) is no longer an option.

2 There are no off-side lines at a QTI.

3 You need to be careful not to confuse a QTI with a Quickly Taken Lineout (QTLO). You say here that, " I allowed Red to throw in quickly every time that they would have been awarded a lineout." However, you don't say if you allowed red a QTI or a QTLO. You indicate that forwards from both sides were either retiring to the offside line or were still approaching the line-of-touch (LoT). This implies that the requirement of 2 players from each team at the LoT had been fulfilled and therefore we are now dealing specifically with a QTLO. If that is the case, did you ensure that the throw was along the LoT? If it was a QTLO, your reference to Law 19.2(a) is irrelevant as that law relates only to a QTI.

4 This is where things get a little confusing. Your previous paragraph (3) talks about players from both sides still either retiring the 10m or approaching the LoT but this paragraph suggests that there may not have been 2 red players at the LoT but often there were 2 green players at the LoT. Of course green's insistence that as soon as they have 2 players at the LoT a LO has formed is correct ONLY if the red team also has 2 players there. This paragraph now suggests we are still in QTI option phase.

5 The law says neither (a) or (b). The law is quite clear in that for a LO to form, there must be at least 2 players from EACH team at the LoT.

6 No. If you have 2 x green and only 1 x red players at the LoT, a LO has not been formed and a QTI is still on (subject to other criteria).


Now, earlier in my post I said that my interpretation of the QTLO has changed due to discussions at a recent referee's course.
Previously, it was my interpretation that when 2 players from each team were at the LoT, the only result of that action was that the option of a QTI had been negated and that prior to the ball being thrown into the QTLO, ALL the requirements of a formal LO had to be met i.e. a player opposite the thrower at the 2 & 2 position and non-participating players either at their offside line or in the process of getting to their offside line.
The instruction I received last weekend was that the throwing in team does not have to wait for the other team's hooker to be in place or for all of the non-participating players to be at their offside lines.
So how does this affect your OP?
To summarise in relation to your OP;
* The QTI is on up until the point when there are 2 players from each team at the Lot + the thrower.
* There is no offside line at a QTI
* As soon as there are 2 players from each team at the LoT, a QTLO can occur however, the throw-in must be along the LoT as per a normal LO
* There ARE offside lines at a QTLO and players who have not made it back to their respective offside lines need to be managed i.e. material effect/advantage/penalise if necessary
* The opposing hooker does not have to be at his usual position of 2 & 2 before the ball is thrown in at a QTLO.


OK, I'll now sit back and wait for the bullets.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
There ARE offside lines at a QTLO and players who have not made it back to their respective offside lines need to be managed i.e. material effect/advantage/penalise if necessary

Fat, are these offside from non-throwing team or either? I have a problem with a QTLO if thrower's teamates are offside.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Fat, are these offside from non-throwing team or either? I have a problem with a QTLO if thrower's teamates are offside.

There are two offside lines.
I have stated in a previous thread that the only time I have encountered a QTLO is when a team, "wants to go quickly" at a LO i.e. they get to the lineout quickly with all of their own players in place so that as soon as the opposition LO players are at the LoT, they throw the ball in. Such teams have usually given me a heads up prior to the match that they like to go quickly.
Therefore, I haven't had a Jonathon Kaplan/Wales/Ireland situation.
To answer your question in another way, would I allow red to take a QTLO and pass the ball to a team mate who was outside the 15m line and forward of the 10m offside line? No.
If a team wants to go super quick as soon as there are 2 players from each team at the LoT, they are probably going to throw the ball in and then pass the ball back to the thrower in the 5m channel or keep it with their two LO players. If they start to immediately spread it wide, they are moving the ball towards their opponent's arriving players.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
I think that it's a very confusing response to voetap's question to then start discussing the vexed and controversial question of a 'QTLO' which exists nowhere in the Law book.

For me - the idea that there is a such a 'thing' as a QTLO - in the sense of it's being something subject to different Laws than a 'regular' lineout is a controversial idea, and not supported by the Laws (despite what Fat might have told on his course!). I don't believe in it. We have QTI, and we have Lineouts. Some lineouts may happen faster than others, but there is only ONE set of Laws.


Voetap -- focusing on your question

1 - as others say it takes two players from each side to form a lineout and remove possibility of a QTI
Green cannot - on their own - remove the possibility of a red QTI by going and standing on the LoT.

2 - but it's a common myth that they can, and if green aree under a misunderstanding it's a good idea to sort this out with Green Capt as early as possible, so he understands you and is on the same page, rather than thinking you are making a repeated mistake )

3 - your account sounds like Red were able to execute a large number of QTI -- to me that's quite unusual, as many times there is one reason or another why a QTI is not on (different ball, someone else touches it, lineout really has formed, or simply that green quite legally cover all the options and the QTI just isn't on) if there were lots of QTI - are you sure you weren't missing anything else?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
there is only ONE set of Laws.
Indeed - but there are many different interpretations. However I agree this is not the pace to discuss them.

I think the OP has received a helpful set of answers.
 

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
At what point does "19.8(g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout." apply?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
At what point does "19.8(g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout." apply?

that's such a weird Law, isn't it?

Presumably it's aimed at preventing time wasting -- but we already have a Law on time wasting. We don't really need 19.8(g).
 

Voetap


Referees in America
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
11
Post Likes
4
Regarding #3, Red attempted about 4 QTIs during the match - no doubt encouraged by my allowing them to complete the first one. It happened during a friendly match between a regular side (Green) and a team patched together from about 3 different teams (Red). My impression was that, due to the disadvantages that this match-up caused, Red was happy to chance their hand in order not to surrender too easily).
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Regarding #3, Red attempted about 4 QTIs during the match - no doubt encouraged by my allowing them to complete the first one. It happened during a friendly match between a regular side (Green) and a team patched together from about 3 different teams (Red). My impression was that, due to the disadvantages that this match-up caused, Red was happy to chance their hand in order not to surrender too easily).

and not unusual if Green regularly adopted the kick for touch approach.
 

Voetap


Referees in America
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
11
Post Likes
4
Regarding #4, Green obviously thought that if they got two players to the LoT quickly, then the QTI was not on. So, yes, Green often had two players arriving early while Red was still in disarray. Red's thrower neutralized this advantage by throwing in to whichever of his players arrived on the scene, without further ado. The Red thrower pitched his throw-in more or less along the LoT or towards his own goal line. As I did not consider the lineout to have formed, I did not press for the throw to be along the LoT.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
Regarding #3, Red attempted about 4 QTIs during the match - no doubt encouraged by my allowing them to complete the first one. It happened during a friendly match between a regular side (Green) and a team patched together from about 3 different teams (Red). My impression was that, due to the disadvantages that this match-up caused, Red was happy to chance their hand in order not to surrender too easily).

Yes, 4 QTI seems fine , for a team that likes to do them
 

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
Especially for a scratch team with no line out calls prepared.
 
Top