PDA

View Full Version : OT question



Dickie E
06-03-11, 01:03
discussed this with an Assessor yesterday.

Red throw ball at lineout and it's not straight.

Blue given scrum/lineout and they choose lineout.

Ball is returned to touchline, and before lineout can reform, Blue take QT.

Is this legal?

The Fat
06-03-11, 01:03
Definitely not. 19.2(d)
What did the assessor say?

In one of the Super Rugby matches this weekend, a player with one foot outside the FoP and one foot inside the FoP, picked up a moving ball, following kick by opposition, and without altering his stance took a QT. Ref and AR allowed play to continue. Opinions???

Dickie E
06-03-11, 08:03
fat, why isn't it legal?

Phil E
06-03-11, 09:03
discussed this with an Assessor yesterday.

Red throw ball at lineout and it's not straight.

Blue given scrum/lineout and they choose lineout.

Ball is returned to touchline, and before lineout can reform, Blue take QT.

Is this legal?

I would find it very difficult to argue that a lineout was not formed with all those players milling about from the original lineout, still near the LOT?

Davet
06-03-11, 10:03
Mainly because 19.7 says that the option is to have a scrum or £throw in at a Line-out". A QT is NOT a line out, so is not available.

In addition to take a QT no-one other than the thrower or an opponent who carried the ball into touch is permitted to have touched the ball - in this case at least one other person - opposition hooker - has touched it in order to throw not straight - then it was caught, given to other people... etc etc. so a QT is not an option. Also the Lineout had formed, so the QT is not an option.

In summary, then, there is no way on god's green earth that a QT is allowed.

OB..
06-03-11, 11:03
In one of the Super Rugby matches this weekend, a player with one foot outside the FoP and one foot inside the FoP, picked up a moving ball, following kick by opposition, and without altering his stance took a QT. Ref and AR allowed play to continue. Opinions???

He is in the field of play when he takes the throw.

I realise Law 19.2 (e) says "steps into the field of play" as though it only matters if he started outside it, but IMHO that would be a perverse interpretation.

ddjamo
06-03-11, 12:03
dickie...are you asking about taking a lineout quickly or a QT? the former I don't see why not?

chopper15
06-03-11, 13:03
In yesterday's Redruth v Stourbridge game (36:32), White, ran across to retrieve Red's kick to touch and with leading foot in touch he palmed the ball direct and behind to a team-mate outside the 5m line. The ref called for a White LO instead of allowing play to continue for either a QT or a tap back.

I query the decision because if the scenario was as I saw it and his trailing foot was off the ground and

i) the ball was over the TL, wouldn't it be a QT?

ii) the ball was in the FoP . . a tap back?

or did he not allow a QT because as the QT suggests it must be a 'throw' not a palmed lob?

As he did award White the LO what could he have seen to justify his decision.

We politely asked the AR during a lull in play but his body language suggested he wasn't going to oblige with an opinion. :biggrin:

PS. Just in case you may not know, Exeter v Northants are on Freeview Ch 34 at 3pm.

OB..
06-03-11, 14:03
Since he had a foot in touch, the ball was in touch when he played it.

Seeing the tap as a QT is ingenious but has never been the case.

A rationale would be that one action confirms that the ball is in touch, and the QT has to be a separate action ie a genuine throw.

The Fat
06-03-11, 19:03
fat, why isn't it legal?

As stated in my original response, 19.2(d).
Davet has expanded on that so therefore also see his response.

the magpie
07-03-11, 07:03
In yesterday's Redruth v Stourbridge game (36:32), White, ran across to retrieve Red's kick to touch and with leading foot in touch he palmed the ball direct and behind to a team-mate outside the 5m line. The ref called for a White LO instead of allowing play to continue for either a QT or a tap back.

I query the decision because if the scenario was as I saw it and his trailing foot was off the ground and

i) the ball was over the TL, wouldn't it be a QT?

ii) the ball was in the FoP . . a tap back?

or did he not allow a QT because as the QT suggests it must be a 'throw' not a palmed lob?

As he did award White the LO what could he have seen to justify his decision.

We politely asked the AR during a lull in play but his body language suggested he wasn't going to oblige with an opinion. :biggrin:

PS. Just in case you may not know, Exeter v Northants are on Freeview Ch 34 at 3pm.

Obviously, the ref has seen this as an attempt to keep the ball in play. If the ball hasn't crossed the plane of touch, then it would have been play on:


A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline. Law 19 Definitions

the magpie
07-03-11, 07:03
Since he had a foot in touch, the ball was in touch when he played it.

No! The player can tap a ball back when they are in touch, as long as the ball has not crossed the plane of touch. From Law 19's Definition:


A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

Dixie
07-03-11, 09:03
Magpie, tobe fair Chopper was the guy who saw it, and states in his post that as he saw it, the ball had crossed the plane of touch. You are of course correct if Chooper was wrong - but we have no indication of that.