PDA

View Full Version : Law 10.2(c): Throwing into touch - Weird part



talbazar
06-12-11, 03:12
Following CrouchTPEngage thread on "When advantage stops" I had a look at law 10.2(c) (mentioned in the thread) and it raised something in my little slow brain...
The law says:
(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occured elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occured in in-goal.
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

Question: How could this offence prevent from scoring a try?
Or rather: How could this offence prevent from scoring a try in a situation that a non foul play wouldn't have?

For example:
Red kicks a grubber through and in Blue in-goal area.
Blue FB runs across the pitch, slides on the floor (diving on the ball) and tap the ball over the dead ball line while Red winger dives on the ball to score.
Would you really give a PT here?
../.. if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.
Well, the try would have been scored if the Blue FB didn't do anything...
But, if the ball is on the ground and if he was on time to tap the ball over the DBL, he could certainly have grounded it too... Don't you think?
Or, if the ball is bouncing, are we 100% sure the Red winger would have caught the ball and grounded it?
Or, if the Red winger grabbed the ball and the Blue FB tapped it off Red's hands over DBL, wouldn't you believe Red Wing lost control of the ball?

My rationale here is to say, if a player is enough in control of the ball to throw/tap/push the ball over a given line, why wouldn't he be enough in control to do something legal to prevent the try?

Ok, maybe I'm being too pedantic... Or I don't get the "probably otherwise have been scored" part of the law...
Cheers,
Pierre.

Jacko
06-12-11, 11:12
I would, and have, given a PT for this.

In my example an attacker was about to ground a bouncing ball to score when a defender who had been outpaced dived past and slapped the ball dead. I was happy that the attacker would probably have scored, having taken time to get close enough whereas the defender was in no position to legally stop the score.

Toby Warren
06-12-11, 11:12
I would, and have, given a PT for this.

In my example an attacker was about to ground a bouncing ball to score when a defender who had been outpaced dived past and slapped the ball dead. I was happy that the attacker would probably have scored, having taken time to get close enough whereas the defender was in no position to legally stop the score.

Jacko I gave PT for almost identical circumstances in the first game of the season.

PaulDG
06-12-11, 11:12
My rationale here is to say, if a player is enough in control of the ball to throw/tap/push the ball over a given line, why wouldn't he be enough in control to do something legal to prevent the try?

Ah, but he didn't do something legal.

The only test for a PT is to imagine what would have been the most likely outcome if the offending player was instantly beamed up to an orbiting Starship at the point he was about to offend.

Ignoring the shock and surprise of any witnesses :smile:, what would the attacking player now be able to do? Are there other defenders still present and close enough to prevent him doing it?

If the answer is "he'd score, the other defenders were too far away to prevent him" then you award a PT.

It's not about "what if the offender hadn't offended" - he did offend. So erase him from the picture and make a judgement.

Dixie
06-12-11, 13:12
But, if the ball is on the ground and if he was on time to tap the ball over the DBL, he could certainly have grounded it too... Don't you think? yes I do. But when a player could ahve acted legally but chose to act illegally, I don['t consider that to be a reason not to punish the illegal action. For example: Ashton dragged Tuilagi into touch by the hair, triggering a sequence of events leading to 2 red cards. He could have dragged by the shirt; does that mean he should be let off? Equally, a full-back trying to tackle any Tuilagi brother may be scared of going low, and tackle illegally high instead. If by doing so he prevents a try being scored (for example, knocking out the Tuilagi with a swinging arm), should I not give a PT because he could have tackled low as an alternative?

Account Deleted
06-12-11, 14:12
Agree with the view that you "beam him up" so PT is definitely a possibility. He had the choice to play legal or no to. He gets no "second chance" hypothetical or not.

talbazar
06-12-11, 14:12
Thanks lads.
Interesting view on the "beaming"...

Despite that all make sense, I'm afraid we have far too many Star Trek fans on this forum :biggrin:

Ian_Cook
07-12-11, 03:12
Thanks lads.
Interesting view on the "beaming"...

Despite that all make sense, I'm afraid we have far too many Star Trek fans on this forum :biggrin:



“The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one” http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/Spock-spock-star-trek-smiley-emoticon-000554-large.gif




Here is a great example of something similar to what you are talking about.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYGgoCCyls

Craig Joubert was not in position to see this, being behind the play, nonetheless, he suspected enough to take it upstairs. A great piece of refereeing.

Dickie E
07-12-11, 06:12
Thanks lads.
Interesting view on the "beaming"...

Despite that all make sense, I'm afraid we have far too many Star Trek fans on this forum :biggrin:

The beaming up concept makes sense.

Consider the common or garden variety PT - attacking winger is tackled around the neck into touch by defender thereby preventing probable try.

It would be wrong for the ref to think "well, the defender had time to tackle him around the legs, etc".

Account Deleted
07-12-11, 08:12
“The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one” http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/Spock-spock-star-trek-smiley-emoticon-000554-large.gif




Here is a great example of something similar to what you are talking about.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYGgoCCyls

Craig Joubert was not in position to see this, being behind the play, nonetheless, he suspected enough to take it upstairs. A great piece of refereeing.

Agreed!

Account Deleted
07-12-11, 08:12
Thanks lads.
Interesting view on the "beaming"...

Despite that all make sense, I'm afraid we have far too many Star Trek fans on this forum :biggrin:


I hate Star Trek.

Dixie
07-12-11, 10:12
I hate Star Trek. I respect your view, and in the spirit of the Prime Directive, will not interfere with the manifestly bizarre decisions of lesser races. Live long, and prosper.

Davet
08-12-11, 00:12
I hate Star Trek.

Ex-term-in-ate

PS - The Prime Directive is surely, "Whenever it is possible to add black pudding to your morning bacon and eggs then you must do so".

OB..
08-12-11, 00:12
I hate Star Trek.earthiest kart
heart rate kits
titterers haka
hit at streaker
the artiest ark
strike at heart
karate hitters
tit reheats ark
shatter a trike
striker eat hat
the tastier ark
a theatre skirt
theatre at risk
[...]

talbazar
08-12-11, 01:12
Here is a great example of something similar to what you are talking about.

Craig Joubert was not in position to see this, being behind the play, nonetheless, he suspected enough to take it upstairs. A great piece of refereeing.

Agreed.
It's exactly what I should have imagine...


The beaming up concept makes sense.

Consider the common or garden variety PT - attacking winger is tackled around the neck into touch by defender thereby preventing probable try.

It would be wrong for the ref to think "well, the defender had time to tackle him around the legs, etc".

Agreed again...

I guess I had a bit of a brain fart on this one.

Thanks gents.
Pierre.
PS: no more comment on Star Trek :biggrin: