PDA

View Full Version : interfering with a QTI -- unsuccessfuly.



crossref
30-06-15, 09:06
Last couple of minutes of a sevens game, so everything is happening quickly (and you don't need to be very close to the try line for a successful break to be a try scoring opportunity)

- red are in possession
- red ball carrier is tackled into touch, and the ball rolls free.
- red support player, seeing a blue player arriving, quickly picks the ball up to prevent a blue QTI.
- arriving blue player yells and make to grab the ball and red, rather lamely, drops it to the floor
- blue player picks it up and executes a QTI to himself and hares off down the pitch, very likely to score..

So - according to the Laws the QTI cannot be taken as it's been touched by another player, the cynical ploy succeeded, so I think the technical answer is peep, YC the red player and award a PK

However could the ref legitimately play on and let them score what could be a match winning try ?

- by playing advantage (in which case come back and YC the player later) ... But you can't play advantage when the ball is dead...

- by declaring the offence immaterial and ignoring it ? In which case no YC...

Dickie E
30-06-15, 10:06
the Red support player can't prevent the Blue player from taking the ball but I see nothing wrong with him touching it to prevent a QT. Play the lineout.

I'll now go and check the law :)



EDIT: yes, all seems above board:

(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

Rushforth
30-06-15, 10:06
You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up, in much the same way red tackled player isn't to hold on to it if blue support arrives first.

Having successfully prevented the QTI, it does seem a bit churlish to drop the ball rather than hand it to blue.

ddjamo
30-06-15, 10:06
You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up, in much the same way red tackled player isn't to hold on to it if blue support arrives first.

Having successfully prevented the QTI, it does seem a bit churlish to drop the ball rather than hand it to blue.

HOGWASH! there's no way the lawmakers intended the law to be for the removal of a QTI. the no touch portion is to stop the throwing in side from gaining an advantage NOT for the opposition to take away a chance at continuity.

crossref
30-06-15, 10:06
You are seeing an offence where there isn't one.

Red support player is perfectly within rights to pick the ball up,.

hmm, wasn't expecting those answers : whenever we've discussed it before, it's tended to be me arguing that it's not an offence, agaisnt the prevailing current of opinion that it IS an offence. for example
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread....preventing+QTI

ddjamo
30-06-15, 10:06
Last couple of minutes of a sevens game, so everything is happening quickly (and you don't need to be very close to the try line for a successful break to be a try scoring opportunity)

- red are in possession
- red ball carrier is tackled into touch, and the ball rolls free.
- red support player, seeing a blue player arriving, quickly picks the ball up to prevent a blue QTI.
- arriving blue player yells and make to grab the ball and red, rather lamely, drops it to the floor
- blue player picks it up and executes a QTI to himself and hares off down the pitch, very likely to score..

So - according to the Laws the QTI cannot be taken as it's been touched by another player, the cynical ploy succeeded, so I think the technical answer is peep, YC the red player and award a PK

However could the ref legitimately play on and let them score what could be a match winning try ?

- by playing advantage (in which case come back and YC the player later) ... But you can't play advantage when the ball is dead...

- by declaring the offence immaterial and ignoring it ? In which case no YC...

I have wondered the same thing and would be very tempted to let things play out if a player was taking the piss like that. to me - that's not gamesmanship - it's cowardly. stay in the fop and defend the throw.

Browner
30-06-15, 11:06
The ideology behind the QTI is to permit 'game continuity' the fact that law wording doesn't specifically deal with 'Mr gamesmanship' is a shame, and it needs to be widened to do so IMO.

In the OP scenario, If i was satisfied that red support player's actions were deliberate, then i would be deem it against 'the spirit' of the game, so I'd let the play continue, then inform the red captain of my interpretation so that he can communicate to his players and thus prevent a repeat offence from his team, from which a higher sanction may follow.

ChrisR
30-06-15, 11:06
I think we should referee to the Laws.

When the Red player picks up the ball he has committed NO offense. By his quick thinking and law knowledge he has prevented the opponents from taking a QTI. Well done Red player.

As the ball is dead and no QTI is on then the next act of the Red player, dropping the ball instead of handing it to Blue, is churlish but immaterial and I wouldn't consider it an offence by law.

Phil E
30-06-15, 12:06
There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

crossref
30-06-15, 12:06
There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

Will Skinner / Alain Roland

But I don't think that follows - that RC was a for a sub interfering with the game.
It would also be a RC offence for a sub to step on the field and make a tackle, but tackles in themselves are perfectly legal for a player to do.

Browner
30-06-15, 12:06
. By his quick thinking and law knowledge he has prevented the opponents from taking a QTI. Well done Red player.


. If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.
Law expects a QTi 'opportunity' to be created by the BC being compelled to release the ball.

You're advocating that teammates are allowed to race/rush to touch the ball with the sole purpose of nullifying a QTi 'opportunity' ?!

Law omission/silence doesn't become the 'gamesmanship charter' , if that were the case then there are a host of things that could be done to add to this TEotWedge. :nono:

crossref
30-06-15, 12:06
when we have discussed this before I was always on the side of : it's not an offence, merely smart play.

but one thing that has started to sway me as I have reffed more and more games, is that when it occasionally happens the the general expectation of the players does seem to be that it's wrong and the expect the ref to penalise it.

(yes, I know of course we don't ref to please the players ... but still... it makes it seem less an open/shut issue).


But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

OB..
30-06-15, 13:06
There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.Wasn't the PK for knocking the ball out of the player's hands?

On second thoughts, I think that was a different offence.

There have been cases of non-players interfering with play, which I agree with. However I see no good reason in law to penalise a player for playing the ball unless specifically prohibited.

Browner
30-06-15, 13:06
. But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

Yes, absolutely you can, why would you ever want to cancel a non offending team's 'opportunity' to continue? "advantage blue " & if you want to escalate , then do so under next break in play ( IIRC similar was discussed under another thread) , to do otherwise gives the offender Red the outcome he sought ...to get his team organised to defend!

OB..
30-06-15, 13:06
Yes, absolutely you can, why would you ever want to cancel a non offending team's 'opportunity' to continue? "advantage blue " & if you want to escalate , then do so under next break in play ( IIRC similar was discussed under another thread) , to do otherwise gives the offender Red the outcome he sought ...to get his team organised to defend!Why is Red an offender? The bit of law you quoted in your #11 was simply designed to prevent a player, having been forced into touch, from holding onto the ball if an opponent wanted it.19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]This says that if other people touch the ball, a QTI is no longer an option.

Browner
30-06-15, 13:06
Why is Red an offender?

I was answering crossref, within his " those of you" invite .

John3822
30-06-15, 13:06
To my mind it is an act contrary to good sportmanship and contrary to the spirit of the game. Much the same as the team not in possession, chasing back and calling for the inside pass from a ball-carrier. Pinged that one on Saturday at a 7's tournament and no complaints.
In the OP, essentially it is negative play.

Dickie E
30-06-15, 13:06
But my OP was exploring the other angle : for those of you who think it is an offence, can you simply ignore it an play on ?

OK, I don't think it is an offence but if I did I would not allow play to continue.

I think you're suggesting a "beam me up, Scotty" kind of situation but remember the ball is dead and out of play. If an offence has been committed correct restart is PK on 15M line, advantage can't be played.

Dickie E
30-06-15, 13:06
calling for the inside pass from a ball-carrier. Pinged that one on Saturday

Really? Wow

ddjamo
30-06-15, 14:06
Wasn't the PK for knocking the ball out of the player's hands?

On second thoughts, I think that was a different offence.

There have been cases of non-players interfering with play, which I agree with. However I see no good reason in law to penalise a player for playing the ball unless specifically prohibited.

IMO leaving the field of play to stop play is the same as standing in the trams to stop a QTI - not where the player should be and interfering with a legal restart. just because he is not in the field of play he is allowed to stop play? because it's not forbidden in law he can leave the fop and stop a restart? complete nonsense. so rugby is a sport that allows for stoppage of play/a restart by player action outside the playing field when the ball is dead? in essence the ball is out of play but the players continue to "play" and not even on the field of play?

Dickie E
30-06-15, 14:06
Makes me wonder though (2 glasses of red and 11pm).

Red kick for touch and ball is caught by Blue player. As he approaches touchline to look for a QTI, another Red player punches another Blue player in the face.

Blue player #1 takes QT. Do I call "play on", call "advantage Blue" or award penalty to Blue?

Dickie E
30-06-15, 14:06
IMO leaving the field of play to stop play is the same as standing in the trams to stop a QTI - not where the player should be and interfering with a legal restart. just because he is not in the field of play he is allowed to stop play? because it's not forbidden in law he can leave the fop and stop a restart? complete nonsense. so rugby is a sport that allows for stoppage of play/a restart by player action outside the playing field when the ball is dead? in essence the ball is out of play but the players continue to "play" and not even on the field of play?

ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

ChrisR
30-06-15, 14:06
Stop making it up! Advantage cannot be played after the ball is dead.

Yes, some acts are contrary to law and deserve sanction. Try the following but quote Law if you penalize:

1. Red player is forced, not tackled, into touch and his momentum carries him 10m up the pitch where he places the ball on the ground away from nearest Blue.

2. Red player forced into touch and then kicks to ball up the pitch away from Blue.

3. As in 1 but second Red player kicks the ball away from nearest Blue.

4. Red player forced/tackled into touch refuses to relinquish ball to Blue.

5. Red player forced/tackled into touch passes ball to teammate.

6. Red player forced into touch runs up pitch but turns and kicks ball back toward Blue. Ball sails over Blue's head.

7. Red forced into touch passes/kicks ball toward Blue but another Red player steps in and intercepts ball. Hands ball to Blue.

Now, given the choice, I would relax some of the restrictions on the QTI before I'd start writing laws to cover all the possible misdeeds.

ddjamo
30-06-15, 14:06
ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

how could it be "instinctively" if doing so is not common practice? instinctive would be to release the ball and get 5m from the thrower eh? it's not instinctive to toss a ball to an official just as chasing the ball into touch to place a finger on it is not either. it's out of ordinary play and is taking it.

Browner
30-06-15, 14:06
The bit of law you quoted in your #11 was simply designed to prevent a player, having been forced into touch, from holding onto the ball if an opponent wanted it.19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]
This says that if other people touch the ball, a QTI is no longer an option.

Interestingly that law uses "another person" rather than "player" , IMO this is to group categorise all the other potential perimeter interferers .... Ie ....Coach/physio/spectator/ballboy/steward/ mascot/dog/waterboy/ parent/ assessor/4th official etc

Re: 19.2 (d)
I simply do not believe it was created under any thinking that it was 'licensing' Teammates of a BC ( otherwise not involved ) to deliberately interfere with/ and by such involvement negate a QTi 'opportunity' for their opponents.

I'm not privileged to own the IRB Law committee meeting notes, and I would happily buy beer of choice if anyone can evidence this was their intention , rather than another not particularly well worded law.

QTi Law ideology simply doesnt allign with any 'deliberately denying' actions of opponent players on the pitch towards restarts of play AFAIA.

Browner
30-06-15, 14:06
ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

Sorry, Didn't see that, your no5 mustve been blocking my view , play on :biggrin:

Browner
30-06-15, 14:06
Makes me wonder though (2 glasses of red and 11pm).

Red kick for touch and ball is caught by Blue player. As he approaches touchline to look for a QTI, another Red player punches another Blue player in the face.

Blue player #1 takes QT. Do I call "play on", call "advantage Blue" or award penalty to Blue?

Blue player played on

. The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.

. Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish

" advantage blue - card pending" :shrug:

crossref
30-06-15, 14:06
ball carrier tosses ball to AR who instinctively catches it then drops it. AR in bin?

you ping the ball carrier for that -- he is the one person on the pitch who cannot perform an action like that to deny a QTI

(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

Browner
30-06-15, 14:06
you ping the ball carrier for that -- he is the one person on the pitch who cannot perform an action like that to deny a QTI

(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

That'll do........ "failure to release the ball to an opposition player "....... Caused by your own teammate intervening , yep works for me ..... Not quite the route I was looking for, but it'll do :biggrin:

Rushforth
30-06-15, 15:06
HOGWASH! there's no way the lawmakers intended the law to be for the removal of a QTI. the no touch portion is to stop the throwing in side from gaining an advantage NOT for the opposition to take away a chance at continuity.

Since you can use capital letters for emphasis, TLAs and cleansing swine, you might want to consider using them to start sentences. Shift is the key beneath Caps Lock.

The QTI rewards a "defender" who gets to the ball quickly and gets it right back into play. If the ball bounces of any inanimate object, including a surprised AR, the QTI can still be taken. If it is handled by anybody else, it cannot be taken quickly. If a TJ is "kind enough" to pick the ball up then a QTI cannot be taken.

The QTI wouldn't happen in the first place in XVs of course, and being tackled into touch isn't that common in Sevens for that matter.

Phil E
30-06-15, 16:06
If the ball bounces of any inanimate object, including a surprised AR, the QTI can still be taken.

No it can't, that would be a law error.

The AR is "another person", not an inanimate object.

19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]

OB..
30-06-15, 16:06
IMO leaving the field of play to stop play is the same as standing in the trams to stop a QTI - not where the player should be and interfering with a legal restart. just because he is not in the field of play he is allowed to stop play? because it's not forbidden in law he can leave the fop and stop a restart? complete nonsense. so rugby is a sport that allows for stoppage of play/a restart by player action outside the playing field when the ball is dead? in essence the ball is out of play but the players continue to "play" and not even on the field of play?I strongly disagree.

Players outside the FoP continue to play in the sense that they can restart play without the referee getting involved. There are laws about how this can and cannot be done. One law says that other players touching the ball prevents a QTI, and places no restrictions or caveats on other players. Your view means that throwing the ball to a team mate for a throw-in is an offence.

Of course there have to be some limits eg no tackling or physically trying to stop a player from taking the QTI. However your player in the 5m area is committing an offence by trying to prevent the throw going 5m. Merely "interfering with a legal restart" is not in itself an offence - a player can legally attempt to intercept the throw, for example.

This is clearly an area that needs further clarification, but please let's be cautious in devising new penalty offences when players cannot realistically expect them.

crossref
30-06-15, 16:06
we are in a slightly odd situation where

- kicking the ball away to prevent a quick-tap PK is an offence, if any player does it [advance 10m and (often) a YC]

- kicking the ball away to prevent a QTI is an offence if the ball carrier does it [PK and (often) a YC] But if a team mate of the ball carrier does it .... it's an OK ploy to prevent a QTI

It's a little hard to sustain, and my belief is that most grass roots players who did it would expect to be sanctioned.

Rushforth
30-06-15, 17:06
No it can't, that would be a law error.

The AR is "another person", not an inanimate object.

19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. [...]

I am fully aware of the definition as per the law-book, and would have agreed with you a year ago.

However, during my IRB2, the point was specifically made that the AR - if surprised - counts as inanimate. Which makes sense, considering the ARs should be the only individuals on the touch-line, and also should not be interacting with the ball in any way if a QTI is at all possible.

Phil E
30-06-15, 17:06
I am fully aware of the definition as per the law-book, and would have agreed with you a year ago.

However, during my IRB2, the point was specifically made that the AR - if surprised - counts as inanimate. Which makes sense, considering the ARs should be the only individuals on the touch-line, and also should not be interacting with the ball in any way if a QTI is at all possible.

An inanimate object is usually described as an object that will stay in the same position for the whole of the game, like a lighting pole or an advertising board. Its position will be the same for both sides, for the whole of the game.

As an RFU Referee Educator I would politely suggest that your IRB2 instructor is talking out of his arse.

crossref
30-06-15, 17:06
An inanimate object is usually described as an object that will stay in the same position for the whole of the game, .. Its position will be the same for both sides, for the whole of the game..

mind you I have known Touch Judges pretty much like that.

Baylion
30-06-15, 17:06
How is a red team mate picking up the ball to prevent a quick throw in any different to a team mate kicking the ball away? Or the player for that matter

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830684/

There was an incident during this year's Super Rugby where a team mate kicked the ball away and was carded (can't remember which game or ref)

Rushforth
30-06-15, 17:06
As an RFU Referee Educator I would politely suggest that your IRB2 instructor is talking out of his arse.

Well, he is Irish, so possibly/probably. But the guy is also an Educator of (IRB3 level) Referee Educators, if you wish to argue by level of authority.

ctrainor
30-06-15, 17:06
Seems clear that the law needs changing to allow blue to take the QTI providing that no other teammate has touched the ball no matter how many opposition players have touched it, providing a line out has not been formed.
Rewarding positive play.

crossref
30-06-15, 18:06
How is a red team mate picking up the ball to prevent a quick throw in any different to a team mate kicking the ball away? Or the player for that matter

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830684/

There was an incident during this year's Super Rugby where a team mate kicked the ball away and was carded (can't remember which game or ref)

I love SA referees because they ask the quesiton

By what law does the referee give De Jongh a yellow card?

and their answer shows that, um, there is no actual Law, but it's against the general principle of the Laws ...

but it does provide a good precedent.

thepercy
30-06-15, 18:06
how could it be "instinctively" if doing so is not common practice? instinctive would be to release the ball and get 5m from the thrower eh? it's not instinctive to toss a ball to an official just as chasing the ball into touch to place a finger on it is not either. it's out of ordinary play and is taking it.

If the ball is going to hit an AR in the face, catching or blocking it would be instinctive.

OB..
30-06-15, 18:06
Seems clear that the law needs changing to allow blue to take the QTI providing that no other teammate has touched the ball no matter how many opposition players have touched it, providing a line out has not been formed.
Rewarding positive play.I would not object if the law said that. They could even add that opponents should not do anything to prevent a QTI being taken. At the moment it doesn't say that.

thepercy
30-06-15, 19:06
Could this type of action be considered "time wasting", under 10.2.B? Or 10.4.S, "...They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle..."?

OB..
30-06-15, 19:06
Could this type of action be considered "time wasting", under 10.2.B? Or 10.4.S, "...They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle..."?Is it so serious that we should be trying hard to find ways to penalise it?

thepercy
30-06-15, 19:06
Is it so serious that we should be trying hard to find ways to penalise it?

It is unsporting, unfair, a potential flash point, and a dick move. I rarely see QTIs in matches I referee, so not a very big issue for me at all. But where QTIs are more prevalent (higher level/7s), I could see it being an issue, especially when the potential quick thrower takes exception to the action, sees you will not handle it, then deals with it with on his own, perhaps with his fist. Others asked what law you would use to penalize this type of action and I offered 2 separate law 10 references, though both are a bit of a stretch.

ctrainor
30-06-15, 19:06
Deleted

OB..
30-06-15, 20:06
It is unsporting, unfair, a potential flash point, and a dick move. I rarely see QTIs in matches I referee, so not a very big issue for me at all. But where QTIs are more prevalent (higher level/7s), I could see it being an issue, especially when the potential quick thrower takes exception to the action, sees you will not handle it, then deals with it with on his own, perhaps with his fist. Others asked what law you would use to penalize this type of action and I offered 2 separate law 10 references, though both are a bit of a stretch.Yes, they are.

I think you are overstating the problem, but a referee would certainly be expected to step in to restrain the thrower if he stepped out of line. Retaliation for an offence is specifically illegal, so retaliation for a (probable) non-offence cannot be allowed either.

ddjamo
30-06-15, 20:06
I strongly disagree.

Players outside the FoP continue to play in the sense that they can restart play without the referee getting involved. There are laws about how this can and cannot be done. One law says that other players touching the ball prevents a QTI, and places no restrictions or caveats on other players. Your view means that throwing the ball to a team mate for a throw-in is an offence.

Of course there have to be some limits eg no tackling or physically trying to stop a player from taking the QTI. However your player in the 5m area is committing an offence by trying to prevent the throw going 5m. Merely "interfering with a legal restart" is not in itself an offence - a player can legally attempt to intercept the throw, for example.

This is clearly an area that needs further clarification, but please let's be cautious in devising new penalty offences when players cannot realistically expect them.

I am not looking for another PK. I feel that the law is meant to stop a non player from facilitating a quick throw. leaving the field of play to stop a restart is not part of the game and I am wondering what sport would allow it (baseball - catching a ball in foul territory allows the runners to tag and advance - but that's all I can think of right now).

taking the letter of the law as gospel can be more detrimental to the game than applying the framework of the laws for the betterment of the game. you allow cheeky play - you will be managing cheeky play. as for your example - the interception of the throw would be in the fop - so not a very good example. I will say that if I can't get to a player before he pulls that crap - I get both skippers and that player aside and let them know what I think about sportsmanship and common sense with regards to the sport and how no sport is meant to be played outside of the lines. I have never called a pk for this but I have stamped it out anytime I get a chance.

OB, you can have your last word - there's nothing more to add and I am comfortable with my standard and style....but...since you have chosen to use "the letter of the law" for this position you may want to revisit "playing area" and "referee's duties" if you ever really need to debate this again and you maintain your letter of the law position. you need to consider that there's no way the referee can give permission to each and every player leaving the playing area, so one could argue that the player did not have permission. IMO common sense prevails. the game is meant to be, and is, played between the lines.

ChrisR
30-06-15, 21:06
ddjamo, the Red player who leaves the FOP to touch the ball is simply denying Blue an option. Now Blue must put the ball into play in a formal lineout. The Red player has not violated the law, merely your own vision of the game.

Red cross kick to the wing but the ball goes into touch. Red winger chasing follows the ball into touch, retrieves it and immediately throws it to a Blue player. He has, possibly without intending to, prevented the QTI. Gonna ping him too?

Dixie
30-06-15, 22:06
However, during my IRB2, the point was specifically made that the AR - if surprised - counts as inanimate. Which makes sense, considering the ARs should be the only individuals on the touch-line, and also should not be interacting with the ball in any way if a QTI is at all possible. I don't think it does make sense. Nor can it be consistently applied. Consider a powerful kick with a low trajectory. It hits a spectator in the chest, and bounces back towards the touchline. Do you allow the QTI as the spectator was surprised? If it hadn't hit him, the ball would be 60 yards from the line, not 6 feet. For me, that is exactly the scenario the law envis\ages when it says the QTI is no longer an option if another person has touched it.


ddjamo, the Red player who leaves the FOP to touch the ball is simply denying Blue an option. Now Blue must put the ball into play in a formal lineout. The Red player has not violated the law, merely your own vision of the game. And I could live with that IF the law allowed the ball carrier to deny that option as well. But if the ball carrier throws the ball into the stands to hit a spectator - :noyc:. (Ask Ben Youngs). If he throws it so it touches an AR or TJ - :noyc:. If he hangs on to it - :noyc:. What purpose is serve by all these? The facilitation of the QTI by the side that didn't take the ball into touch. I accept that the law is silent on the specific point of a team mate deliberately frustrating the QTI, but I do not accept that it is intentional. I suspect they just couldn't imagine a rugby player stooping to such depths of depravity. They're probably the type of people who have never listened to a stump microphone when the Aussies are playing cricket.

Ian_Cook
30-06-15, 22:06
HOGWASH! there's no way the lawmakers intended the law to be for the removal of a QTI. the no touch portion is to stop the throwing in side from gaining an advantage NOT for the opposition to take away a chance at continuity.

I agree...

10.4 (n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

If the ball is in touch (the ball is out of play) and it is the opposition's throw, you do not have the right to the ball, the opponent does. If you pick it up, you have interfered with the opponent.

I reckon I could sell this, and most players would buy it!

The Aussies have worked around this in their NRC.

Quick throw-ins allowed even if touched by another player or person; must be same ball
• Frees teams from a technicality that will allow for quicker play.
• If support staff or reserves deliberately touch the ball, a penalty kick is awarded 15m in.


With refinement, IMO this should be introduced into Law ASAP. I would

1. restrict the "touch" to any player in the playing XV of either side.
2. Include the wording to the effect that "no player may do anything to prevent an opponent from taking a quick throw-in

Browner
01-07-15, 00:07
. Red cross kick to the wing but the ball goes into touch. Red winger chasing follows the ball into touch, retrieves it and immediately throws it to a Blue player. He has, possibly without intending to, prevented the QTI. Gonna ping him too?

If its not his throw, then he has no real reason to touch the ball. To do otherwise risks him being considered an interferer.

However in the case you describe , then Nope.

If Red is genuinely assisting ( how rare is this!) Blue to take their QTI ( which the QTI ideaolgy should support) , then Red gets an exemption from offending, but his assistance needs to be bloody clear & bloody obvious, rather than the more likely 'masquerading delay' pretend assist!

OB..
01-07-15, 01:07
since you have chosen to use "the letter of the law" for this position.
No, I have not. I always argue that we must look at the laws as a whole, not just one set of words. I merely say that my position is more consistent with the law than yours. I do not see it as contrary to the ethos of the game, the essence of which is a contest. I think your view strains the laws too far, whereas an unstrained interpretation is quite tenable. It's a balancing act.

Dickie E
01-07-15, 01:07
There is a precedent isn't there.

Didn't an elite referee card a sub for catching a ball to prevent a QTI.
It's the same thing. It's an act contrary to good sportsmanship.

There is another & different precedent I think.

England v France. Owens was the ref. Player reaches for the ball and opponent drops it behind his back. Ref thought nothing of it.

(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

MUST RELEASE THE BALL TO AN OPPOSTION PLAYER means, to me, that the opposition player must be actively grasping the ball.

A bit like if a jackler has a grasp of the ball - player on ground must release it. But if jackler is approaching to grasp the ball the player on ground is quite within his rights to throw the ball away.

Dickie E
01-07-15, 02:07
as a complete red herring, what does "forced into touch" mean? Against his will, I would guess.

So Red fullback collects ball deep in his own territory and, seeing 4 burly fowards bearing down, decides to step smartly into touch. Has he been forced into touch and does he need to release the ball?


(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

menace
01-07-15, 03:07
Last couple of minutes of a sevens game, so everything is happening quickly (and you don't need to be very close to the try line for a successful break to be a try scoring opportunity)

- red are in possession
- red ball carrier is tackled into touch, and the ball rolls free.
- red support player, seeing a blue player arriving, quickly picks the ball up to prevent a blue QTI.
- arriving blue player yells and make to grab the ball and red, rather lamely, drops it to the floor
- blue player picks it up and executes a QTI to himself and hares off down the pitch, very likely to score..

So - according to the Laws the QTI cannot be taken as it's been touched by another player, the cynical ploy succeeded, so I think the technical answer is peep, YC the red player and award a PK

However could the ref legitimately play on and let them score what could be a match winning try ?

- by playing advantage (in which case come back and YC the player later) ... But you can't play advantage when the ball is dead...

- by declaring the offence immaterial and ignoring it ? In which case no YC...

Getting back to the op, after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting, personally I see the the red players action to prevent the QTI quite legitimate.

For those against reds action I ask you this, if red had knocked on and an onside team mate quickly ran up and picked up the ball so that blue can't grab it and gain an advantage would you penalise him and YC? I doubt it. But isn't that just as cynical play as preventing a QTI by not allowing blue the ball so they could play it?

I would put that OP preventing QTI action in the same classification picking up a knock on. It's smart play. I see that as legally preventing your opposition from gaining an advantage. (Yet if a reserve or team official came running on to pick up a ball knocked on to prevent the opponent from gaining possession then hell yes that is PK and against the spirit of the game).


But if I did think Reds action preventing a QTI was illegal, I still wouldn't allow them an advantage to throw it, as the supposed illegal action has made the ball dead (it is now beyond a zombie ball!) and as already stated you can't play advantage for a dead ball.

Dickie E
01-07-15, 03:07
after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting,

Thank you :)

Ian_Cook
01-07-15, 04:07
Getting back to the op, after the many tangents of this thread which were all valuable and interesting, personally I see the the red players action to prevent the QTI quite legitimate.

For those against reds action I ask you this, if red had knocked on and an onside team mate quickly ran up and picked up the ball so that blue can't grab it and gain an advantage would you penalise him and YC? I doubt it. But isn't that just as cynical play as preventing a QTI by not allowing blue the ball so they could play it?

But red's entitled to play that ball because it is not out of play, and besides which, the referee might not have seen the knock on. Also, in the case you mention, there isn't specific Law that would require the red player to give up the ball to the blue player.

This is a long way different from a player intentionally running after a ball he is not entitled to play anyway, and kicking it or touching it to prevent a QTI. I see no reason why the restrictions on what can be done by the player who took the ball into touch, should not also apply to his team-mates, but the easier path would be to go the Aussie NRC way, and just remove or alter the touch clause.

There are two things in the Law book that aren't Laws are often forgotten about...

Spirit
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

and

INTEGRITY
Integrity is central to the fabric of the Game and is generated through honesty & fair play

Even at the Elite level, I consider the above two statements to be an important part of the professionalism of the players. Running after the ball with the express purpose of spoiling a quick throw in doesn't seem to me to sit well with the spirit of the way the game is played.

menace
01-07-15, 04:07
True Ian, it's how I see it....you see it differently....the laws don't make it clear that either you or I are wrong or right. IMO!
My responses in bold/italics.

But red's entitled to play that ball because it is not out of play, and besides which, the referee might not have seen the knock on. Also, in the case you mention, there isn't specific Law that would require the red player to give up the ball to the blue player.

But is the ball dead? We seem to suggest that it Is more of a 'zombie ball' than a dead ball...that is it still is in play by the mere fact they can play on quickly (and why offside players advancing can still be penalised!). Therefore until the QTI is not on, the ball is still somewhat 'live' and 'in play'

This is along way different from a player intentionally running after a ball he is not entitled to play anyway, and kicking it or touching it to prevent a QTI. I see no reason why the restrictions on what can be done by the player who took the ball into touch, should not also apply to his team-mates, but the easier path would be to go the Aussie NRC way, and just remove or alter the touch clause.

That's your interpretation of the law, others are saying that the law can be interpreted differently. You're the one now drawing that the extension that what applied to the ball carrier into touch should apply to others. But that's not what is written. If that's the intent then why isn't it worded as such. They've had enough years to fix it now? You've said it yourself that unless it's written in the laws that it's not allowed, then it should be permitted. This is one of those. The law says that IF it is touched another player the QTI is not permitted, it doesn't say that anyone that does touch it must be sanctioned? You seem to be drawing an extension not backed up in law. I do agree with you that the NRC approach clears it up - and is a sensible way to go

There are two things in the Law book that aren't Laws are often forgotten about...

Spirit
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

and

[TEXTAREA]INTEGRITY
Integrity is central to the fabric of the Game and is generated through honesty & fair play[/

These are subjective opinions - about behaviour and actions, the problem is that everyone's moral compass on what that entails are different - especially around the edges!

Even at the Elite level, I consider the above two statements to be an important part of the professionalism of the players. Running after the ball with the express purpose of spoiling a quick throw in doesn't seem to me to sit well with the spirit of the way the game is played.

Again, that is what direction your compass points does that mean everyone else should follow it? Who says your compass is right?

Browner
01-07-15, 11:07
There is another & different precedent I think.

England v France. Owens was the ref. Player reaches for the ball and opponent drops it behind his back. Ref thought nothing of it.

(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

MUST RELEASE THE BALL TO AN OPPOSTION PLAYER means, to me, that the opposition player must be actively grasping the ball.

A bit like if a jackler has a grasp of the ball - player on ground must release it. But if jackler is approaching to grasp the ball the player on ground is quite within his rights to throw the ball away.

That wasn't a bonafide precedent, ( it was a QTI prevention error , Eng try probably awaited) anyway they idea that a BC can hide or shield or block or in anyway prevent a unobstructed retrieval is a bemusing suggestion.

Browner
01-07-15, 11:07
as a complete red herring, what does "forced into touch" mean? Against his will, I would guess.

So Red fullback collects ball deep in his own territory and, seeing 4 burly fowards bearing down, decides to step smartly into touch. Has he been forced into touch and does he need to release the ball?


(i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.

This is straw clutching extremism.


Their "bearing" forced his FoP exit. So yes he does.

SimonSmith
01-07-15, 13:07
So in summary, there are two positions you can take on this. The position you take is inflected by how you view the law and the principles behind it.

Were I coaching a referee, I wouldn't criticize him or her for taking either position, so long as they could talk me through the process.

Personally, I tend to the Browner/Ian position - and that's a gathering of people you won't often see.

I think that the intent of the law is clear, and to take OB's angle, I look at the law and what I believe the intent to be. Players should be able to take a QTI as soon as they wish; opposing players must not deny them that option after the ball has gone 'dead'. The law is specifically written to put an obligation on the ball carrier to release.
I don't personally believe that the intention of the lawmakers was to force the ball carrier to give up the ball only to allow a team mate to then play it - it would be contradictory. We all know that there are lacunae in the Law Book - this seems to me to be a glaring one.

Until there is a clarification, or a mandate from a Governing Body, as cited above, I'm looking for thoughtful and consistent refereeing.

ChrisR
01-07-15, 13:07
I believe that "spirit" and "integrity" are critical elements to the game of rugby and dear to my heart. Although each of us may hold somewhat different definitions for the words we would probably all agree on their core sentiments of respect for opponents, officials, the game itself and a commitment to play within the laws.

However, I see some responses to threads on this forum that confuse "spirit" with "mode of play". Running rugby featuring all the elegant skills of the game may be an attractive way to play but that should be the choice of the players, not the referee.

Therefore, if a player acts within the laws to deny an opponent a choice of options then he should not be sanctioned. That doesn't mean that that the laws don't need to change.

I agree with several posts on this thread that propose modifications that would prevent the team putting the ball into touch from denying a QTI.

Meanwhile, let us not use "spirit" as an excuse for making it up.

Phil E
01-07-15, 13:07
It is the duty of the Unions to ensure that the game at every level is conducted in accordance with
disciplined and sporting behaviour. This principle cannot be upheld solely by the referee; its
observance also rests on Unions, affiliated bodies and clubs.

This paragraph from the law book would suggest that the referee (amongst others) is responsible for the game being played in the right 'spirit', as well as, within the laws of the game.

Upholding the principle of sporting behaviour is not "making it up".



SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

OB..
01-07-15, 15:07
Upholding the principle of sporting behaviour is not "making it up" If there is a disagreement as to what constitutes the principle in a particular case, then that statement does not help resolve it.

crossref
01-07-15, 15:07
if we hark back to tradition and principle, going back to the olden times when a ball was in touch the two teams would chase after it, and the first one to touch it got the throw in.

So there is some sort precedent for the idea that, once the ball carrier has released the ball, there might be competition to see who can touch it first.

talbazar
01-07-15, 16:07
Damn... Long thread for a guy who has been off the forum for only a couple of days :biggrin:
And it happened to be one topic we had at our last Ref meeting (with the same disagreement I may add).

Anyways, two different responses from me here.
1st


Quick throw-ins allowed even if touched by another player or person; must be same ball
• Frees teams from a technicality that will allow for quicker play.
• If support staff or reserves deliberately touch the ball, a penalty kick is awarded 15m in.


With refinement, IMO this should be introduced into Law ASAP. I would

1. restrict the "touch" to any player in the playing XV of either side.
2. Include the wording to the effect that "no player may do anything to prevent an opponent from taking a quick throw-in
I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.

2nd

Anyone who stands in the "non sportsmanship" side of this discussion
So as you guess, I stand on the "fair play by Red" side...
We spend time here (and amongst Referees generally) to rant about players who don't know the law. We may not like it, but touching the ball is a legal way to denying Blue the QTI opportunity.
Play on.

Anyway, when one sees the length of this discussion, I guess we will all have to wait for a clarification or a re-write :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

thepercy
01-07-15, 18:07
Damn... Long thread for a guy who has been off the forum for only a couple of days :biggrin:
And it happened to be one topic we had at our last Ref meeting (with the same disagreement I may add).

Anyways, two different responses from me here.
1st

I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.

2nd

So as you guess, I stand on the "fair play by Red" side...
We spend time here (and amongst Referees generally) to rant about players who don't know the law. We may not like it, but touching the ball is a legal way to denying Blue the QTI opportunity.
Play on.

Anyway, when one sees the length of this discussion, I guess we will all have to wait for a clarification or a re-write :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

I propose that anytime a Rugbyrefs.com forum post reaches 50+ replies, a WR clarification should be issued.

Ian_Cook
01-07-15, 21:07
I would understand the change in the law (adaptation) if the first point was limited to opposition players.
The way it's written seems to give a huge (and unfair) advantage to the team who's throwing the ball in.
Imagine this:
- Red kick down field (just outside Blue 22)
- Blue full-back absolutely alone and under pressure by Red 11, 12 and 13 has no choice but kick for touch. He misjudges his kick and it goes straight out
- Red full back catches the ball on the fall (outside the field of play)
- He quickly punts it to Red 11 standing in touch where Blue 15 was who "legally" makes a quick throw to 12 and 13
Fantastic 2 on 1 opportunity for Red...

Too broad for me. Too unfair.


So, in effect you are saying that, when Blue have made TWO defensive errors (only one player back for the kick and then the sole Blue player stuffs up his kick to touch) that its unfair for them to be exposed by a piece of quick thinking by Red?

Sorry but that is rather like saying its unfair that Red get to feed a scrum when blue knocks the ball on, or its unfair if a Red player intercepts a pass by Blue and scores under the posts.

talbazar
02-07-15, 00:07
So, in effect you are saying that, when Blue have made TWO defensive errors (only one player back for the kick and then the sole Blue player stuffs up his kick to touch) that its unfair for them to be exposed by a piece of quick thinking by Red?

Sorry but that is rather like saying its unfair that Red get to feed a scrum when blue knocks the ball on, or its unfair if a Red player intercepts a pass by Blue and scores under the posts.

Extremely valid point Ian.
As a ref in a game where this variation were applicable, I wouldn't have any problem if Red did this. I'm just saying I'm not sure this adaptation keeps the full spirit of the original (and official) law about the QTI...

Ian_Cook
02-07-15, 01:07
Extremely valid point Ian.
As a ref in a game where this variation were applicable, I wouldn't have any problem if Red did this. I'm just saying I'm not sure this adaptation keeps the full spirit of the original (and official) law about the QTI...

The ARU used this variation in their NRC last season with no problems. In fact, this was one of the variations that was included after the ARU asked Australian rugby fans to submit ideas for Law changes. There were plenty of instances last season of players taking advantage of it by throwing the ball to a team-mate in touch who would then take the QTI. I don't have a problem with it.



NOTE OFF TOPIC: They also included a variation where all PK's awarded at scrum time could not be kicked for goal... NOT Free Kicks, as they could still be kicked for touch with a gain in ground and retention of the throw in. That was another successful innovation; it prevented teams from using the scrum as a three point accumulation tactic, and led to a lot more tries being scored.

Dickie E
02-07-15, 01:07
NOTE OFF TOPIC: They also included a variation where all PK's awarded at scrum time could not be kicked for goal... NOT Free Kicks, as they could still be kicked for touch with a gain in ground and retention of the throw in. That was another successful innovation; it prevented teams from using the scrum as a three point accumulation tactic, and led to a lot more tries being scored.

I watched every Melbourne game at AAMI Park - maybe half a dozen games. I can't remember one penalty shot at goal.

menace
02-07-15, 13:07
I watched every Melbourne game at AAMI Park - maybe half a dozen games. I can't remember one penalty shot at goal.

That's because Rebels weren't good enough to earn a scrum penalty!:pepper: