PDA

View Full Version : QTI scenario



crossref
02-12-18, 10:12
Red 11 takes a Quick Throw In, but when he throws the ball both his feet are clearly and obviously inside the Field of Play


Blue 9 intercepts the throw, catching the ball 7m from the touchline, and races down the pitch to score.

Decision?

didds
02-12-18, 11:12
IF advantage is playable from this situation presumably a try.

If not, its Option of lineout or scrum.

18.4 At a quick throw, the ball is thrown in:

Between the mark of touch and the thrower’s own goal line; and

Parallel to or towards the thrower’s own goal line; and

So that it reaches the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player; and

By a player whose feet are both outside the field of play.
Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.

didds
02-12-18, 11:12
In my head, this may be an occassion whereby advantage is not available becausae in truth the ball has not been returned to play correctly for play to continue.

But QTIs are a zombie ball situation so TBH Im not sure!

didds

didds
02-12-18, 12:12
7.
Advantage must not be applied and the referee must blow the whistle immediately when:
...
A quick throw, free-kick or penalty is taken incorrectly.
...


No try. option of lineout or scrum.

Balones
02-12-18, 15:12
I'd rollick the ref for not blowing up before he 'raced down the pitch to score'.:smile:

crossref
02-12-18, 16:12
I'd rollick the ref for not blowing up before he 'raced down the pitch to score'.:smile:

You are correct to call it an error, but a rollicking is perhaps quite harsh as in this very similar scenario it's correct to play advantage
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21202-Restart-Scenario

So it's quite a subtle area of Law

Balones
02-12-18, 16:12
You are correct to call it an error, but a rollicking is perhaps quite harsh as in this very similar scenario it's correct to play advantage
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21202-Restart-Scenario

So it's quite a subtle area of Law

I did put a smiley face next to the message! I'll stop trying to be humorous and live up to being a miserable assessor instead.:hap:

crossref
02-12-18, 16:12
Ah, my bad, I didn't notice !

Zebra1922
02-12-18, 18:12
What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI. In reality, there is no-one to pass to or opposition players are already covering so there is not really a QTI option but the player throws the ball into his opponent to try and gain the sanction.

My thoughts are no sanction, call captains in to state what you've seen (yes oppo should not be stood there blocking, but your player was trying to milk a sanction, both teams stop playing silly buggers, back to original LO). Would you penalise this as technically they have prevented the ball going 5m therefore a FK?

crossref
02-12-18, 18:12
What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI. In reality, there is no-one to pass to or opposition players are already covering so there is not really a QTI option but the player throws the ball into his opponent to try and gain the sanction.

My thoughts are no sanction, call captains in to state what you've seen (yes oppo should not be stood there blocking, but your player was trying to milk a sanction, both teams stop playing silly buggers, back to original LO). Would you penalise this as technically they have prevented the ball going 5m therefore a FK?

threadjack! start your own thread :biggrin:

Phil E
02-12-18, 23:12
What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI. In reality, there is no-one to pass to or opposition players are already covering so there is not really a QTI option but the player throws the ball into his opponent to try and gain the sanction.

My thoughts are no sanction, call captains in to state what you've seen (yes oppo should not be stood there blocking, but your player was trying to milk a sanction, both teams stop playing silly buggers, back to original LO). Would you penalise this as technically they have prevented the ball going 5m therefore a FK?

Tell the thrower not to try and buy a cheap penalty.
Tell the opponent not to stand in the 5m channel again, or he will be penalised.
In other words...manage it.

didds
03-12-18, 09:12
and if the oppo is standing in the way for a QTI that is on?

frankly - similarly for slow retirees at rucks etc - if you are in the bloody way don't be surprised if the ball hits you. just don;t bloody stand there being a twat.

didds

OB..
03-12-18, 11:12
A player can always take a QTI to himself - but not if an opponent is standing right in front of him. Intentional Offending. PK.

crossref
03-12-18, 11:12
A player can always take a QTI to himself - but not if an opponent is standing right in front of him. Intentional Offending. PK.

I agree with that.
I PK the first time I see it

I actually think it should be clearly in the Law like retreating 10m for a PK , should have to run 5m from a Qti

Zebra1922
03-12-18, 13:12
I had not thought of the penalty option for deliberate infringement but thatís clearly whatís happening here. Iíll use that next time, should knock any future attempts to block on the head quite quickly!

VM75
04-12-18, 22:12
What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI.

I always FK the first instance i see of this, then explain 'loudly' that no-one has any business standing inside the 5m, doing so can only ever be intended to prevent a throw, so it matters not to me that the thrower makes an attempt to throw it.

IME if you cut out 'gamesmanship' early on, then players invariably desist from even attempting it again [another example is rolling the ball away/or dribbling it backwards at a FK to prevent a QKick]

others might choose the "manage it" approach, 1st FK award invariably does it for me.

crossref
04-12-18, 23:12
Why not a PK

Dickie E
05-12-18, 02:12
Why not a PK

18.6. The ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres. Sanction: Free-kick.

You can always go PK for deliberate infringement if you want - YMMV. One man's scrum "early engagement" is another man's "charging".

crossref
05-12-18, 06:12
That law doesn't really fit, it's about what happens when the throw is taken

I think this one is closer .. this is about preventing a throw from being taken at all
. A player who carries the ball into touch must release the ball immediately so that a quick throw may be taken. Sanction: Penalty.

Camquin
05-12-18, 07:12
Might be worth trying to manage it the first time with a loud call so everyone knows your watching for it.
And remember as long as they are not within the 5m channel they are legal.
crossref - I thought that was only for the ball carrier not releasing the ball.

crossref
05-12-18, 07:12
Camquin , no Law covers it, but that one seems closest to the situation .. he's not really preventing the ball going 5m he is preventing the throw itself

For me, this isn't a "manage it" offence .. it's a material and deliberate offence .. so think about a PK first time.

didds
05-12-18, 09:12
That law doesn't really fit, it's about what happens when the throw is taken

I think this one is closer .. this is about preventing a throw from being taken at all
. A player who carries the ball into touch must release the ball immediately so that a quick throw may be taken. Sanction: Penalty.

I'm not sure how that covers a non ball carrier that hasn't been physically immediate to the ball standing in the 5m channel blocking a QTI though?

Just let people throw the ball forceably into the blockers guts/face. And PK the blocker. They won't do it again in a hurry. Ditto lazy runners.

didds

crossref
05-12-18, 10:12
That's encouraging a flash point, though.
Refs job is to avoid flashpoints ... PK are good for that

CrouchTPEngage
05-12-18, 11:12
If it IS a PK ( intentionally infringing ) then where is the mark for it ? The ball is out of play so is it on the 15m line presumably ?

Just read the law book and answered my own question:

While the ball is dead.
At the point where play would have restarted or, if that place is on the touchline or within 15 metres of it, the mark is on the 15-metre line, in line with that place.

Na Madrai
05-12-18, 11:12
Just let people throw the ball forceably into the blockers guts/face. And PK the blocker. They won't do it again in a hurry. Ditto lazy runners.

didds[/QUOTE]


And if I was a ref (which thankfully i am not sir ;-) I may consider your act at least contrary to etc, and maybe even the same as a punch.

Not a very clever idea I might suggest. It is at the very least a provocative act, and assault.

didds 04 December 2014 'Prevents a quick throw'

Mellowing over the years!!!!!:chin:


NM

didds
05-12-18, 12:12
i think the intervening 14 years has seen me get less accepting of idiots.

I do "get" that what others say above and what I said back then is of course the case. its just tedious.

Just award a PT then and card any protests from the blocking side. That'll learn 'em.

didds

Rich_NL
05-12-18, 17:12
I'd give the FK - a player is stopping the ball going 5m. If it happens a second time, PK for intentional offending.

didds
05-12-18, 18:12
Os oft mentioned by me, aside from the award maybe being deep in the oppo 22m frankly a FK is a "win" from the blocking team's perspective. Cghance of QTI and dynamic play halted, now we get a good chance to reset defences etc. UNLESS the BC manages to race infield and tap and go - but its still lost time for defences to be getting back and into place.

crossref
05-12-18, 18:12
I'd give the FK - a player is stopping the ball going 5m. If it happens a second time, PK for intentional offending.

But he didn't just stop the ball from going 5m , he stopped the QTI completely.

A FK is a very soft punishment for that. A ball carrier who merely delays a QTI by hanging on to the ball for a short while will get a PK (and sometimes YC)

Dickie E
05-12-18, 21:12
But he didn't just stop the ball from going 5m , he stopped the QTI completely.



How do you get that the throw was prevented? OP says the throw was blocked to prevent going 5 metres. In the end the player throws the ball into the opponent.


What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI. In reality, there is no-one to pass to or opposition players are already covering so there is not really a QTI option but the player throws the ball into his opponent to try and gain the sanction.

Decorily
05-12-18, 21:12
How do you get that the throw was prevented? OP says the throw was blocked to prevent going 5 metres. In the end the player throws the ball into the opponent.

I think there are 2 different scenarios being visualised here....

Scenario 1. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender, also in touch, blocks/prevents throw.
Scenario 2. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender in 5m channel blocks/prevents throw.

Either one could be the scenario referred to in the OP!

Dickie E
05-12-18, 22:12
I think there are 2 different scenarios being visualised here....

Scenario 1. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender, also in touch, blocks/prevents throw.
Scenario 2. Player in touch with ball in hand looking at options for QTI. Defender in 5m channel blocks/prevents throw.

Either one could be the scenario referred to in the OP!

I don't see it that way.

Yes, there are 2 scenarios but they are:
1. opponent PREVENTS throw (eg wraps arms around thrower) - PK
2. opponent BLOCKS throw (ie makes intentional or reckless contact with the ball after it is thrown) - FK (unless you want to play the "deliberate infringing" card)

To me, the OP is fairly clearly scenario 2

crossref
05-12-18, 22:12
What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

SimonSmith
06-12-18, 00:12
I don't see it that way.

Yes, there are 2 scenarios but they are:
1. opponent PREVENTS throw (eg wraps arms around thrower) - PK
2. opponent BLOCKS throw (ie makes intentional or reckless contact with the ball after it is thrown) - FK (unless you want to play the "deliberate infringing" card)

To me, the OP is fairly clearly scenario 2
In your #2, how can it be anything other deliberate?

Rich_NL
06-12-18, 00:12
In your #2, how can it be anything other deliberate?

You could say the same about a squint feed at the scrum. PK every time?

The offence isn't described as something that accidentally happens; some intention is required anyway.

Dickie E
06-12-18, 01:12
What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

remember that scale you developed:

Level 1: simple discussion for entry level refs
down to
Level 5: esoteric, angels-on-pin-head stuff

I think we're at Level 6 :)

crossref
06-12-18, 07:12
remember that scale you developed:

Level 1: simple discussion for entry level refs
down to
Level 5: esoteric, angels-on-pin-head stuff

I think we're at Level 6 :)

Really ?
I thiught that was what the discussion was all about !

Zebra in post 9


What do you think of scenarios where the throwing in team have a player collect the ball, so a QTI is on, but an oppo stands in front to them blocking the QTI.

That's what I was talking abiut anyway .. and my answer is PK

Phil E
06-12-18, 09:12
https://youtu.be/UHBqJj0znYo

OB..
06-12-18, 12:12
Is the defender entitled to be inside the 5m area? No.
Is he there accidentally? No.

9.7

A player must not:

Intentionally infringe any law of the game.[...]Sanction: Penalty.




This happened in a L6 game I was assessing a few years back. We discussed it because of the arguments I had seen from others and he was surprised to learn that anybody would have decided differently. I noted this "correct decision" in his report and the SMODO did not demur.

Pinky
06-12-18, 12:12
What about the scenario where the opponent stands 1m away making the throw impossible

This is scenario 2 as mentioned in post 31 and replied to by DickieE.

In response to the challenge to DickieE of why not always a PK as deliberate, there needs to be a bit more context about this. A defender might be jogging or walking in the tramlines past the player with the ball heading for the LOT to be ready to be in the lineout. Indeed if he were the hooke, he would eventually be expected to be in the tramlines, so I do not think there is anything that says he has no right to be there. Now if he happens to be hit by a QTI, then I would FK. If he stands like a goalie (wendyball) at a PK - arms up and waving, then i would PK. There is probably a spectrum, but I would not allow a team to get a penalty by throwing the ball at an opposition player.

crossref
06-12-18, 12:12
This is scenario 2 as mentioned in post 31 and replied to by DickieE. r.

No.. and its important difference.. was there actually a throw , or not

There are two key questions

1 does the thrower actually have to throw it, at the blocker, for the blocker to be penalised ? Or will you penalise the blocker when he is successful in preventing even the atrempt at a throw (tjr thrower gives up)

2 when yii do sanctiin, which is better a FK or a PK

Pinky
06-12-18, 13:12
No.. and its important difference.. was there actually a throw , or not

There are two key questions

1 does the thrower actually have to throw it, at the blocker, for the blocker to be penalised ? Or will you penalise the blocker when he is successful in preventing even the atrempt at a throw (tjr thrower gives up)

2 when yii do sanctiin, which is better a FK or a PK

For me there is a bit more of a need to read the game. Preventing the throw is a PK offence, so as I said standing in front of the thrower like a goalie and I am going to PK whether the ball is thrown or not. If a player is in the 5 heading to the lineout and the ball is thrown, then if it hits him I am thinking FK, but I may also play advantage. It may even not be material assuming that the ball gets to a thrower's team mate and they play on.

The Fat
06-12-18, 13:12
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI and

Someone raised the point about a thrower (QTI) throwing the ball towards a player in the tramlines even though he had no team mates to throw the ball to. He doesn't need a team mate to be in a position to catch the ball. He can throw the ball to himself.

SimonSmith
06-12-18, 13:12
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI and

Someone raised the point about a thrower (QTI) throwing the ball towards a player in the tramlines even though he had no team mates to throw the ball to. He doesn't need a team mate to be in a position to catch the ball. He can throw the ball to himself.

Wasn't that in fact his second yellow?

SimonSmith
06-12-18, 13:12
https://youtu.be/UHBqJj0znYo

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/6427e291-02fc-4c5d-b854-1f2d62fe25bf

The Fat
06-12-18, 13:12
Wasn't that in fact his second yellow?

You may be correct. The words "I'm not responsible for what happens next" come to mind

Phil E
06-12-18, 14:12
Just a couple of things to consider.

Drew Mitchel received a YC from Craig Joubert in a test match for handling a ball that was in touch expressly to prevent a QTI

I had to speak to a spectator for doing this last weekend. Reached over the barrier and touched his hand on top of the ball just as the player went to pick it up. Quietly told him if he did it again he would have to watch the rest of the game from inside the clubhouse.

Dickie E
06-12-18, 20:12
Is the defender entitled to be inside the 5m area? No.
Is he there accidentally? No.

9.7

A player must not:

Intentionally infringe any law of the game.[...]Sanction: Penalty.




This happened in a L6 game I was assessing a few years back. We discussed it because of the arguments I had seen from others and he was surprised to learn that anybody would have decided differently. I noted this "correct decision" in his report and the SMODO did not demur.

If you use this logic, every squint scrum feed would be a penalty.

Acknowledgement to the poster that previously pointed this out.

OB..
06-12-18, 23:12
If you use this logic, every squint scrum feed would be a penalty.That shows the folly of trying to be too logical.

I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).

Generally speaking crooked throw-ins at lineouts are not considered to be deliberate, so you need evidence of intention.

The player I referred to is clearly acting illegally and intentionally.

Zebra1922
07-12-18, 18:12
That shows the folly of trying to be too logical.

I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).

Generally speaking crooked throw-ins at lineouts are not considered to be deliberate, so you need evidence of intention.

The player I referred to is clearly acting illegally and intentionally.

If a crooked line out is not deliberate, how come 95% favournthe throwing in team?

Dickie E
08-12-18, 01:12
I don't think I would mind if deliberate squint feeds led to PKs (though the solution might turn out to be worse than the disease).



Be that as it may, the fact is that squint scrum feeds never end up as penalties eventhough the SH is "clearly acting illegally and intentionally."

And the "don't be too logical and just take my word for it" comment is ... odd.

VM75
11-12-18, 22:12
Last weekend the 18yr old 9 of one team would dart went across touchline and handle the ball thinking he'd prevented the opposition from taking a QTI.

Ref - FK & "you've no business touching the ball"

2nd time he did it
ref - PK & " I told you you can't do that"

at the subsequent line out
9 -"all I'm trying to do ref is stop them taking a quick throw" -
Ref -"I know I replied, and you aren't permitted to"

9"- what can I do to stop them taking one then?"
ref - "nothing, other than keep the ball in play, or stand 5m in & dissuade the thrower from lobbing it , OR catch their throw !"

after match, we chat, he says his coach told him to do it & he does it every week and no other ref ever fk/pk's him.

:shrug:

Dickie E
11-12-18, 22:12
VM75,

18.3 tells us:

A player who carries the ball into touch must release the ball immediately so that a quick throw may be taken. Sanction: Penalty.

but is there a law preventing the #9 doing what he did?

crossref
11-12-18, 23:12
Last weekend the 18yr old 9 of one team would dart went across touchline and handle the ball thinking he'd prevented the opposition from taking a QTI.

Ref - FK & "you've no business touching the ball"

2nd time he did it
ref - PK & " I told you you can't do that"

at the subsequent line out
9 -"all I'm trying to do ref is stop them taking a quick throw" -
Ref -"I know I replied, and you aren't permitted to"

9"- what can I do to stop them taking one then?"
ref - "nothing, other than keep the ball in play, or stand 5m in & dissuade the thrower from lobbing it , OR catch their throw !"

after match, we chat, he says his coach told him to do it & he does it every week and no other ref ever fk/pk's him.

:shrug:

We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?

OB..
12-12-18, 11:12
We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?
18.5

A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:

[...]
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



For me this implicitly allows the opponents to touch the ball and thereby prevent a QTI. A classic example is an opponent standing in touch to catch the ball.

VM75
12-12-18, 11:12
We have often discussed this scenario and opinions differ on whether its legal. (it has parallels in ancient practice where the first team to touch the ball got to take the throw )

For its either OK or its a PK first time. With a fk the other team may actually prefer the lineout . Would you let them choose one ?

CrossRef
Yes, "Option" should always apply to the team that's been offended against.

Dickie E,
the wide [game continuance quickly] permissions of a QTI should prevail, I can't imagine that 18.5[b] was written with the expectation that 'prevention' of a QTI could be achieved by a uninvolved player disabling a QTI opportunity in that way.

It's clearly gamesmanship [or unsporting] to do so, and in the age of a shrinking law book provision needs to retained to not allow opponents to curtail lawful activity in such a way.

I'd like to think most referees would agree, & also uphold those values.

crossref
12-12-18, 12:12
For me its not clearly gamesmanship, nor unsporting.
But happy to accept that most refs seem to think it is

VM75
27-12-18, 21:12
18.5

A quick throw is disallowed and a lineout is awarded to the same team if:

[...]
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



For me this implicitly allows the opponents to touch the ball and thereby prevent a QTI. A classic example is an opponent standing in touch to catch the ball.

So,

Red player carries the ball into touch, releases it immediately [to allow the possibility of a 18.3 QTI for his opponents GREEN] which the game seems to want to promote [ie a specific law was written to speed up the ball back in play]

& rather than 18.5.b preventing the coach or a spectator [others] from handling/moving or kicking the ball, you want a non throwing player to be able to nullify the opportunity for the QTI to happen by interfering in some way [or merely touching the ball]

18.5.b is poorly worded, and I suspect it intended to deal with interventions of the 'others' , not to permit players to nullify bonafide QTI opportunities.

least that's my interpretation, & it makes little 'sporting' sense to interpret otherwise IMHO.

crossref
27-12-18, 22:12
VM, I think you have confused yourself a bit , and are reffing according to what you think is 'sporting' , rather than to the actual Laws

In post 52 you gave a FK and then a PK , but what is the actual offence , do you think, to justify those sanctions?

I reckon you might actually be going out on a bit of a limb.
As you say yourself neither the player, nor his coach, nor any other ref he has ever had , seemed to have considered what he did to be against the Law . ? "No other ref has ever FK or PK him " Only you ?

Dickie E
27-12-18, 23:12
an interesting parallel:

Red player dots down for a 22 drop out and shapes to kick the ball to a team mate on 22 for a quick restart. Blue player prevents this by taking ball out of Red player's hands. Has an offence been committed?

crossref
28-12-18, 09:12
Red player dots down for a 22 drop out and throws a long pass to a team mate on 22 for a quick restart.
A retreating Blue player catches the pass and immediately places ball on the floor and continues to retreat... Has an offence been committed

Dickie E
28-12-18, 09:12
Red player dots down for a 22 drop out and throws a long pass to a team mate on 22 for a quick restart.
A retreating Blue player catches the pass and immediately places ball on the floor and continues to retreat... Has an offence been committed

is there an echo in here?

crossref
28-12-18, 10:12
:)


is there an echo in here?


The two 22mDO scenarios are similar but in your scenario the answer is yes, in mine it is no.

didds
28-12-18, 10:12
:)




The two 22mDO scenarios are similar but in your scenario the answer is yes, in mine it is no.


go on then - I'll bite :-)

what's the difference between the ball being attempted to be thrown to the 22 d/o kicker and kicked to him?

I can see the nuance about in the kick scenario the ball is removed from the kicker, whilst in the throw scenario it is caught in mid flight. In one the kick is prevented, in the other the catch is rpevented.

I am however interested genuinely in CR's nuance.

didds

crossref
28-12-18, 10:12
The difference is that
1 blue takes the ball out of the red players hands
2 blue catches a poor throw that comes his way

That seems more than a nuance
1 is a flashpoint
2 is a shrug, fair enough, nice idea but poorly executed and didn't work

didds
28-12-18, 10:12
OK. The pass wasn't necessarily poorly thrown - not from the description. it may have been thrown directly to the 22 d/o kicker but the oppo just stepped in the way imediately adjacent to him etc.

?
didds

crossref
28-12-18, 11:12
So there you have two sub-scenarios .. and no doubt there are othe minor variations... Possibly with different answers

The answer to the QTI question won't be found by analysing 22DO scenarios !


What do we think about VM actions in post 52 ?

Dickie E
29-12-18, 11:12
The answer to the QTI question won't be found by analysing 22DO scenarios !




Why not? Both involve opposition players slowing down restarts.

crossref
29-12-18, 12:12
Why not?

See post #63 ..

L'irlandais
29-12-18, 14:12
Some of you are very adept at dancing on pinheads it seems. :sarc:

Not wishing to derail the discussion, but rather to get back to a comfortable level 1 or 2. While not mentioned in your original scenario this is definitely worth bearing in mind.
Ask yourself- Is the defender on side?
Should he actually be retreating behind his own kicker instead of preventing this QTi?
A short WR clip gives a couple of practical examples.
Offside when the ball is kicked to touch thereby preventing quick throw ins (https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=Quick&domain=9&guideline=5)
WR puts it like this:
Zero tolerance to offsides from kicks to be strictly policed
Players in front of the kicker of their side must not advance until onside and offside players within 10metres of the ball alighting must retire and continue to retire until outside the 10metres or put onside.

My point being, that while the law isn’t clear on your scenario, the situation might not arise all that often if we enforced existing Laws a little better. QTi is often only on when the opposition kick deep, for the OP scenario to exist there is a strong chance the preventer is not onside.

crossref
29-12-18, 15:12
A good point ...
But the other time a QTI is often on is when the ball carrier is bundled into touch, and in that scenario everyone will normally be onside , and also close , so you do get the opportunity to touch the ball

SimonSmith
20-02-19, 01:02
USA Rugby have this very day issued a diktat*:

If another player of the team that took the ball into touch, plays the ball to prevent a quick throw-in, they are liable to PK. This was discussed with some law makers recently that the law 18.5b could read, ďThe ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the team (instead of player) who carried the ball into touch;Ē
It is a long process to present a law change.

So, we're clear on this over here anyway.


*quoting diktats in no way indicates endorsement of said diktat

crossref
20-02-19, 07:02
USA Rugby have this very day issued a diktat*:

If another player of the team that took the ball into touch, plays the ball to prevent a quick throw-in, they are liable to PK. This was discussed with some law makers recently that the law 18.5b could read, “The ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the team (instead of player) who carried the ball into touch;”
It is a long process to present a law change.

So, we're clear on this over here anyway.


*quoting diktats in no way indicates endorsement of said diktat



What does the diktat actually say, can you copy and paste it ?

I am not clear, if a blue touches it, is it a PK to Red , or just that Red can still take the QTI regardless ?
Or both ?

Why would they take a QTI when they could have a PK ?

Dickie E
20-02-19, 07:02
I am not clear, if a blue touches it, is it a PK to Red , or just that Red can still take the QTI regardless ?
Or both ?



"they are liable to PK" seems pretty crystal to me

crossref
20-02-19, 07:02
"they are liable to PK" seems pretty crystal to me

Yes, but then what about the bit about 18.5 b ? How can a QTI still happen if a PK has been awarded ?

Rich_NL
20-02-19, 08:02
The QTI can't happen, so PK on the 15 (I guess).

It's likely a flashpoint to be managed. It would have to be pretty C&O for me.

crossref
20-02-19, 10:02
The QTI can't happen, so PK on the 15 (I guess).

e.

Simon's post says that in the US it can happen

Rich_NL
20-02-19, 10:02
I read it as saying that a proposed law change would be to allow the QTI, but in the meantime it's a PK.

crossref
20-02-19, 10:02
I read it as saying that a proposed law change would be to allow the QTI, but in the meantime it's a PK.

Ah..
Well would be interested to see the actual diktat

SimonSmith
20-02-19, 14:02
That was the diktat.

Handed down on the 8th ring of Hell that is the USA Referees Facebook page.

crossref
20-02-19, 14:02
If another player of the team that took the ball into touch, plays the ball to prevent a quick throw-in, they are liable to PK. This was discussed with some law makers recently that the law 18.5b could read, “The ball had been touched after it went into touch by anyone other than the player throwing in or the team (instead of player) who carried the ball into touch;”
It is a long process to present a law change.


Exactly like that?
In an email ?

Hmm. Hope that is clearer in us than it was to me