PDA

View Full Version : QT on 5m line?



chopper15
14-08-09, 14:08
Please settle an argument I'm having with my 'know-it-all' son'.

If the opp. finds touch between your 5m and goal line, are you permitted to take a QT on the 5m line?

Davet
14-08-09, 15:08
19.2.b
QT may be taken between where the ball went into touch and your goal line.

ball goes out 3m from your goal line, you cannot therefore take a QT 5 from your goal line.

That is where a formed line out would be - I assume the restriction on formed line out within 5 of goal line is a concession to the defenders becasue it would be easier for attackers to score - if on a QT they elect to take it closer then they can, but they don't get waht then becomes an advatage of moving it out further.

But to ansewr you Question - No.

Dixie
14-08-09, 15:08
Please settle an argument I'm having with my 'know-it-all' son'.

If the opp. finds touch between your 5m and goal line, are you permitted to take a QT on the 5m line?Agree with Davet that the answer is no.

Given your mild-mannered and humble input to this forum, I'm shocked to hear that your son is opinionated! :wow: He must take after his mother. :wink:

SimonSmith
14-08-09, 15:08
The apple doesn't fall from the tree though - still about QTs.

Mrs Chopper must LOVE dinner on a Saturday during the season :)

chopper15
14-08-09, 20:08
Thanks gents . . . you'll be pleased to know I was right! :hap:

He thought it could be taken between the goal-line and where the touch was flagged.

chesref
15-08-09, 15:08
Thanks gents . . . you'll be pleased to know I was right! :hap:

He thought it could be taken between the goal-line and where the touch was flagged.

It can, or did you mean to type 5m line.

chopper15
15-08-09, 15:08
[/B]

It can, or did you mean to type 5m line.



Where the touch was flagged . . . being the 5m line.

But how is the thrower to know where the ball crossed the line if the AR flags the 5m line?

If the mandatory LoT is on the 5m line wouldn't it make more sense to use that as the limiting factor?

After all Refs still insist the QT backward throw must 'cross the 5m line' in defiance of the new law wording which is confused and contrary to the 2009 amendment explanation? :hap:

Phil E
15-08-09, 16:08
I see old habits die hard Chopper!

chopper15
15-08-09, 22:08
I see old habits die hard Chopper!

Yours aren't the only ones, Phil, I'm guilty too! :hap:

Dickie E
15-08-09, 22:08
Yours aren't the only ones, Phil, I'm guilty too! :hap:

LOL :clap: :clap: :clap:

Simonsky
16-08-09, 08:08
Can I get this clear-ball grubbers into touch 2.9567 meters from defenders goal line -defenders are entitled to take QT at and between 2.9567 meters and goal line as long as LO is not formed (at least two from each team).

QT must be lateral or backwards and go 5 meters. OK so far?

However.19.2(e) says(still 2008 book):'if the player does not throw the ball in straight so that it travels at least 5m .......then the quick throw in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a line out where the QT was attempted....

does this mean a line out can be attempted close to goal line than 5m????

Davet
16-08-09, 10:08
No.

It is overridden by the prohibition on a formed line-out closer than 5m to goal-line.

Ref Chopper's query, QT must travel at least 5m, AND must cross the 5m line; 2009 wording. http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/laws/index.html


At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line (ie forward), or if the ball does not travel at least five metres to the five metres line along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a lineout where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the15-metre line.


My parentheses, and emphasis.

chopper15
16-08-09, 15:08
2009 Law 19.2
(e) At a quick throw-in, . . . if the ball does not travel at least five metres to the five metres line . . . behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player . . .

(f) At a quick throw-in a player may throw the ball in straight along the line of touch or towards that player’s goal line.


Following the old law wording v ref. interpretation confusion, ( ie.must travel 5m v cross the 5m line) when the ELV.QT back throw was introduced, the law lords sensibly clarified (at last!) that the ball must reach or cross the 5m line for both straight and back throws prior to publication of the 2009 LoG.

However, as with the new ‘fixed’ opp. thrower last minute wording change (which, incidentally they stated ‘must not to exceed 10m’ prior to publication), it prompts the question did they have a change of mind on this back-throw restriction too?

Schoolboy trig’ tells us immediately that the stated minimum distance of 5m for a behind the LoT throw referred to in the 2009 law won’t reach the 5m line let alone cross it.

So there is the possibility that the law lords now intend to allow a throw back between the tram-lines as long as it travels at least 5m.

Who’s to know?

Incidentally, with reference to the current discussion :

For a QT short of the 5m line, can the ball be thrown back to a team member standing under 5m out from TiG behind the GL? There being no 5m line back there to throw it over, of course!

Ref. (f) above. Does a LoT only apply to the flagged LO position? As QT throws not taken at the flagged position can only be forward, straight or back making a LoT reference irrelevant.

PS. Watched Pirates play Cardiff in a friendly last evening (60 –13). Nobody seemed too concerned about the ‘fixed’ opp. thrower.

FlipFlop
16-08-09, 17:08
Chopper the new wording is crystal clear to everyone (apart from you apparently).

The ball must travel at least 5m TO the 5m line. It can now go 7m to the 5m line (thrown at an angle) or 5m (thrown straight).

I don't know why they changed it like this, rather than just say it has to cross the 5m line, but it does say it has to travel TO the 5m line.

So lets take that as meaning, it has to reach the 5m line, adn the minimum distance it has to travel is 5m, but it could be required to travel further - possible 6, 7, 8, 9, 50m if thrown at such an angle so as to enable it to reach the 5m line.

I think the new wording means the horse you are flogging has died.

chopper15
16-08-09, 20:08
Schoolboy trig’ tells us immediately that the stated minimum distance of 5m for a behind the LoT throw referred to in the 2009 law won’t reach the 5m line let alone cross it.

Flip Flop. Of course it's not crystal clear. We know what the law lords probably intended, but it's most certainly not what's stated. . . . and they did change their mind before going to print.

Do you, therefore, think they want a 'fixed' opp. thrower position by applying your same logic?

And I surmise that throwing the QT back over the GL without going over a non-existing 5m line is a no-no as far as you're concerned? Echoes of the ball rolling past the 22m line in touch which hasn't been resolved yet?

Is that also still 'flogging a dead horse'?

FlipFlop
16-08-09, 20:08
Schoolboy trig’ tells us immediately that the stated minimum distance of 5m for a behind the LoT throw referred to in the 2009 law won’t reach the 5m line let alone cross it.

Correct. And that means the throw isn't valid. It must go AT LEAST 5m AND cross the 5m line.


Flip Flop. Of course it's not crystal clear. We know what the law lords probably intended, but it's most certainly not what's stated. . . . and they did change their mind before going to print.


All they did on this issue was correct a slight error in the ELV word drafting, to clarify it.



Do you, therefore, think they want a 'fixed' opp. thrower position by applying your same logic?


I think they wanted the position of teh "trammer" (as you called him) more clearly defined (i.e. up close to the lineout, not 10m back). So provided the perosn in this position is roughly 2m & 2m (i.e not interferring with thrower or front of line) then I'm fine. Interesting is that the FFR interpretation of the ELV was the fixed position. So given it had already been interpreted that way - yes I do believe they want a fixed opp to the thrower.

I mightnot however get out my ruler and ensure it is 2m & 2m, rather that the opp is away from the thrower, the 5m line, and the line of touch, but clearly identified.



And I surmise that throwing the QT back over the GL without going over a non-existing 5m line is a no-no as far as you're concerned? Echoes of the ball rolling past the 22m line in touch which hasn't been resolved yet?

Anyone taking a QT that far back, then I'm going to given them the benefit of the doubt, and provided the ball crosses the 5m line (this isn't a solid line, so I see no reason why it can't extent into in-goal - we don't need it cross white wash), then I'll play on. While this might not be the proverbial 7th Tuesday after a blue moon happening, it's close. So I'll apply my best interpretation.

And the rolling past the 22m - the only odd ones out are the Aussies (to my knowledge).



Is that also still 'flogging a dead horse'?

Yes. Your still going on about a 5m throw, that doesn't reach the 5m line. This has been clarified for you at the ELV stage, all were in agreement (though some at TV level were let go), and has no been clarified IN LAW.

Or perhaps you're the horse who's been led to water?

chopper15
16-08-09, 23:08
Your thoughtful answer is much appreciated FF. Thanks.

My point was, and still is, the law doesn't state AND cross the line, which, of course, was very probably the law lord's intention at the time.

I'm simply pointing out that the wording of the law indicates that if the ball only travels five metres to the five metres line behind the line of touch then, altho' it wouldn't have cleared the tramlines it's OK.

And regarding the tramsman's location, the law lords issued a 10m limit clarification then, without even trialling it, changed their mind and fixed the position instead.

As far as rolling past the 22 in the SH is concerned, I would've thought by now somebody would've asked the IRB for official clarification. They may still be right.

And by the way the clumsily written 2009 law did resurrect that dead nag.

Davet
17-08-09, 09:08
The words written in Law say:

It must travel TO the 5m line.

In order to get to the 5m line it must also travel AT LEAST 5m.

Clearly it may travel more then 5m - that is implied by "at least", and simple common sense tells us that if the ball is thrown on an angle then it MUST travel more than 5m in order to reach the 5m line.


I'm simply pointing out that the wording of the law indicates that if the ball only travels five metres to the five metres line behind the line of touch then, altho' it wouldn't have cleared the tramlines it's OK.


The wording of the Law requires the ball to reach the 5m line.

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the two 5m lines? the only relevant one for a QT is the one parellel to the touch line. The one parallel to the goal line is not relevant.

It would have been simpler to write that the "...ball must reach the 5m line", but why use one word when twenty will do the job?

chopper15
17-08-09, 14:08
Point understood Davet. I misinterpretted 'to' ie. to arrive at, as 'towards'.

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the two 5m lines? the only relevant one for a QT is the one parellel to the touch line. The one parallel to the goal line is not relevant.

I try very hard not to confuse if I can possibly help it, Davet. Shame on you for thinking it!

In context to my original query the GL parallel 5m line was relevent; a QT when the ball had gone into touch short of the GL when there's no 5m extension line to judge it.

It would have been simpler to write that the "...ball must reach the 5m line", but why use one word when twenty will do the job?


This was the whole thrust of my comments, but you said it more succinctly and much nicer.

And all without the use of those little face thingys.:love:

PS I did notice you picked the easier of the three points in question to comment on.:hap: