PDA

View Full Version : Intentionally throwing at player not 5



Play On!
31-12-09, 17:12
Red team kicks into touch. Blue wants to throw a quick one, but red player is standing 3 meters from touch trying to stop the quick throw. Can the blue team just throw the ball at the red player and get the free kick? Obviously it's not always going to be easy to determine whether the Blue player intended to throw it at the Red player or not, but should that even matter?

tim White
31-12-09, 18:12
Deliberately preventing the ball travelling 5m is a Penalty, most throwers do not throw and thus allow the delaying tactic to succeed.:wait:
Deliberately throwing the ball AT the blocker is a possible Penalty offence in itself, :nono: throwing it and allowing him to block is different.:chin:
Throw the ball, hope the referee is watching.:Nerv:

SimonSmith
31-12-09, 18:12
Consensus (not unanimity) on the site is that the referee should manage it, asking:

Was the QT genuinely on, or are the throwers trying to milk an offence?

A lot of posters would penalize the thrower. Personally, assuming it wasn't into the face, I'd be tempted to let it go.

OB..
31-12-09, 18:12
Penalise the blocker. Intentional offending.

Taff
31-12-09, 18:12
In a situation like this where both sides feel aggrieved, wouldn't it be easier / cleaner just to disallow the QT and ask the original side to throw in at a normal lineout?

SimonSmith
31-12-09, 20:12
Except - assuming that the QT was a viable option - they've been denied their rights.

Taff
31-12-09, 22:12
Except - assuming that the QT was a viable option - they've been denied their rights.But by throwing the ball directly at an opposition player (possibly in the hope of gaining a PK) wouldn't they have thrown away their own "right"?

SimonSmith
31-12-09, 23:12
What law did they break?

Standing onside the 5m and blocking the throw - prima facie case of breaking the law.
Throwing the ball at the player? Plausibly a case of trying to make the throw-in and having it blocked.

First offence - blocking the throw.

Dickie E
31-12-09, 23:12
Can the blue team just throw the ball at the red player and get the free kick?

The ref should be managing this situation without the blue player needing to throw the ball at all by ATPing the red player.

Dixie
01-01-10, 10:01
In a situation like this where both sides feel aggrieved, wouldn't it be easier / cleaner just to disallow the QT and ask the original side to throw in at a normal lineout?
Wimp's cop-out, I fear, rewarding the offending side by lacking the courage to penalise their offence. A parallel: Blue rucker lies all all over the ball, resulting in a serious shoeing from Red. Both sides aggrieved, scrum-down Red put-in, instead of cards all round. Not a route to refereeing promotion.

The ref should be managing this situation without the blue player needing to throw the ball at all by ATPing the red player. Good grief, you've got some fast talkers and good listeners in Aus! A QUICK throw, in my opinion, is unlikely still to be on once you've ASKED, got no response, and then TOLD the blocker to quit his action. If you can't do all that before the thrower throws in, do you penalise the thrower?

Dickie E
01-01-10, 11:01
Good grief, you've got some fast talkers and good listeners in Aus! A QUICK throw, in my opinion, is unlikely still to be on once you've ASKED, got no response, and then TOLD the blocker to quit his action. If you can't do all that before the thrower throws in, do you penalise the thrower?

No problem. Blue comes to touchline to take QT. Red winger starts doing the rain dance in front of him. "11 Red, don't block the throw - retire 5". Does as he's told -> play on.

Maybe its more TP than ATP.

OB..
01-01-10, 12:01
No problem. Blue comes to touchline to take QT. Red winger starts doing the rain dance in front of him. "11 Red, don't block the throw - retire 5". Does as he's told -> play on.

Maybe its more TP than ATP.
... and it's more a T than a QT, as Dixie pointed out.

At any reasonable level players should know it is illegal, and are just trying it on. Ping them.

beckett50
01-01-10, 13:01
A better shout is "Let him throw it" - similar to the "Let him run" from a quick tap penalty.

Deeps
01-01-10, 14:01
No problem. Blue comes to touchline to take QT. Red winger starts doing the rain dance in front of him. "11 Red, don't block the throw - retire 5". Does as he's told -> play on.

That's like AT players to get back 10 at a PK/FK. Not my problem, if they don't know by now then no amount of telling will fix it. Hard lesson, ping the blocker and that should lodge in his memory. Was it Pavlov..

Davet
01-01-10, 15:01
FK the blocker.

If the thrower has time to throw before you instruct / ping the blocker then you were too slow, why would you penalise the thrower because you weren't good enough?

Deeps
01-01-10, 16:01
The problem here is that the thrower has to throw before an offence has been committed, it is not really possible to determine from your perspective, unless you are behind the thrower, as to whether a QT is on or not. Once the thrower throws and I have no problem if it hits the blocker provided it is not dangerous or malicious, then the 5 metre channel should be clear. Anyone in the 5 metre channel who then obstructs the passage of the ball before it reaches the 5 metre line has committed an offence; here I am with OB, a deliberate block is a Law 10 intentional offence.

OB..
01-01-10, 20:01
I am quite clear that the tactic is contrary to 10.4 (l). The dancing player knows he is not allowed to play the ball in the 5m channel, so he has no business being there.

David J.
02-01-10, 16:01
What if the throwing team would prefer a lineout to a FK?

Say the ball is kicked from just outside the 22m and goes direct out at the other 22m. The throwing team picks the ball up and out of habit or because there may be a possibility of a QT makes the motions.

Davet
02-01-10, 17:01
So they make the motions...

And if the opposition dance in the channel then they get pinged for it.

If the throwers really wanted the lineout 50m back upfield then they shouldn't have bluffed it, or acted on impluse.

If you do something then you live with the consequences.

Simon Thomas
02-01-10, 20:01
It happened today in the L5 match I watched at 2/25. White ahead 33-7 at the time.

White #12 stood two metres in from touch, black #14 tries to do QT to #15 10m infield. #12 dummies, then throws, hits white #12's arm which is raised and ref just comments line already formed (it wasn't !) and black get proper line out.

De-brief time (he had an excellent match overall with super management of tackle / ruck) we discussed the QT incident (along with the Referee Coach).

We concluded that white #12 was deliberately preventing QT (at this level they know exactly what they are doing - he is ex-Bristol Academy), and should have been penalised. I favoured PK, ref & coach FK. Ref stuck to line-out formed argument for formal de-brief, but did admit later it might have been his Get Of Jail card played.

Dickie E
04-01-10, 11:01
If White takes QT which is blocked by Red 2 metres from touch, can advantage apply?