View Full Version : Quick Throw 'baulking'

20-06-06, 13:06
Firstly, no idea if i spelt that right, but if i havn't this thread isn't off to a good start!!

I was watching a game a while back when i noticed a player who had run back to collect a ball with the thought of attempting a quick throw, a defending player came down and stood between the two players. The player with the ball then 'dummied' a quick throw.

I was just wondering why this is not considered baulking and therefore a free kick to the non offending side.
True that as for a normal line out it is a safety issue with the 'fake throw' as it would mean pre-mature jumping, but where in the law book does it specify that you can from a 'quick lineout'

20-06-06, 13:06
I have no idea what baulking is or where it is mentioned in the Law book.

However I can't see a problem with the quick throw in being dummied.

One point does occur - If the player on the non-throwing side stepped inside the 5m channel and the thrower then threw the ball so that this player either caught it or was struck by it, then the ball has been prevented from going 5m and a penalty offence seems to have been committed.

Is that different if the player catches the ball from when the ball is thrown to strike him - or by stepping inside the 5 does he then become responsible for the outcome?

20-06-06, 14:06
"the ball has been prevented from going 5m and a penalty offence seems to have been committed."

that would be a FK ....

20-06-06, 14:06
"balking" in baseball or badminton means starting to pitch/serve, but not completing the movement. It is illegal. Similarly in rugby:-
Law 19.6 (b) The throw-in at the line-out must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.

However this only applies to the lineout, and a quick throw-in is not a lineout. There is no equivalent provision for a quick throw-in, so I see nothing wrong with it.

As to preventing the ball travelling 5 metres:-
Law 19.2 (f) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.

Haven't we been here before? To me, "prevent" necessarily implies intention. It would be ludicrous if a team could win a penalty by throwing the ball at an opponent who just happened to be running by. Referees have to interpret the laws to make sense (where possible :rolleyes: ).

Mike Whittaker
21-06-06, 09:06
Frustrating when a player who is shaping up to take a quick throw in complains that he is unable to do so because of opponent within 5 metres. Whether that opponent is actually preventing a throw is often debatable. Just wish one day that the throw would be taken to prove whether it is prevented or not, relying on ref to penalise if appropriate.

If the ball were, unfortunately, to strike the opponent, who is jumping up and down in front of the prospective thrower, in the middle of the face it would be a clear decision... :D

21-06-06, 10:06
Surely trying to prevent an opponent taking a quick throw-in in the way you describe is a classic case of Law 10.4 (k)?

If, as a consequence, he happens to stop the ball going 5 metres, he can hardly claim it was accidental.

21-06-06, 10:06
I think it's a penalty for deliberately infringing the laws.
If a player stopped a penalty being taken quickly its a yellow card, This equates to the same thing.
Law 10.2(a) 'Intentionall Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game.'
Stopping a quick throw by being within the 5 mt channel is deliberate, players do know where they are on the field.

21-06-06, 11:06
"Law 10.2(a) 'Intentionall Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any law of the game.' "
you could use that argument for almost any infringement ... certainly in my playing experience ... i would have been carded off the pitch for good by half time.

21-06-06, 11:06
However, it is common to see an opponent within the 5m channel, standing arms raised in front of the potential quick thrower - who backs off and does nothing - if one day one of them did throw the ball and it struck the obstructor then I would award the FK without hesitation, and may be inclined - pour encourager les autres - to penalise as ...take your pick, intentionally offending, ungentlemanly conduct.

If the player was simply running back to get in position and the thrower threw the ball at him then I would probably play advantage to the runner, and if none then come back for the scrum.

21-06-06, 12:06
To me, "prevent" necessarily implies intention. It would be ludicrous if a team could win a penalty by throwing the ball at an opponent who just happened to be running by.
Or, more realistically, but simply aiming for the opposite hooker who is standing inside the 5m line and acting as a supporter to the 1st jumper. He may have his back to the thrower, but if the ball hits him in the back of the head the ball has not gone 5m. Has he "prevented" the ball from travelling 5m? Technically yes, but common sense should prevail on this (we hope).


21-06-06, 12:06
davet, in the former scenario, i would be shouting at the oppo to back off to 5m ... trying to prevent that situation and a possible flashpoint. The chances are the oppo is offside from a kick from behind him anyway ... if he didnt back off i would award a FK with a stern warning for an 'upping of sanctions for next deliberate infringement' and a reminder of offside from kicks.

21-06-06, 13:06
I have no problem in penalising a player who is offending intentionally in this manner; it is a professional foul that can become a flashpoint and demonstrates that you deem this to be unacceptable behaviour. I would probably reserve a yellow card for the second occasion for not paying attention first time around.

21-06-06, 15:06
Lucy - we may have been round this before... but once the ball is dead can a player be offside? I thought the original concensus, either on here or another forum, was that once the ball is dead all bets are off.

21-06-06, 16:06
Law 11.9 "[...] The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put on-side by the opposing teamís action."

21-06-06, 18:06
davet ... not so .. take a peek ...


i am with OB.. on this.

21-06-06, 21:06
That suits me... I have argued so on a different forum and ben squashed, I must check where and refer them here!

Simon Thomas
21-06-06, 23:06

I agree with OB and ex-Lucy and would support their argument.

Unlike you to be squashed !

23-06-06, 14:06
and then there is this ...


point 8

23-06-06, 14:06
Those who haven't read the article should be aware that there are 2 items labelled "8." Quick throw-in is the second one.

26-06-06, 12:06
i noted that Os du Randt looked like he prevented at least 2 quick line outs by being offside... that is, i dont believe he is that quick.

27-06-06, 09:06
On checking back it was on a forum called SIRR - Society of Internet Rugby Referees


It s good forum generally lots of SANZAR and USA input - but the concensus there was that when the ball is dead the offside lines disappear, and therefore any players who were offside are no longer so.

My view was (and is) that in general that may be true, but if the player has gained an advantage by being offside then he should not benefit from that.

I seem to enjoy more suport here...

PS - the PR article doesn't contradict the erronious claim that blowing the whistle prevents the quick throw in.