[Line out] Quick throw in

[Paule23]

Ian, why do you always come across so aggressive and arrogant? We come here to discuss and debate laws, interpretations etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing, this is a complex game, laws can be poorly worded, generally accepted practice may differ from the law etc. Argue against people by all means, but there's no need to be so aggressive about it.

I'd like to think this should be a place where we can politely debate things, respect others opinions and hopefully all learn and become better referees from it. I don't think an aggressive or sarcastic response is the right way to deal with things.

 

[didds]

"A quick throw in is allowed only before the defending team approaches the lineout/line of touch".

Now define "defending team approaches the lineout/line of touch"

Is the fullback 40m away moving upfield approaching the line of touch?

I'm with Ian. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Ian, why do you always come across so aggressive and arrogant? We come here to discuss and debate laws, interpretations etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing, this is a complex game, laws can be poorly worded, generally accepted practice may differ from the law etc. Argue against people by all means, but there's no need to be so aggressive about it.

I'd like to think this should be a place where we can politely debate things, respect others opinions and hopefully all learn and become better referees from it. I don't think an aggressive or sarcastic response is the right way to deal with things.

Don't waste your breath, Paul. Leopard & spots.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, why do you always come across so aggressive and arrogant? We come here to discuss and debate laws, interpretations etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing, this is a complex game, laws can be poorly worded, generally accepted practice may differ from the law etc. Argue against people by all means, but there's no need to be so aggressive about it.

I'd like to think this should be a place where we can politely debate things, respect others opinions and hopefully all learn and become better referees from it. I don't think an aggressive or sarcastic response is the right way to deal with things.

A lot gets missed when text is being used. I don't tend to use smileys much.

The suggestion to add "without delay" to a QTi is not a good one; it is a step in the wrong direction to be taking the game. Rugby refereeing is already subjective enough as it is without adding to that subjectivity by taking away well defined and well understood limits on when a QTi can be taken, limits that everyone on the field understands. You would be replacing it with yet another judgement the referee is expected to make at touch and line-out time. In short, it is a solution looking for a nonexistent problem to solve.

Now, if you can explain to me some actual technical reason why a QTi not taken immediately is a problem then I'll be more receptive. But if you are going to go with "it seems wrong" or "it looks very weird" or gobbledygook of that kind, then forget it. Those are not valid reasons.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Don't waste your breath, Paul. Leopard & spots.

If you have an actual, constructive contribution to make, then make it.

If you just want to troll, then please do so somewhere else.

PS: You haven't addressed my answer in post #20 to your question in post #19

 

[Dickie E]

PS: You haven't addressed my answer in post #20 to your question in post #19

Yeah, same scenario just change gaggle to slowly approach LoT

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yeah, same scenario just change gaggle to slowly approach LoT

Well, I'd let the QTi be taken if they haven't reached the LoT. It will encourage them to get themselves to the lineout quicker next time.

 

[Dickie E]

If you have an actual, constructive contribution to make, then make it.

If you just want to troll, then please do so somewhere else.

I've been on this ride before. If you can't see how deriding people's POV by telling them they have a burr up their arse is likely is to cause offence, then as I said to Paul, leopard & spots. But your post #24 is certainly more civil, so you clearly get it when you want to.

But you keep on getting away with it with no contrition, so more power to you. Well done.

 

[Dickie E]

Well, I'd let the QTi be taken if they haven't reached the LoT. It will encourage them to get themselves to the lineout quicker next time.

In the scenario, it is the throwing team who is slow to the LoT. That is the tactic. Make it look like a normal lineout, then pull a QTI fast one.

 

[Guyseep]

Now define "defending team approaches the lineout/line of touch"

Is the fullback 40m away moving upfield approaching the line of touch?

I'm with Ian. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

didds

"defending team approaching the lineout/line of touch" = them standing at their mark in the lineout. Simple

 

[didds]

so not approaching but forming?

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

I've been on this ride before. If you can't see how deriding people's POV by telling them they have a burr up their arse is likely is to cause offence, then as I said to Paul, leopard & spots. But your post #24 is certainly more civil, so you clearly get it when you want to.

But you keep on getting away with it with no contrition, so more power to you. Well done.

Only the longer standing members here will have noted your passive aggressive phraseology regarding "innovation" back at Ian. If you poke a hornets' nest, don't complain if you get stung.

 

[crossref]

There are buttons to indicate like and dislike
People generally use them to indicate agree or disagree.
I suggest that going forward we use the dislike button to dislike the tone of a post
Perhaps we could use peer pressure that way to make the forum more civil.
The mods can't or won't address the problem. Perhaps we can do it as a community

 

[crossref]

Back to the topic , I think that the purpose of the QTI is to keep the game flowing
If teams are slowing down the game to try and get the chance of a a sneaky QTI then this defeats the purpose.

But rather than my first suggestion above , forcing a QTI to be taken without delay, I prefer the other suggestion .. let the non throwing team thwart a QTI by lining up for a lineout .
(and many players seem to think this is law anyway )

 

[ChrisR]

Trouble is I agree with Ian that there is no problem to be fixed. I also agree that spontaneity and creativity can be throttled by misapplication of the laws. I can give several examples from personal experience.

The most aggravating is "It didn't look right".

Perhaps Ian could have his own Smiley. Smoke coming out of the ears or a look of disdain. It only bothers me when he supports a position (one that I don't agree with) by dismissing all others as being not qualified to have an opinion. Then it's personal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Trouble is I agree with Ian that there is no problem to be fixed. I also agree that spontaneity and creativity can be throttled by misapplication of the laws. I can give several examples from personal experience.

The most aggravating is "It didn't look right".

Perhaps Ian could have his own Smiley. Smoke coming out of the ears or a look of disdain. It only bothers me when he supports a position (one that I don't agree with) by dismissing all others as being not qualified to have an opinion. Then it's personal.

When have I ever said others don't qualify to have an opinion.

Back to the topic , I think that the purpose of the QTI is to keep the game flowing
If teams are slowing down the game to try and get the chance of a a sneaky QTI then this defeats the purpose.

If you think they are deliberately slowing things down to get in a sneaky QTi, ping them under that Law (I'll elaborate on that later).

But rather than my first suggestion above , forcing a QTI to be taken without delay, I prefer the other suggestion .. let the non throwing team thwart a QTI by lining up for a lineout .
(and many players seem to think this is law anyway )

Your suggestion, if carried through, will all but eliminate the chance to even have a QTi at all. The kicking team will make it a priority to get two players to the LoT. Under your suggestion, say, in a clearing kick scenario, the kicking team kicks the ball 35m downfield but it crosses the touchline 20m away from the kicker. They may already be at the LoT or very close to it, so all the kicking team would have to do is get two players to where the AR/TJ is marking touch, and 15m further downfield, the throwing team is not allowed to take a QTi

Mertons Law; I respectfully suggest that you need to think about the possible unintended consequences of your suggestions.

There are three possible scenarios here to deal with

1. Neither team has two players at the LoT
This is the usual situation when a QTi is taken. Play on until a QTi is taken or a lineout forms

2. The throwing team already have two players at the LoT the non-throwing team is delaying forming the lineout.
The QTi should be on until the non-throwing team get two players to the LoT. If they delay and form a huddle to discuss what they are going to do, even if this is some time later, if a QTi is taken, you should allow it. This might give the non-throwing team a hint to get their arses into gear next time.

3. The non-throwing team already have two players at the LoT and the throwing team is delaying forming the line-out
In this case, you have to decide if the throwing team is delaying the game. There is a simple way to asses this. If you have time to think to yourself that they are delaying the game, then they ARE delaying the game (this is the same advice I give when I'm the Chief Cross Country Judge at a Horse Trials event and I'm briefing the Fence Judges - if you have time to think "Oh, that horse has stopped", then it HAS stopped). Tell the players to get moving. if they don't (or if they do, but it happens again at the next line-out), then a short blow of the whistle, time off (that will stop the QTi if this is what they are trying to do).

"Skipper. No stopping for a conference. Get your players to the line-out now"

If it still happens next time, FK them under 19.8 (d)

None of this requires changes to the Law. The tools for dealing with it are already in the Law... use them!

 

[Paule23]

The tools for dealing with it are already in the Law... use them!

There are some tools, but it seems to me too biased in favour of the throwing team, who can wait and wait and then still take a "quick" throw a long time after the ball has gone into touch, at any time it is most advantageous to them. Now you can argue that this is not really a problem, let the throwing team have these advantages and use them as they see fit. I just see it too far in favour of one team. If the non throwing team get 2 people to the LOT quickly, then fair play to them, let's give them a reward in preventing a QTI (although maybe renamed at this time to "DQTI" or "Delayed Quick Throw In").

 

[Ian_Cook]

There are some tools, but it seems to me too biased in favour of the throwing team, who can wait and wait and then still take a "quick" throw a long time after the ball has gone into touch, at any time it is most advantageous to them.

Did you actually read what I posted, because I addressed this exact scenario? If they wait and wait... PING THEM!!! Use Law 19.8 (d)

Now you can argue that this is not really a problem, let the throwing team have these advantages and use them as they see fit. I just see it too far in favour of one team. If the non throwing team get 2 people to the LOT quickly, then fair play to them, let's give them a reward in preventing a QTI (although maybe renamed at this time to "DQTI" or "Delayed Quick Throw In").

Again, did you actually read my reply to crossref? Again, it addresses this exact scenario.

If your suggestion is followed through, then we might as well just remove the QTi from the book. On every occasion the ball goes into touch where an opponent of the kicker doesn't actually catch the ball in touch, close to the touchline (which doesn't happen very often), the non throwing team will be able to rush two players to the LoT and stop the QTi before any member of the throwing team can even get to the ball, let alone have the chance to throw it.

If you don't want to use the tools in the laws, you can't blame the Laws for the situation you find yourself in.

 

[Dickie E]

Only the longer standing members here will have noted your passive aggressive phraseology regarding "innovation" back at Ian. If you poke a hornets' nest, don't complain if you get stung.

So I make a (allegedly) passive aggressive post at #19 and that gives the Hornet licence to make an uncivil post at #9??? Who is he - Marty McFly?

 

[Dickie E]

You are on shaky ground. As long as the attacking players are walking towards the LoT at a normal walking pace you should allow the QTi (you have no reason in Law not to)

What if the non-throwing #10, recognising that the QTI is still on eventhough the lineout is 95% formed, exercises his rights and goes and stands next to his opposite number to defend the QTI? What are his options if the lineout does eventually form and what should the referee do?