[Line out] Quick throw in

[Ian_Cook]

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?

Its moot

If the lineout is 95% formed then there must be at least two players from each team at the LoT (2 + 1 would be 75%; even in the extremely unlikely event of 8+1, its only 89%), so the QTi is off anyway.

How many angels would you like to cram onto that pinhead just so that you can attempt to gainsay my point?

 

[Dickie E]

Its moot

If the lineout is 95% formed then there must be at least two players from each team at the LoT (2 + 1 would be 75%; even in the extremely unlikely event of 8+1, its only 89%), so the QTi is off anyway.

How many angels would you like to cram onto that pinhead just so that you can attempt to gainsay my point?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse so I'll give you benefit of doubt.

NON-THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS form up on line of touch (see that all the time)
THROWING HOOKER is ready with ball in hand on line of touch with both feet outside field of play (see that all the time)
BACKS FROM BOTH TEAMS are in their regular positions 10 metres from line of touch (see that all the time)
THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS move, without delay, towards line of touch (see that all the time)

Questions/comments:
1. can the THROWING HOOKER take a QTI by throwing ball to his #10 prior to the THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS reaching line of touch?
2. if yes, how can the NON-THROWING TEAM defend against this?
3. if they can't defend against this, then we have an inequitable situation as described by others
4. how is a plausible situation such as this an "angels on pinhead" situation?

 

[Ian_Cook]

NON-THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS form up on line of touch (see that all the time)
THROWING HOOKER is ready with ball in hand on line of touch with both feet outside field of play (see that all the time)
BACKS FROM BOTH TEAMS are in their regular positions 10 metres from line of touch (see that all the time)

If the hooker is standing with ball in hand, and he is not the player who retrieved the opponent's kick to touch, or was not the player who took the ball from the opponent who carried the ball into touch, then the QTi is off anyway.

Perhaps you can explain to me how this situation could have arisen, because I find it quite unlikely that this scenario could even come about.

1. The hooker would need to be the player entitled to take a QTi, and

2. All of the non throwing team would need to willingly line up at the LoT, all way ahead of any of the opposing players, and

3. The non-throwers don't set the numbers at the lineout, so why would they all be lined up without knowing how many of them actually needed/were going to be allowed top be there.

Can you see why I think this is an angels on pinheads scenario?. It would require all the non-throwing line-out forward to be asleep/unaware/stupid. Take your pick.

 

[Dickie E]

If the hooker is standing with ball in hand, and he is not the player who retrieved the opponent's kick to touch, or was not the player who took the ball from the opponent who carried the ball into touch, then the QTi is off anyway.

that point certainly makes the scenario less likely

 

[didds]

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. .

what is the actual problem with that? If the oppo have taken so bloody long to get to the LoT then its hardly anybody's fault than their own, IF they have a problem with it.

It gets the game going again without wasting more time waiting for the other side to dawdle into place. ( And then maybe not compete the throw anyway.... )

It ain't broke. It doesn't need fixing.

didds

 

[didds]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse so I'll give you benefit of doubt.

NON-THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS form up on line of touch (see that all the time)
THROWING HOOKER is ready with ball in hand on line of touch with both feet outside field of play (see that all the time)
BACKS FROM BOTH TEAMS are in their regular positions 10 metres from line of touch (see that all the time)
THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS move, without delay, towards line of touch (see that all the time)

Questions/comments:
1. can the THROWING HOOKER take a QTI by throwing ball to his #10 prior to the THROWING LINEOUT PLAYERS reaching line of touch?
2. if yes, how can the NON-THROWING TEAM defend against this?
3. if they can't defend against this, then we have an inequitable situation as described by others
4. how is a plausible situation such as this an "angels on pinhead" situation?

Maybe when we see it several times a game every game its a problem.

But otherwise isn't this where the standard response is "manage it"?

didds

 

[Paule23]

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)



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.

will you please calm down. I'm here to discuss and debate, not be patronised and have aggression in my face. Take a look at yourself and how you respond to people. Nothing wrong with your arguments, but your tone is appalling.

 

[Guyseep]

will you please calm down. I'm here to discuss and debate, not be patronised and have aggression in my face. Take a look at yourself and how you respond to people. Nothing wrong with your arguments, but your tone is appalling.

couldn't agree more. This sort of attitude is one of the reasons I don't frequent this forum very often anymore.

 

[Ian_Cook]

will you please calm down. I'm here to discuss and debate, not be patronised and have aggression in my face. Take a look at yourself and how you respond to people. Nothing wrong with your arguments, but your tone is appalling.

Whatever mate. It was quite obvious from what you posted that you did not read what I said. What am I suppose to do, just keep repeating and repeating the same stuff over and over.

Sometimes, posting on this forum, I feel like I'm bashing my head against the side of a tank!

 

[Paule23]

Whatever mate. It was quite obvious from what you posted that you did not read what I said. What am I suppose to do, just keep repeating and repeating the same stuff over and over.

Sometimes, posting on this forum, I feel like I'm bashing my head against the side of a tank!

Give it a go, might knock some politeness into you, hopefully some empathy too.

 

[VM75]

will you please calm down. I'm here to discuss and debate, not be patronised and have aggression in my face. Take a look at yourself and how you respond to people. Nothing wrong with your arguments, but your tone is appalling.

Paule23,

If you look through the long history of this forum you'll find that it's not altogether rare to see that anyone who takes issue with the beliefs or opinions of some posters [or their country's activities or actions ] will get attacked, ridiculed or have aggressively worded shots fired at them until they give up on expressing a different opinion or viewpoint, some of those who respond get banned, others simply leave of their own accord, or some simply adopt a passive response just to avoid being targeted. It seems to some that some Mods seem beyond criticism in this regard but that is the politics of life.

Referee Respect doesn't always emanate as it should

My advise to you, is choose who you reply to, & just ignore those who provoke you. The freedoms of speech license a freedom to offend and a freedom to ignore in equal measures.

 

[Paule23]

Paule23,

If you look through the long history of this forum you'll find that it's not altogether rare to see that anyone who takes issue with the beliefs or opinions of some posters [or their country's activities or actions ] will get attacked, ridiculed or have aggressively worded shots fired at them until they give up on expressing a different opinion or viewpoint, some of those who respond get banned, others simply leave of their own accord, or some simply adopt a passive response just to avoid being targeted. It seems to some that some Mods seem beyond criticism in this regard but that is the politics of life.

Referee Respect doesn't always emanate as it should

My advise to you, is choose who you reply to, & just ignore those who provoke you. The freedoms of speech license a freedom to offend and a freedom to ignore in equal measures.

Ah but I do like calling out people who are being idiots. I rise to a bit of provocation, usually to do a little gentle needling of my own, hoping that just sometimes I make the numpty's think. Just sometimes......

 

[VM75]

hoping that just sometimes I make the numpty's think. Just sometimes......

If you achieve that then I've a job for you producing a peaceful solution in the middle east !

 

[OB..]

Ah but I do like calling out people who are being idiots. I rise to a bit of provocation, usually to do a little gentle needling of my own, hoping that just sometimes I make the numpty's think. Just sometimes......

That doesn't put you in a good position to complain.

I suggest we just call it quits and stop this argument now.

 

[ChrisR]

. . . . . and now, back to our regular programming.

I think the scenario of a QTI after the non-throwing team is on the LOT but before the throwing team comes to the LOT is manageable because:

1. The thrower has to be the only player to have touched the ball (unless he takes it from an op who goes to touch). A rare event given that the #2 is usually a teams regular thrower. Wingers have been relieved of this duty many years ago.

2. If the throwing team advance into the line-out area (from LOT to 10m back) then they do so with the intent of forming a line-out. I don't think the required two players have to be at the LOT.

If conditions 1 & 2 are met (that is no line-out players within 10m of the LOT) then the QTI is still on regardless of wht the non-throwing team are doing.

 

[Ian_Cook]

. . . . . and now, back to our regular programming.

I think the scenario of a QTI after the non-throwing team is on the LOT but before the throwing team comes to the LOT is manageable because:

1. The thrower has to be the only player to have touched the ball (unless he takes it from an op who goes to touch). A rare event given that the #2 is usually a teams regular thrower. Wingers have been relieved of this duty many years ago.

2. If the throwing team advance into the line-out area (from LOT to 10m back) then they do so with the intent of forming a line-out. I don't think the required two players have to be at the LOT.

If conditions 1 & 2 are met (that is no line-out players within 10m of the LOT) then the QTI is still on regardless of wht the non-throwing team are doing.

The only question I would have about this is that 20m is a very large part of the area of a rugby field (1/5th). It is likely to have several players in it, so the QTi could be off straight away for any kick that wasn't sufficiently downfield (that disadvantages the non-throwing team). You also have the problem that for a long kick which crosses the line near some players and carries on a further, say 30m, would immediately be ruled out by the players within 10m either side of the LoT.

The Laws pretty much give us the right answer

[LAWS]19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed. If the player does , the
quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the lineout.[/LAWS]
Therefore, the QTi is allowed until the point where a line-out has been formed. Then

[LAWS]19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.[/LAWS]
Therefore, it takes at least two players from each team to form a lineout.

IMO, the lineout is not formed until those minimum two players arrive at the LoT. I suggest within 1m would be enough, they would then be "near" (as defined in the Law) to the LoT so it maintains consistency with other Laws.

 

[ChrisR]

Agree with your point re.downfield players being in the vicinity but not there with the intent of being in the LO. I wouldn't see that as forming a LO or preventing a QTI.

I was thinking of the situation where the non throwers come to the LOT but throwing team have their line-out players in the 10m space but not yet stepped to the LOT. Technically if all other requirements are met the QTI is still on and the ball could be thrown directly to the throwers team.

I see that as clever gamesmanship that the non-throwers would be unable to counter. So my point would be that if the throwers bring their forwards into the 10m area then they are showing their intent to form a lineout and the QTI is then off.

Yes it's a bit of a strive but some clever dick like me is going to try it on.

 

[VM75]

I struggle to see why anyone can't accept that in order to get the considerable additional allowances that a QTI permits, [ie..not straight & from behind the LoT] , that there shouldn't be a element of quickness required of it.

I enquired in post#11 whether 7's have introduced a "throw it!" time expiry requirement. & I'd also ask if anyone has experience of whether it has helped expedite getting the ball being in play whilst having the dual benefit of lessening touchline shenanigans ?

anyone know?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Whenever I look at a change like this, I try to make sure it wont detrimentally affect other parts of the game (unintended consequences). I always have a number of games on MySky, I try to apply the suggested scenario to one or two of those games and try to imagine what effect it might have. In the case or your scenario, making any player within 10m either side of the LoT as being there to form a lineout, I did this, and here is what I found.

Players who approach the lime of touch cannot leave it until the lineout is over - Law 19.8 (d)

There is an exception that player may leave to match numbers - Law 19.8 (e) and (f)

There is also another exception. One and only one player is allowed to leave the line of touch once he has approached it... the player who does so in order to attempt a QTi

[LAWS]Law 19.7 (g) At a quick throw-in , a player may come to the line of touch and leave without being penalised.[/LAWS]

With a kick to touch, you have members of both the kicking team and the non-kicking team in the area where the kick was taken, and more players from both sides in the vicinity of where the ball went into touch. In short, players from both sides are often all over the field, and the upshot of this is that, if you count everyone in the 20m space centred on the LoT as being there to form a lineout, that could well include some backs from both sides, while some forwards from both sides might be outside that area. Those backs technically cannot leave until the players line up and the throwing team establishes the numbers. The backs also cannot go to their usual positions beyond the 15m line because the LoT ends at the 15m line.

You have also created a difficult job for the referee. Not only will he have to ignore the Law into order to have a normal lineout form, He will have players walking in all directions and he is going to have to try to work out which players are heading for the LoT and which aren't. If a management guideline causes a referee to have to ignore Laws and second guess player intentions, then that is not a good guideline IMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I struggle to see why anyone can't accept that in order to get the considerable additional allowances that a QTI permits, [ie..not straight & from behind the LoT] , that there shouldn't be a element of quickness required of it.

Because that is not what the Law states.

The window of opportunity for a QTi begins when the ball goes into touch, and ends when a lineout forms. You might not like it, but its the Law of the Game with regard to the quick throw in. This is black letter Law, not some interpretation of it. It leaves no wiggle room and no argument can be presented to refute the facts.

If a referee unilaterally decides to end that window early, then he is making things up to suit his own personal views.

ETA: VM75. This is not an attack on you. While I don't think you are right, you may well be correct, that a QTI should be taken quicker. However, at this time, the Law does not allow it.