[Line out] Quick throw in

[didds]

If you likke "we" couild just drop the word "Quick" and just call it a "throw in" (TI).

howzat? Does that solve the problem? Because frankly its a problem that doesn't exist except in semantics.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

If you likke "we" couild just drop the word "Quick" and just call it a "throw in" (TI).

howzat? Does that solve the problem? Because frankly its a problem that doesn't exist except in semantics.

didds

Early Throw-In?

 

[crossref]

Well, if they delay indefinitely, eventually the ref will penalise them for failing to form a line out... So there is a limit enshrined in Law

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, if they delay indefinitely, eventually the ref will penalise them for failing to form a line out... So there is a limit enshrined in Law

Exactly!!

This is exactly what I have been saying.

 

[VM75]

Well, if they delay indefinitely, eventually the ref will penalise them for failing to form a line out... So there is a limit enshrined in Law

I don't think the law makers when the envisaged QTI's expected a TIBLF [Throw In Before Lineout Formed] to take a long time [or have the unintended consequence of touchline panto or a counterpanto prevention routines employed!] & i suspect that is why the word 'Quick' was chosen , if 7's have already recognised it as a potential or actual problem [as I do] then it's only a matter of time before 15's also does some law tweak-thingy to Quicken up the the throw AND remove the necessity for the none throwing team to find counter-creative ways in which to nullify the opportunity, whilst all watchers get bored observing the same.

 

[crossref]

I don't disagree.
Another possible tweak could be to allow the ref to call ’use it' in line with practice at rucks and scrums. Then they'd have five seconds to either take the QTI or give up and have a lineout

The use it call seems to work well enough in other circumstances

 

[VM75]

I don't disagree.
Another possible tweak could be to allow the ref to call ’use it' in line with practice at rucks and scrums. Then they'd have five seconds to either take the QTI or give up and have a lineout

The use it call seems to work well enough in other circumstances

Indeed, UI wouldn't stifle creativity [in the same way it hasn't stifled ruck, maul or scrum creativity] , rather it would help quicken the game, in the example that was the catalyst to this thread the MaoriBlacks [or any other team equally as creative] could still pretend to take a QTI + then roll the ball along the floor away from the retriever + then walk away from it + then go back for it [provided no opponent has now raced to it & beaten them to the now available ball & touched it] and then throw it in 'provided' they could achieve this within the new 'use it' timeframe.

FWIW i'd go further & say any retriever who voluntarily releases the ball instead of lobbing it in, has voluntarily ceased his right to the advantages that a QTI offers.

 

[OB..]

Indeed, UI wouldn't stifle creativity [in the same way it hasn't stifled ruck, maul or scrum creativity] , rather it would help quicken the game, in the example that was the catalyst to this thread the MaoriBlacks [or any other team equally as creative] could still pretend to take a QTI + then roll the ball along the floor away from the retriever + then walk away from it + then go back for it [provided no opponent has now raced to it & beaten them to the now available ball & touched it] and then throw it in 'provided' they could achieve this within the new 'use it' timeframe.

FWIW i'd go further & say any retriever who voluntarily releases the ball instead of lobbing it in, has voluntarily ceased his right to the advantages that a QTI offers.

We could increase the number of angels dancing on the pinhead by discussing whether knocking the ball on when trying to pick it up for a QTI meant you lost the right to a QTI.

Let's see if we get significant problems first that we can't mange with the existing tools at our disposal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

We could increase the number of angels dancing on the pinhead by discussing whether knocking the ball on when trying to pick it up for a QTI meant you lost the right to a QTI.

Agree. This is what can happen when you go looking for solutions to non-existent problems.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't disagree.
Another possible tweak could be to allow the ref to call ’use it' in line with practice at rucks and scrums. Then they'd have five seconds to either take the QTI or give up and have a lineout

The use it call seems to work well enough in other circumstances

It works well because in those other circumstances there are offside lines which opponents can't cross to block passes. In the QTi situation, opponents can stand anywhere they like to block the throw. Ref calls use it, opponents all rush to positions to prevent the throw, knowing they will only have to stay there five seconds. The result would be that no QTi would be possible anywhere near the LoT.

Merton's Law again...

► more loading up of the referee's workload
► more introduction of subjective judgements for the referee
► more solutions to non-existent problems (and I am not the only one who thinks there isn't a problem; a quick review of this thread will tell you that)

Fianlly, even if YOU think there is a probelm, you already have solutions in the Laws to help you manage it. You even mentioned one of them yourself in post #63.

 

[Paule23]

I don't disagree.

I use this a lot, am I right in that it mean that you don't necessarily disagree, but don't fully agree? :hap:

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Ref calls use it, opponents all rush to positions to prevent the throw

Shouldn't a good defending team do this regardless (from a coaching perspective)? Not sure a change in law / ref call would change that incentive? And obviously they can't go to a position to prevent the throw taking place at all (eg right in front of the throwing player) / or prevent it going 5m?

Regardless of that point, I agree there really is no need for a further law change here. We have the appropriate tools - from management to sanction for time-wasting - that it really is not an issue nor should it become one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Shouldn't a good defending team do this regardless (from a coaching perspective)? Not sure a change in law / ref call would change that incentive? And obviously they can't go to a position to prevent the throw taking place at all (eg right in front of the throwing player) / or prevent it going 5m?

Regardless of that point, I agree there really is no need for a further law change here. We have the appropriate tools - from management to sanction for time-wasting - that it really is not an issue nor should it become one.

When would the referee call "use it"? As soon as the ball goes into touch? As soon as a member of the throwing team has the ball in his hands. As soon as a member of the throwing team looks like they might be shaping to take a QTi...

More judgement for the referee to make. A call of use it will likely bring attention to the fact that a QTi is about to be taken. Do we want that in the game?