Sneaky QTI

[Dickie E]

If he throws it away, ping

but only if the opponent is in the act of, or intends to, take the ball for a QTI

 

[Pegleg]

That's not how I understand it. And would make for a nice litle pantomime if the ABs play their "pick up the ball, drop the ball, pick up the ball" tactic.

"Players must not benefit from being in an offside position when the ball goes into touch" Seems to support my view.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not how I understand it. And would make for a nice litle pantomime if the ABs play their "pick up the ball, drop the ball, pick up the ball" tactic.

"Players must not benefit from being in an offside position when the ball goes into touch" Seems to support my view.

 

[Ian_Cook]

your wish is my command:

[LAWS](h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line[/LAWS]

Yes, I'm aware of that Law... I have never seen it enforced when a thrower, frustrated by an opponent in his face a half a metre way waving his arms around, ends up throwing the ball at him. What I would like to see is opponents having to retire to the 5m line like the10m at a PK or FK.

 

[Dickie E]

"Players must not benefit from being in an offside position when the ball goes into touch" Seems to support my view.

If the ball doesn't go into the 15th row in the stand but is caught by an opponent who may, or may not, take a QTI - what are their options? If they can't move forward to form a lineout, then a lineout can never form so the QTI is always an option so they can't move forward. There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. See the dilemma you're creating?

 

[Pinky]

If the ball doesn't go into the 15th row in the stand but is caught by an opponent who may, or may not, take a QTI - what are their options? If they can't move forward to form a lineout, then a lineout can never form so the QTI is always an option so they can't move forward. There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. See the dilemma you're creating?

But black are limited to the QTI happening behind the line of touch and red can chase the kick and get all their players back on side.

 

[Pinky]

Oh, I am not happy about stopping the QTI by red touching the ball unless Red player was onside. Even then I am not sue I am happy about it as it seems like negative play to me. Kick chasers diving over the touchline to touch the ball to stop QTI does not sound like rugby to me.

 

[Pegleg]

If the ball doesn't go into the 15th row in the stand but is caught by an opponent who may, or may not, take a QTI - what are their options? If they can't move forward to form a lineout, then a lineout can never form so the QTI is always an option so they can't move forward. There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza. See the dilemma you're creating?

The get onside or onside players do it. Come on now. WR have said that an offside player should not benefit bey being off side when the ball goes into touch. The guidence is pretty clear. They have to return to an onside position either themself or a teammate or an opponent as allowed under the laws of the game.

 

[Camquin]

The laws make no provision for penalising a player for stopping a QTI.
Preventing a tap you can penalise under 21.7(d).
For ball out of play you only have 19.2(f) Must release the ball and 10.4 Misconduct while the ball is out of play.
Oddly the video for 10.4 the first offense is 19.2(f) failing to release then all hell breaks loose.

 

[ChrisR]

Oh, I am not happy about stopping the QTI by red touching the ball unless Red player was onside. Even then I am not sue I am happy about it as it seems like negative play to me. Kick chasers diving over the touchline to touch the ball to stop QTI does not sound like rugby to me.

What if the onside chase is first to the ball, picks it up and throws it to an opponent? Is that negative play? He's just prevented the QTI. The QTI is an option and if touching the ball takes away that option then that's fair. If the opponent already has the ball and a player tries to interfere then different kettle of fish.

 

[Camquin]

Would you penalize a player who runs in to be the fourth player to complete the line out thus preventing a QTI?
I think you might find it hard to argue that running to the LOT is slowing the game down.

 

[Pegleg]

Is he offside?

Does he gain an advantage (is the material)?

 

[ChrisR]

There are two scenarios that cover whether a QTI in 'on' or not and they are both resolved in law quite simply.

1. Ball carried into touch. The BC must release the ball to an opponent (19.2(i)). To me that is give or throw the ball to an opponent or put it on the ground. Else penalty on the 15m.

2. Ball kicked, thrown or knocked into touch. Only the player taking the QTI may touch the ball (19.2(d)). Any other player from either side or other person who touches the ball will negate the QTI. It matters not how they touched it. If they kick it away they may be liable for something else but not for negating the QTI. There is no sanction for negating the QTI in this instance.

Not so hard after all.

 

[Dickie E]

"Players must not benefit from being in an offside position when the ball goes into touch" Seems to support my view.

there is a good example of this at tv time 17:30 in the Hurricanes v Crusaders match. Once its on youtube I'll post it.

Here 'tis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAJ0rznE8O0

 

[VM75]

Yes, I'm aware of that Law... I have never seen it enforced

Really?, I enforce it every time it happens, no ATP, sets the tone for 'no gamesmanship tolerances ' right from the off.

I don't referee 7's, but have just noticed that there is a time limit Law Trial.

* Teams must form a line-out within 15 seconds from the time the referee indicates the place where the throw-in will take place.

Presumably this has been needed to deal with the players who procrastinate or prat about with TomfooleryPanto & waste game time.

Obviously 7's magnifies the necessity for this Law, but in general I can see little downside to finding a way to ensure that player who has possession & is therefore able to QTI actually does so without throwing the ball away or dropping it or walking away from it.

 

[VM75]

What if the onside chase is first to the ball, picks it up and throws it to an opponent? He has no business touching it .

Is that negative play? YES

He's just prevented the QTI. Agree

The QTI is an option for the throwing side only !

and if touching the ball takes away that option then that's fair. Not IMO it's not, the game doesn't improve or need players rushing off the pitch to engage in a game of prevent-a-throw-happening, [ nor does it benefit from replacements or coaches rushing after the kick chase to deny the throwers team an opportunity to restart the game quickly either.]

If the opponent already has the ball and a player tries to interfere then different kettle of fish. In the spirit of the game its a similar kettle

Gamesmanship needs to be discouraged, across all area's, often they are inflammatory, always they undermine the integrity of sportsmanlike.

 

[DocY]

We have the flogging a dead horse gif. I think we need a dog with a bone gif, too!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Gamesmanship needs to be discouraged, across all area's, often they are inflammatory, always they undermine the integrity of sportsmanlike.

Groan!

We have the flogging a dead horse gif. I think we need a dog with a bone gif, too!

We deliver!

 

[didds]

your wish is my command:

[LAWS](h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line[/LAWS]

yep, that's the badger.

exfcept if a player is in the 5m area preventing a QTI to an oponenet behind him... its not always obvious. Particularly as the thrower cant just throw it "at " the blocker. he is reliant on looking pained and waving his arms at the referee. Totally unedifying, and hasn't actually shown that the throw WAS blocked.

didds

 

[OB..]

We deliver!

I bet the name on the dog's collar is Chopper15.

 

[tim White]

Or is it Pitbull?