Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 242

Thread: Sneaky QTI

      
  1. #81

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,267
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1483

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by DocY View Post
    TBH I think this is the gap in the laws and the only real area of debate - if the law said a QTI was taken "before the lineout is formed or before the throwing team delayed forming the lineout" it would prevent such a stalemate.

    As it stands, the law makes no provision for the throwing team keeping the QTI option alive by delaying forming the lineout, which would surely be an offence.
    There isn't any need for this. Your gap in that Law is filled by Law 19.8 (g)

    (g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
    Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line


    If the referee thinks that the throwing in team is unduly delaying getting to the LoT, he has this as a remedy.

    However, this is NOT what the MAB scenario was like. The ball was kicked a long way downfield, and all the subterfuge took place well before the MAB's lineout forwards would have been expected to get to the LoT at a fair walking pace.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  2. #82

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,267
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1483

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    All I'll say on the matter of pedantic debate over what constitutes "the player to throw in the ball" ort whatever is OB's point about tghe laws of rugby are not written to legal standards, ref's have to make the laws as written work, and this is just angels dancing on pin heads.
    I didn't start the pedanticised debate over language, but I sure finished it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    Uncle. I can see why you got full colours for school debating
    See !?
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  3. #83
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,759
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    However, this is NOT what the MAB scenario was like. The ball was kicked a long way downfield, and all the subterfuge took place well before the MAB's lineout forwards would have been expected to get to the LoT at a fair walking pace.
    Agreed. But the debate has moved on to which actions of the throwing team might prevent a QTI. This is the only time (other than the wrong person touching the ball) that would lead me to disallow a QTI.

  4. #84
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    So in the case of the game is question

    19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
    (a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form. - HE DID
    (b) For a quick throw in , the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place
    where the ball would be thrown in from a formed lineout and the player’s goal line. - He WAS
    (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. - IT WAS NOT
    (d) For a quick throw-in , the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is
    not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in
    and an opponent who carried it into touch. The same team throws into the lineout. - HE DID

    So the game scenario was FINE!

    To answer post 83, only a breach of the above can stop the QTI.

    A delay in forming a Line out is a different law. The is no line out formed in the case of a QTI. Putting the ball on the floor really would need to be specified as a prohibited action to cause a QTI to be disallowed.

    If player failed to move towards the LOT and the player who was the only one able to action a QTI just stood around and we had a sort of "zombie" situation. I would CONSIDER. Dealing with it under as a delaying / time wating tactic.But the MAB situation was in no way an undue delay or a piece of time wasting.

  5. #85

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,594
    Thanks (Received)
    60
    Likes (Received)
    904

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    There isn't any need for this. Your gap in that Law is filled by Law 19.8 (g)

    (g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
    Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line


    If the referee thinks that the throwing in team is unduly delaying getting to the LoT, he has this as a remedy.

    However, this is NOT what the MAB scenario was like. The ball was kicked a long way downfield, and all the subterfuge took place well before the MAB's lineout forwards would have been expected to get to the LoT at a fair walking pace.
    Yup.. Maybe the MAB forwards didn;t exactly sprint towards the LoT - but they were definitely moving at a jog - as ian says though they weren;t even close to the LoT whilst jogging their way there.

    I'd take this "ruse" as not being a a team tactic, more of a "be aware when it maybe on" type thing.

    didds

  6. #86

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,594
    Thanks (Received)
    60
    Likes (Received)
    904

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Pegleg View Post

    <BIG SNIP>.But the MAB situation was in no way an undue delay or a piece of time wasting.
    Totally Pegleg. spot on.

    In short there is nothingnin the alws surrounding a QTI that would make any delaying tactic penalisable.

    BUT - as ian has also pointed out - there is facility within the LINEOUT laws to penalise a side perceived to be taking their time to form a lineout - for whatever reasons, not only keeping a QTI alive.

    didds

  7. #87
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,146
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    306

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    And 10.2.d - Time-wasting. Perhaps you could offer the option of the free kick from the touchline or at 15 metres?

  8. #88
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    How can you "waste time" by not taking a QTI? You don't have to use such a tactic it is merely an option.

  9. #89

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,302
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    215

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Lifeson-Peart View Post
    c.13 seconds to throw the ball in!! Maybe longer - the ball's in the hookers hands when the camera cuts to the LO. It wouldn't have worked if I was refereeing either - we'd be having a FK before that.
    I agree. Crossref's lineout looked like an accordion, rather than a lineout.
    ‪19.7‬ Incorrect throw-in
    (b)The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
    Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line.


    As for the OP's QTi the B&I were too lax, yet again.
    Last edited by L'irlandais; 27-06-17 at 16:06.
    "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we’re inclined to accept."
    John Henry Newman

  10. #90

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    719
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    185

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Response to Dickie E

    I wouldn’t necessarily find anything to write in a report within these scenarios. It may be a case of how the situation is visualised by the reader as opposed to the original writer. So apologies if I am not seeing it exactly as you are.
    Scenario One
    1. ball is played into touch by Red and Blue player retrieves the ball. Blue player looks as though he might take a QTI but never does. In fact, as time goes on, it appears to the referee that a QTI is looking more & more unlikely. At the same time, Blue forwards are slow to form lineout and it looks to the referee as though they may be being deliberately tardy to give the QTI every opportunity. Eventually the ref blows it up and calls for a lineout. This decision is contrary to law as detailed by Ian Cook.

    Firstly you say, “Eventually the ref blows it up..” . It would perhaps be expected that the whistle had already gone for the fact that the ball had gone into touch and I would not expect the referee to delay. The blowing of the whistle for the ball having gone into touch does not negate a quick throw in. (I know, controversial statement in itself!) The key thing I would be looking for in this scenario is good verbal communication and if there wasn’t then it is this that might get a mention in the report. Basically a QTI is available until a lineout forms, (19.2a) and has nothing to do with when the whistle has been blown. The initial whistle by a ref indicates that the ball has gone into touch and then certain criteria relating to a QTI and the formation of a lineout are created. If blue take a QTI then I would expect the referee to give some sort of call along the lines of “play on, lineout not formed”. If the referee made the decision that blue were deliberately delaying the lineout then I would expect him to offer the option to red. However he would have to be very clear about his decision and communicate it well. I must admit that unless it was very clear (And ‘slow’ is a word that has plenty of scope for interpretation.) I would expect the referee to play on and perhaps if there was some doubt in his mind to have a management word at downtime about the situation. The matter may or may be a point for discussion for the debrief after the game depending on how it was handled and quite frankly how I saw the scenario personally. In my situation there is a video to review afterwards anyway so the discussion could continue in the days after. I would expect the red team to have learnt from the scenario if a QTI had been taken under such circumstances and adapt their play to accommodate the future possibility of it being done again.

    Scenario two
    2. ball is kicked long by Red into Blue 22 and ball rolls into touch. Blue fullback retrieves ball and takes QTI. Unwittingly he takes the QTI at the wrong place (maybe because the AR hasn't gotten there yet). The LoT is 10 metres from the goal line - he takes the QTI 12 metres from the goal line. The ref spots this and brings it back for a lineout with a Blue throw. However, you & I know that this decision is contrary to law 19.2(e) but seemed in the right spirit.

    Without an AR to mark the exact spot I believe it would be unreasonable to penalise the player concerned because it is often difficult for a player to have exact awareness of where the ball crosses the line. It is difficult enough for an AR. As a player you would (should) be keeping your eye on the ball and not where the ball crosses the line. Also if you run into touch together the ball it is quite easy to become disorientated. At the same time if the ball had been kicked I would find it more than surprising that the referee could themselves be definite about the position where the ball crossed the touch line. I’d be more concerned if the player gathered the ball just outside the line where it was obvious where it had crossed the line and then ran forward a couple of metres to gain some ground. Why they would want to do this I wouldn’t know because it is putting more pressure on yourself because you are running towards the advancing opposition. Basically the referee is encouraged to penalise the clear and obvious. In this situation there is sufficient room for manoeuvre to allow a decision in line with the spirit of the game without it causing concern by anyone. From a personal point of view I believe this specific bit of law to be unnecessarily heavy handed. I don’t think any player in this situation would deliberately do something that would give possession away.

    I have addressed the scenarios from the perspective of the level of games that I usually observe rather than at grass roots. A little long-winded but there are in any scenario, as I think any experienced forum member would agree, a number of variable that could be debated. I have tried to strike a balance between being succinct and trying to address all possibilities, and in all honesty admit I have probably failed in this attempt.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •