Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 242

Thread: Sneaky QTI

      
  1. #61

    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 VM75 View Post
    Oh no, I knew someone would come up with an unrelated scenario to complicate

    It's not comparable Didds.

    QTI = Act Quickly and your opposition's time to 'contest' or defend the throw is reduced/removed.
    TAP = Slowing down the taking of the kick by placing the ball on the ground has the exact opposite time benefit.
    SCRUM Option = similar to TAP
    Well the argument appeared to be putting the ball on the ground negates continuance of something seen as "quick". So putting the ball on the ground at a QTI negates the QTI. So why isn't putting the ball on the ground negating a tap penalty?

    You can't have it both ways.

    And yes I do see these two as analogous. If you don't we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Cos I'll wager you summat else... if in a parallel universe WR makes QTIs "off" if the ball is placed on the ground, pretty soon after that we'll have a discussion about putting the ball on the ground at a PK based on that principle being generalised.

    look at the debates we have regarding "players off their feet". (and this is not an attempt to regurgitate that :-)

  2. #62

    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 VM75 View Post
    19.7 (b)
    The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
    But that's a lineout. Not a QTI.

    the lineout hasn't yet formed. Which is why the QTI is still "on".

    didds

  3. #63

    Referees in America
    thepercy's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    New York State Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    21 Sep 13
    Posts
    733
    Thanks (Received)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    110

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    When do you apply 19.8.G?

    Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.

  4. #64

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    718
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    185

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by thepercy View Post
    When do you apply 19.8.G?

    Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
    When the ball has been deemed to have been dead by the referee and there are no more options but to form a lineout.

  5. #65

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 8 and Advisor
    Join Date
    27 Jan 11
    Posts
    1,070
    Thanks (Received)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    171

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    We're approaching this from the wrong direction. As part of our ongoing education tell players that a QTI is on until the linrout has formed. Sorted.

  6. #66

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    718
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Received)
    185

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Some mention has been made of the views and opinions of observers. So for what it is worth …..

    As a Match Observer/Performance Reviewer (Assessor?) I never say that I am right (even if I am!) but rather suggest that a referee reflects on an incident and discusses it with his coach.

    Based on the above if VM75 called back the throw in shown in the original post (I also saw it live) I would write something to this effect in the report.

    “VM75 should consider the incident at (time) when he returned a MAB throw in. Why was this done? The lineout had not formed under Law 19.8. All the conditions required for and related to the taking of a quick throw in were met. “

    For those that don’t have knowledge of the RFU Panel Report the above would be recorded in the technical section with possibly with an NYC (not yet competent) depending on how the rest of the lineout/touch management went on the day.

    I would record a law error in the referee Non-Compliance section.

    In the Overall Comment summary section I would possibly expand on the comment made in the technical section and consider whether the incident/decision was a critical one and possibly prevented a score or a considerable advantage.

    If I was wrong I would expect to be taken to task or questioned by the referee or coach after they had done their game review of the video. My report and their feedback would be sent to the RFU for consideration and review. If I was incorrect I would be informed. If I was correct I would probably not hear any more about it but if the referee continued to argue his case and deny an error then he would be told to take on board the law error and not commit it again.

    The above procedure is probably a bit outside the experience of many on this forum. If I was to help out my local society and go along to watch/coach a L8 referee I would simply say this in the report. –

    “The decision to return the quick throw in at (time) was incorrect because the lineout had not formed and all the requirements for a quick throw in were met.” The referee would be welcome to get a second opinion from others he might respect within the society, but I wouldn’t be changing mine! Disagreeing with an assessor on an occasional basis wouldn’t prevent a referee progressing but doing so on a regular basis when it is clear the referee concerned is obviously wrong would not help him especially if other assessors pick up the same mistakes and law errors.

    Right MO/Assessor bit over.
    Personally I thought the referee was completely correct to play on and praised the MOB player for being alert and knowing the laws.

    Nearly 70 posts for this topic! Unbelievable. How long would it have been if the referee had been wrong?

  7. #67

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    D&WRURS, HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    973
    Thanks (Received)
    26
    Likes (Received)
    177

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    When the ball has been deemed to have been dead by the referee and there are no more options but to form a lineout.
    And through ATP (probably in quite quick (no more than 10 secs) succession).
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  8. #68

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,326
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1292

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    19.2 (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.


    One for the English language gurus. If the player places the ball on the ground has he ceased to be "the player throwing it in" and become "the player who didn't throw it in"? Just asking
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  9. #69

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,266
    Thanks (Received)
    110
    Likes (Received)
    1479

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    19.2 (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.


    One for the English language gurus
    OK, I'll play your game

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    If the player places the ball on the ground has he ceased to be "the player throwing it in" and become "the player who didn't throw it in"?
    No he doesn't. He was never "the player throwing it in" in the first place and doesn't become "the player throwing it in" until he actually throws the ball in. So, If he puts the ball down, and no-one else touches the ball, then he comes back to it and throws it in, only then does he become "the player throwing it in"

    Happy?
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  10. #70

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,326
    Thanks (Received)
    108
    Likes (Received)
    1292

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    OK, I'll play your game



    No he doesn't. He was never "the player throwing it in" in the first place and doesn't become "the player throwing it in" until he actually throws the ball in. So, If he puts the ball down, and no-one else touches the ball, then he comes back to it and throws it in, only then does he become "the player throwing it in"

    Happy?
    But then when he first touches the ball he becomes a player who doesn't throw in the ball and he certainly isn't the opponent who carried the ball into touch. So the QTI is not permitted. QED.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •