Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 242

Thread: Sneaky QTI

      
  1. #41
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I think we are all agreed that there is some sort of time limit for a QTI. Probably not completely fixed as context will matter, but the Q in QTI is important, they can't wait forever.

    Another Law question though - if it is done quickly - is it allowed to retrieve the ball, put it down, and then pick it up again and perform a QTI ? Or does putting it down signify that a full lineout has been chosen
    CRef
    IMO it makes sense to consider that the player has declined to take the QTI option.

    If you allow the masquerading tomfoolery then these pro coaches will only extend their repertoire of conning tricks, it's QTI or Lose the right for me, but please no jerking around with picking up dropping or even wedging it up the back of your shirt !

  2. #42

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,906
    Thanks (Received)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    749

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Id say the danger you are creating now is that you as ref is second guessing the reason a player puts the ball down.

    You can bet your bottom dollar there will be occasions when the ball is put down for reasons other that "I'm quitting the idea" or having put the ball down something happens to them make a QTI viable where it wasn't before - which could be as as simple as an oppo player that was approaching slipping over and leaving a hole to exploit where there wasn't one a second or so before.


    didds

  3. #43

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,879
    Thanks (Received)
    95
    Likes (Received)
    1306

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    CRef
    IMO it makes sense to consider that the player has declined to take the QTI option.

    If you allow the masquerading tomfoolery then these pro coaches will only extend their repertoire of conning tricks, it's QTI or Lose the right for me, but please no jerking around with picking up dropping or even wedging it up the back of your shirt !
    It is not your place as a referee to second-guess what players do

    Deception (within the limits of the Laws) adds to our great game, it doesn't detract from it. If the throwing team are able to deceive their opponents into thinking that they aren't going to take a QTI, and then they do, all power to them. Its up to the defending team to stay alert and keep paying attention 100% of the time.

    I find it quite sad in this day and age that we still have people who want to strip the creative thinking and clever play out of rugby. Everything has to be staid, static and structured. Would you outlaw players changing places in the line-out and dummy passes if you could. How about quick tap kicks when the defenders weren't paying attention - Aaron Smith did that brilliantly last night against the Lions... made like he was going to tap kick, then stopped and looked he was going settle for a normal PK, then when he noticed that the Lions lost focus, he did tap it and created a try to Corey Taylor. Would you have called that back because Smith appeared to lose interest in the tap kick? How was this any different in principle from the sneaky QTI scenario?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    Id say the danger you are creating now is that you as ref is second guessing the reason a player puts the ball down.

    You can bet your bottom dollar there will be occasions when the ball is put down for reasons other that "I'm quitting the idea" or having put the ball down something happens to them make a QTI viable where it wasn't before - which could be as as simple as an oppo player that was approaching slipping over and leaving a hole to exploit where there wasn't one a second or so before.


    didds
    Exactly!
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  4. #44

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,906
    Thanks (Received)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    749

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    It is not your place as a referee to second-guess what players do

    Deception (within the limits of the Laws) adds to our great game, it doesn't detract from it. If the throwing team are able to deceive their opponents into thinking that they aren't going to take a QTI, and then they do, all power to them. Its up to the defending team to stay alert and keep paying attention 100% of the time.
    ^^^ this absolutely.

    Its not done to draw a PK, its not done to win a card. its just the same as a dummy pass.

    more fool the Lions in the immediate example, more fool any oppo that gets suckered.


    didds

  5. #45
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    How was this any different in principle from the sneaky QTI scenario?
    just so you're clear I'm not suggesting removing all player deception from the game.

    Because the Pro's have a history of forever expanding their box of sneaky tricks, Law has already had to deal with a whole host , here's a list [not exhaustive]
    * dummying from back of scrum
    * feigning injury
    * dummy lineout throwing
    * indicating kick at goal & then not
    * having a receiver
    * not have a defending hooker @ Lout
    * having more players on the pitch than permitted
    * all the various 'numbers shenannigans' in lineout
    * dropping players from scrum at last min
    * wasting time in all it's various guises
    * kicking the ball away
    * dummy scrum throw in
    * lazy runners
    * preventing opponents from rolling away from the ball
    * feigning being pinned & unable to roll away
    * making the opponents believe the ball is out of the maul when it isn't
    * preventing a QTI by throwing the ball into the crowd
    etc etc





    In fact "unsportsmanlike" would likely not ever have been needed if players hadn't resorted to sneaky tricks !

    Going back to the point raised by Crossref, when exactly does the timing of a QTI expire - IIUC you're saying "never" unless the referee considers it time wasting?

    ok fine i'll go with that then - If a player [in possession of the ball] decides to put the ball down [rather than take a QTI] and then he picks it up again [after conning the opposition into thinking he's not actually going to take a QTI] then i'll just consider he's wasted time during his conning, as he could have taken his QTI at the first opportunity & there was no need to waste game time




    FWIW IMO this subject is all about timing, the freedom to take a QTI exists, 'until you indicate' you've decided not to - & that's evidenced by placing the ball on the ground.

    makes it a lot clearer for all watchers including the lone referee in the sticks without AR or TMO review ability.

  6. #46
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    Deception (within the limits of the Laws) adds to our great game, it doesn't detract from it.

    If the throwing team are able to deceive their opponents into thinking that they aren't going to take a QTI, and then they do, all power to them. Its up to the defending team to stay alert and keep paying attention 100% of the time.
    In the video posted by Crossref the winger appears to shape & then pretend to QT the ball, once he hasn't he then throws it upfield [towards the LoT] & turns to walk away from it creating c.2m distance between him & the ball before he turns back for it.

    IMO this is a whole different level of conning/deception to the incident [that you've brought into this discussion] of Aaron Smith merely pausing & waiting ball in hand all the time. FWIW it looked fine to me.

    I'm cool with people having different views on these subjects, although IME most players/coaches/supporters/forumists would like the opposition to be penalised for things that if their team did the same they'd want to be considered as cute play.

  7. #47

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,906
    Thanks (Received)
    43
    Likes (Received)
    749

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    So if a team places the ball on the ground at a PK, then they can't then take a tap penalty and have to kick for touch/goal or take a scrum?

    just checking.

    Didds

  8. #48
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    I find it quite sad in this day and age that we still have people who want to strip the creative thinking and clever play out of rugby. Everything has to be staid, static and structured.
    Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, it has all the twisting & clever word play associated with 'taking a polite swipe' , why? merely because I have a different opinion?

    I've since searched the archives of RR.com to see if this sort of Topic had every cropped up before, I searched "sportsmanlike" & stumbled across this thread.
    http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread....=sportsmanlike

    your self proclaimed "hard nossed views" on creativity are strongly stated back then [7yrs ago] albeit in a different line out throw scenario.

    As for the example in OP, I doubt i'll change my view on disliking or ruling against it, i don't consider it as being creative - it's more akin to looking for that pro game fixation for seeking those microscopic loopholes [or silences] in the law.

    This code is tough enough to referee without the lone referee in the sticks having to deal with that forensic kidology offering IMO.

    Ps Barrett/Dagg & Taylor showed admirable handling skills of the highest order [all under pressure] all so much more match worthily impressive than invent/conjure up a time wasting QTI con/deception.

  9. #49
    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

    I don't see the two scenarios as the same at all.

  10. #50
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Sneaky QTI

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    So if a team places the ball on the ground at a PK, then they can't then take a tap penalty and have to kick for touch/goal or take a scrum?

    just checking.
    Didds
    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

    But just for the avoidance of doubt, here's another example of a kidology con I wouldn't want see 'created' in the game.

    At a PK all the GREEN Forwards amble forward & start binding up as if they were about to take the scrum option, the opposition RED follow suit & are now 0.5m away & almost ready to scrum. G8 throws the ball back to the G9 talking to G10 [both seemingly planning a move off the next scrum] whilst standing directly 3m behind this non official scrum, [there's now a few seconds pause before...] the G9 taps & heads off with his teammates whilst the opposition all stare at the referee, who after they've scored says "sorry Red" I hadn't actually awarded a scrum, Green forewarned me that they had a trick play under construction - Green are just being creative and you fell for it"

    No scrum requested, no reason why Green can't take a PK behind the mark, no time limit cancellation set in Law, so allow it right?

    No not for me.

    Ps... I hope the BIL don't read this forum, imagine if they pulled off that stunt with the NZAB referees and former players all applauding their creativity !


    Or, what about players shouting to themselves that a player is concussed over on the far Left , water carriers & medics start streaming on & whilst the opposition relax their concentration someone taps & runs off on the far RH side & scores !!! ie.. where do you draw a line on creative conning??

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
  •