PDA

View Full Version : throwing ball away to prevent a QTI



crossref
05-11-15, 17:11
Another variation on the same theme of other threads.

France v Scotland in the 6N this year - the referee here is NO

Scottish player catches a French kick very close to touchline and accidentally carries ball into touch.
there is no French player anyway near, but after a half second, he throws ball away to prevent an arriving french player from taking a QTI

So this incident touches on
1 - is this actually an offence? or is it just clever
2 - if it is an offence what offence is it
3 - is the ball out of play and so does Law 10.4 (n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play come into effect (NB if you are one of those refs who don't blow whistle while a QTI is on, the whistle won't have gone)

Make up your own mind, and then watch it to see what St Nige does --


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvwuYPwM3UA

It was also discussed by SAREFS
http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830774/

didds
05-11-15, 17:11
Ask Ben Youngs





https://www.youtube.com/v/57bljsPw3pk&start=430&autoplay=1

Womble
05-11-15, 18:11
Both correct calls at that level

Ian_Cook
05-11-15, 18:11
So this incident touches on
1 - is this actually an offence? or is it just clever

Yes, it is an offence


2 - if it is an offence what offence is it

Take your pick. You could apply either

10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick

10.4 (n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

IMO, throwing the ball away in ANY circumstances, e.g., to delay a scrum put in, or a drop out 22, to prevent an opponent taking a quick tap kick, is contrary to good sportmanship


3 - is the ball out of play and so does Law 10.4 (n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play come into effect (NB if you are one of those refs who don't blow whistle while a QTI is on, the whistle won't have gone)

Yes, the ball is out of play.

DEFINITIONS
Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.

I don't believe in the concept of "zombie ball". The ball is out of play when it goes into touch. When that happens, nothing can be done with it; no metres gained, no drop kicks at goal, no tries scrored etc, until the ball is put back in play, whether that is via QTI, a formal line-out or a silly Scotsman giving away a dumb PK.

Don't read too much into "remained there". There are examples where the ball will not remain outside the playing area, e.g. tapped or knocked bacl by a player inthe FoP after it has crossed the touchline. A player taking a QTI is NOT an example of the ball not remaining in touch.

crossref
05-11-15, 19:11
so - scratches head -- why throwing the ball away to prevent a QTI an offence, under Law 10, but touching the ball to prevent a QTI is perfectly OK ?

Dickie E
05-11-15, 20:11
Both correct calls at that level

I think NO's call was harsh (and inconsistent - didn't he rule the other way in an England v France game where one of the players delayed dropping the ball?)

For me, a QTI would have to be a realistic possibility to trigger a PK. In the OP, a QTI was never on.

Ian_Cook
05-11-15, 20:11
so - scratches head -- why throwing the ball away to prevent a QTI an offence, under Law 10, but touching the ball to prevent a QTI is perfectly OK ?

Really? A player from the team putting the ball into touch runs out of his way to intentionally touch the ball to prevent a QTI you think its OK?

Lets be clear, if there is doubt about whose throw in it is, you might give some latitude, particularly if the TJ/AR has not yet indicated whose thrown it is. But in the case of a player (say, Red) kicking the ball into touch, and it will clearly be Blue's throw in, if a Red player sprints down the touchline and intentionally touches the ball, then I would PK him under 10.4 (m) or (n).

* * * * *
Personally, I would like to see that part of the Law changed so that its OK to throw in so long as it is the same ball and is only touched by any of the 30 players on the field (I think that Aussies atre trialling something like this in their NRC) Touched by ball boys, spectators, officials, subs and team staff would stop the QTI. Subs and team staff touching the ball intentionally should be a PK. While they are at it, they could make it specifically an infringement to throw the ball away if its not your throw

crossref
05-11-15, 21:11
Really? A player from the team putting the ball into touch runs out of his way to intentionally touch the ball to prevent a QTI you think its OK?

well, intially I thought it was OK, but was then persuaded by people on this forum that it wasn't
then earlier this year I posted this scenario - proposing a PK and a YC for touching the ball to prevent a QTI, and was roundly told by almost everyone here that it was perfectly OK. Although you, Ian, did indeed consider it wrong



http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18981-interfering-with-a-QTI-unsuccessfuly

chbg
05-11-15, 22:11
The difference surely is that 19.2(i) specifically requires the player carrying the ball into touch to release it to the opposition so that there can be a QTI. There is no specific prohibition (at the moment) on another player touching the ball to prevent a QTI. If you use 10.2(m) or (n) because you do not like this, then there will be no consistency between referees.

Ian_Cook
06-11-15, 00:11
The difference surely is that 19.2(i) specifically requires the player carrying the ball into touch to release it to the opposition so that there can be a QTI. There is no specific prohibition (at the moment) on another player touching the ball to prevent a QTI. If you use 10.2(m) or (n) because you do not like this, then there will be no consistency between referees.

So you would be happy to allow a player to throw the ball away to prevent a QTI?

menace
06-11-15, 00:11
I can understand why some would PK under law 10 for deliberately throwing the ball away some distance..admittedly I probably wouldn't have PK him rather I would have had a chat to him first time and told him it wasn't on.
I wouldn't sanction it under preventing a QT as opposition wasn't close enough for him to be obligated to hand it to him as surely he's under no obligation to stand there and wait holding it out for the opposition to come and get it from him?? He should have just thrown the ball 'carelessly' behind him and hit the cameraman then I'm sure he would have been ok. The fact that it was such an obvious throw into the crowd didn't help his cause.

Iron_Lung
06-11-15, 00:11
I can't see there being a prohibition on touching the ball to prevent a QTI. I think that is something that needs clarification as it does not really make the distinction at the moment as to if that specific act is legal.

In terms of throwing it away though, why wouldn't you PK it or manage it the same way you would if a team prevented a quick tap after a FK or PK? It prevents the non-offending team from exercising their options and therefore should be sanctioned accordingly. I have no issue at all with the sanction applied in the examples given in this thread.

Ian_Cook
06-11-15, 01:11
I can't see there being a prohibition on touching the ball to prevent a QTI. I think that is something that needs clarification as it does not really make the distinction at the moment as to if that specific act is legal.

In terms of throwing it away though, why wouldn't you PK it or manage it the same way you would if a team prevented a quick tap after a FK or PK? It prevents the non-offending team from exercising their options and therefore should be sanctioned accordingly. I have no issue at all with the sanction applied in the examples given in this thread.


Here is where I have the problem with this?

Are running up and touching the ball, and throwing the ball away intentional acts? Yes!

Do they have the same outcome; preventing a quick throw in from being taken? Yes!

Are they specified as infringements in the Laws of the game? No!

So why would you penalise one and not the other. Surely the actual details of the acts are not as important as the intent and the outcome?

OB..
06-11-15, 02:11
Here is where I have the problem with this?

Are running up and touching the ball, and throwing the ball away intentional acts? Yes!

Do they have the same outcome; preventing a quick throw in from being taken? Yes!

Are they specified as infringements in the Laws of the game? No!

So why would you penalise one and not the other. Surely the actual details of the acts are not as important as the intent and the outcome?
The player touching the ball removes the option of a QTI.
The player dancing in he 5m channel is preventing the execution of a QTI.

Ian_Cook
06-11-15, 02:11
The player touching the ball removes the option of a QTI.

Yes


The player dancing in he 5m channel is preventing the execution of a QTI.

No, he isn't. The thrower can still lob it over his head, and if the player in the 5m channel stops the ball travelling to the 5m line, then its a FK 15m in on the LoT. If he does so intentionally its a PK 15m in on the LoT.

Blackberry
06-11-15, 07:11
No, he isn't. The thrower can still lob it over his head, and if the player in the 5m channel stops the ball travelling to the 5m line, then its a FK 15m in on the LoT. If he does so intentionally its a PK 15m in on the LoT.

Ian, I'd disagree with this, I reckon it stops the thrower exercising his options (an over-the-head-throw- is slower and less accurate)

Dickie E
06-11-15, 09:11
Ian, I'd disagree with this, I reckon it stops the thrower exercising his options (an over-the-head-throw- is slower and less accurate)

agree

Ian_Cook
06-11-15, 09:11
Ian, I'd disagree with this, I reckon it stops the thrower exercising his options (an over-the-head-throw- is slower and less accurate)

Under the old laws, where the player had to throw the ball in straight, I would concur, but under the current law, he has angle to work with and he can run up and down the touchline between the LoT and his own goalline He can "work the tramline dancer". I have seen this done at ITM cup and grass-roots level too.

In any case, I see all of these acts (preventing a QTI by intentionally touching the ball, throwing the ball away and trying to block the thrower inside the tramlines) as contravening the Principles of the Game

Principles of the Game

SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit
of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it
involves coaches, captains, players and referees.

OB..
06-11-15, 10:11
The dancer is clearly trying to interfere with the QTI. If he puts the thrower off, he has succeeded. I see no reason why he should be allowed to do so illegally..

Ian_Cook
06-11-15, 11:11
My proposed solution to these issues

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent, nor move or stand in a position to prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

(i) Players of the team putting or taking the ball into touch must not take any action that prevents their opponents from taking a quick thrown in. This includes throwing the ball away, intentionally touching the ball and failing to release the ball to an opposition player.
Sanction: Penalty kick on 15-metre line

Camquin
06-11-15, 12:11
He does not have to make the QTI easy, he can legally dance one centimetre inside the 5m line which is probably just as good at stopping it.

It is being in the channel that is illegal. Unless of course he was in front of the kick when he is still offside.

Iron_Lung
06-11-15, 16:11
My proposed solution to these issues

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN

(h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent, nor move or stand in a position to prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

(i) Players of the team putting or taking the ball into touch must not take any action that prevents their opponents from taking a quick thrown in. This includes throwing the ball away, intentionally touching the ball and failing to release the ball to an opposition player.
Sanction: Penalty kick on 15-metre line

I'd agree with both of those changes. I wasn't disagreeing with you earlier about the need for sanction, just that it wasn't adequately clarified in law. I think both of these changes would close out the issue and ensure players and refs understood what was expected.

crossref
06-11-15, 16:11
I like the idea of a competition to be the first team to touch the ball, and that touch either enabling or denying the possibility of a QTI.
It would be an real echo of rugby's roots -- that first touch was how it was originally decided which team should throw the ball in.

Iron_Lung
06-11-15, 17:11
I like the idea of a competition to be the first team to touch the ball, and that touch either enabling or denying the possibility of a QTI.
It would be an real echo of rugby's roots -- that first touch was how it was originally decided which team should throw the ball in.

This assumes that no one else such as a supporter or support staff had touched the ball? What about advertising signs or the AR?

chbg
06-11-15, 21:11
So you would be happy to allow a player to throw the ball away to prevent a QTI?

Just back in ... NO - releasing and throwing away are completely different acts. I would penalise throwing away under 19.2(i), although I accept reversion to 10.4(m), or 10.2(a), if I felt that a suspension was required because it was so egregious.

But touching the ball to prevent a QTI is gamesmanship and good knowledge of the Laws. It is not (yet) a proscribed action, just as dancing around at 5.01 cm from the touch-line to disadvantage the QTI is allowed.

OB..
06-11-15, 23:11
I like the idea of a competition to be the first team to touch the ball, That was in fact the origin of the term "touch". In the early days the first player to touch the ball down once it had gone out of bounds, had the right to return it to play.

Rushforth
07-11-15, 10:11
That was in fact the origin of the term "touch". In the early days the first player to touch the ball down once it had gone out of bounds, had the right to return it to play.

Erm, Crossref said that in para 2.