Sneaky QTI
- Thread starter didds
- Start date
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Just to confirm on that. A player that was complying with law just before the ball went into touch can then participate in the QTI. So a team mate of the kicker who is standing still as the ball sails over his head can move forward and participate in the QTI once ball is in touch.
Not material. The space craft would be illegally parked and that would be the clear and obvious first offence. The wearing of leggings would only be considered under the regulations pertaining to the particular union regulations that the aliens come from. Since they are not participants in this game the referee cannot sanction them even if they did comply to the level and nature fo game being played at the time.
My emphasis. Then they're delaying forming the lineout and this should be dealt with.
Blacks: "We haven't approached the LoT yet, ref!"
Ref: "Have you not? [PEEEP] Free kick, delaying forming the lineout".
But in practice, before this had happened I'd expect something like
Ref: "Guys, stop p****** about and form the lineout!"
much earlier on, particularly close to the end of the game.
C'mon Ian don't be shy,
Pegleg has said that standing on the ball to prevent a QTI by your opponents is "fair game" [ presumably that 'prevention right' expires when a LO is formed ]
do you agree ?
If not, how would you sanction & why?
I think the point about standing on the ball was that, if it were done by someone other than the player who took the ball into touch, it would prohibit a QTI - he'd just have to tap it, no standing needed.
It might be a bit of a dick move and I think there's a case for penalising such a player, but it would certainly stop the QTI.
DocY, your replies [whilst appreciated] seem to have been slightly off point, cheers V
Last edited:
Why would it? [Law reference please]
Law 23 (a):
[LAWS]
If DocY deems a player is being a dick, that player is liable to sanction
[/LAWS]
But more seriously - I'd see a player who wasn't otherwise involved running over to touch the ball and thereby prevent a QTI as being akin to a player stopping a quick tap.
Unless I missed the point again:
19.2 (d)
[LAWS]
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[/LAWS]
I refer you to the WR clips on the subject.
Your original post was at 2am
Your reminder was at 3am
I do actually sleep... sometimes
If the player standing on the ball is the same player who was forced into touch....
[LAWS]Law 19.2 (i) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw-in.
Sanction: Penalty kick on 15-metre line[/LAWS]
... standing on the ball is not releasing it. PK on 15m line
If the player standing in the ball is another player....
[LAWS]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. The same team throws into the lineout.[/LAWS]
... as soon as another player touches the ball, the QTI is off so standing on it is immaterial. No sanction.
Not the answer you were hoping for I suspect!
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E
unfortunately the WR clips don't settle that question, as in those clips the offside players continue to move forward after the kick.
the question of a player who remains stationary until the ball is in touch (can he then defend the QTI or is he offside) -- is moot.
unfortunately the WR clips don't settle that question, as in those clips the offside players continue to move forward after the kick.
the question of a player who remains stationary until the ball is in touch (can he then defend the QTI or is he offside) -- is moot.
The players do indeed and the video points out the transgressing players. Is that not the point of the video? Showing the transgression. In an earlier video it stated a player who is offside before the ball goes into touch should not benefit from being offside.
So
If the ball goes in to touch and a player is offside he must, if a QTI is possible comply with the appropriate law to return to an onside position (general play / !0 mtr rule etc).
However, Once a QTI is NOT possible then they player cant benefit from his offside. Play will stop and offside line appropriate to the line out are set.
So if the ball goes into the crowd and therefore the QI is ruled out players can move towards the LOT. If a QTI is on they can not and indeed may need to retreat depending on the Offside law that is applicable.
So
If the ball goes in to touch and a player is offside he must, if a QTI is possible comply with the appropriate law to return to an onside position (general play / !0 mtr rule etc).
However, Once a QTI is NOT possible then they player cant benefit from his offside. Play will stop and offside line appropriate to the line out are set.
So if the ball goes into the crowd and therefore the QI is ruled out players can move towards the LOT. If a QTI is on they can not and indeed may need to retreat depending on the Offside law that is applicable.
Actually it was.
So, provided the 'standing on the ball' is done by another RED , ie.. someone who didnt carry the ball into touch, then this is ok is it? Piglet says "fair game" & that's the question I'm posing to you, do you agree?
Pegleg is saying that a valid way to end the BLACK QTI permission [i.e. to prevent a BLACK QTI from happening] is for another RED of the non throwing team to merely find a way to touch the ball?
IF so, Presumably it would be legitimate 'creative QTI antidote' to coach a team [that kicks the ball into touch] to actively pursue the Black thrower or urgently try to grab/touch/contact the ball whilst Black is contemplating his mid-creative preparation in order to close their QTI opportunity.
Furthermore, IIUYC then it follows that if RED carries the ball into touch, then it would be smart of him to 'creatively-delay' a release of the ball to Black only when a RED teammate is nearby, so that this RED teammate can now urgently/immediately touch the ball & in so doing, close off Blacks QTI opportunity.
Which means that it would be a 'smart QTI defence' for any nearby supporting player [when Red gets forced into touch] to immediately rush to stand near/on top of the closest Black player in order to 'immediately touch the ball' as soon as Red hands it to Black to curtail the black QTI opportunity.
?
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
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.
Touching the ball to prevent a QTI is fine. Its not prohibited in law.
Note, I would object to players not in the XV on the field, e.g. on the subs bench or team officials, chasing a ball to touch it. In fact, I have seen players and team officials sanctioned for that.
Yep, I'm fine with that. Happens more often that you might realize, its just the cameras don't catch it very often
No. If a player has taken the ball into touch, and an opponent tries to take it off him, he must give it up immediately. If he doesn't, ping. If he throws it away, ping
I have no problem with that, so long as he does not prevent the player to took the ball into touch from releasing it. Touching the ball when it is already in the hands of the player wanting to throw it does not prevent the QTI being taken.
You left one important scenario off your "angels on pinheads" list. If the ball is touched by an alien from the Planet Zog, the QTI is still on, because, despite the fact that the Law says "quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball", aliens are not people (except Alf of course, because he's a people alien!
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
ATP: Nope, no need for ATP. Players know exactly what they are doing
Materiality: Before the law came in about angled QTI and taking it anywhere between where it where it went into touch and the player's own goal-line, I would very likely (but not always) have said yes. Now that a player can take the ball and run back toward his goal-line, almost certainly no, unless the lineout had formed or there was clearly not going to be any chance of a QTI.
On a side note; I would also like to see a law introduced to prevent players from standing in the tramlines right in front of the thrower. IMO an opponent should be allowed to attempt to block the QTI but only if they are standing at least 5m in from touch.
Last edited:
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
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]