• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Wales v Oz and 19.2(e)

Dickie E

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Law 19.2(e) has never really sat comfortably with me. Specifically, the law requires that if a player takes a QTI from "ahead of the line of touch" he loses possession even if the AR hasn't yet indicated where the LoT is.

[LAWS]19.2 (e)
An incorrect quick throw-in occurs when:

•The ball is thrown towards the opponents goal line, or
•The ball is thrown in ahead of the line of touch, or
•The ball is thrown in on or behind the goal line, or
•The ball touches the ground or a player before reaching the 5 metre line, or
•The thrower steps into the field-of-play when throwing the ball.

The opposing team’s choices are to elect to throw in at either:
•a lineout where the quick throw was attempted, or
•a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. [/LAWS]

In the 55th minute of the Wales v Oz game, Genia takes a QTI from ahead of LoT & referee Jackson correctly disallows this. However, the resulting lineout was given to Australia.

So I'm either misreading 19.2 or Jackson has applied (IMO) a common sense approach.

Either way, it has given me some confidence to follow the Jackson route.
 
How far ahead was he? I'd suggest common sense:

as you imply it is not always easy to be accurate in the hurly burly of a game for either the player or, indeed, the officials.

SO:

If it as very close - Apply C&O principles and ply on.


If reasonably close but not taking the mick go again with a full line out.


If taking the mick then go for the "full letter of the law".
 
OK, I will admit I didn't know that the law included "The ball is thrown in ahead of the line of touch".

TBH I would have considered that a QTI taken from the wrong position and just disallowed the QTI, ie we have a "normal LO with the same side throwing in.
 
In one of the games I watched over the weekend (so either England v Argentina or Ireland v some scratch team cobbled together from somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere), a QTI was taken with both the thrower's feet clearly infield - with one of them a good metre or more infield. The play was allowed to continue. I strongly suspect that the sanction Dickie mentions in 19.2(e) means that top-level referees and ARs would rather take the stick for getting the decision wrong than the more immediate and vocal stick for getting it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top