PDA

View Full Version : Joining a lineout



perfect10
10-07-10, 18:07
In the NZ vs SA game today, Matfield stood in the scrum half position and then entered the lineout to be lifted before the hooker threw the ball.

This is not a lineout straegy I have seen for a while. I was under the impression that the reciever had to remain 2 metres away before the ball is thrown. Has the law been a changed or was it a case of getting away with it.

No one from the NZ team complained and it seemed to pass without any comment from palyers, commentators or referee.

Simon Thomas
10-07-10, 18:07
another example of the elite game not applying LoG as we would at community levels.

the Law clearly states the receiver cannot move to join the line until the ball is thrown.

if pre-ball movement one in and one out & back to 2m as receiver

nealed
10-07-10, 18:07
i started a thread on this last year regarding matfield
cant remember what we all agreed now but i think it was that the move IS illegal
to be fair tho i think it was clear that matfield was NOT going to be a receiver

perfect10
11-07-10, 08:07
There were 2 occaisions in the game. The first time he came out of the line to shout the call. The scrum half was stood as the reciever. Matfield rejoined the line before the lineout started which was fine.

Later on in the game he was def stood at the reciever position and January was stood out in the back line. They had a 4 man line which NZ matched. Matfield came straight in to be lifted at 2.

sgoat
11-07-10, 10:07
the Law clearly states the receiver cannot move to join the line until the ball is thrown.

if pre-ball movement one in and one out & back to 2m as receiver

With the 2010 Law Book they did not make it quite so clear as it was before. The movement of the receiver into the line is given as an exception to where they must stand.

From our last thread on this I thought we had decided it was a confusing bit of law which needed re-clarifying as to what they meant. Can he move before the ball is thrown (2009 Laws) or any time (2010 laws)?


(i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are lineout players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the lineout begins.

Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the lineout as would be other players in the lineout.

nealed
11-07-10, 11:07
1. the receiver MUST stand at least 2 m from the lineout
2. the lineout BEGINS when the ball is thrown
3. Therefore the receiver MUST be in position at that time, and id defined at that time
4. he may then enter the lineout which by definition must be AFTER the ball is thrown
5. If a person in the receiver position enters the lineout BEFORE the ball is thrown then he was not a receiver but the oppositon have not has time to balance numbers which is relevant for a shortened lineout.
6. If that person enters the lineout at the time or just after the ball is thrown, that is he is not in the lineout when the ball is thrown and he is not at least 2m away then i would perceive that as a receiver not correctly positioned and therefore a FK
7. If i suspected that a man taking up the receivers position was in fact going to enter the lineout before the ball was thrown in i think it would be legitimate to ask the "number" in the lineout to give the oppo the chance of adding someone if they wishes

?? other thoughts

nealed
11-07-10, 11:07
having said that the law states an exception to the rule as to where the receiver must stand, as if he CAN be less than 2m AS LONG AS HE enters the lineout
this does seem to contradict the 2009 clarification (9)

Law Reference
19
Date
11 November '09
Request
The IRFU request a Ruling related to the lineout.
Do the provisions of Law 19.8 (i) apply to Law 19.11 Exception 2?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The provisions of Law 19.8(i) do apply to Exception 2 in Law 19.11 which means that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in. Honest.

Davet
11-07-10, 11:07
Players my change positions in the lineout.

Therefore a player in the position of receiver may swap places with another player in the line out.

One in, one out has always been fine.

However, the ability of the reciever to enter the line is and Exception to the laws about who stands where. The excepton says that he may enter the lineout. - Which means that the receiver must stand 2m from the line, EXCEPT if he choses to enter the lineout.

nealed
11-07-10, 11:07
so they have moved the exception from 19.11 to 19.8 in the 2010 laws, without explaining that the exception relates to the "offside law" at the lineout, and made it a bit confusing
Having thought about this again, i would have thought that the 2009 ruling 9 still stands, but everything depends upon when the receiver is a receiver
so i am no more the wiser

nealed
11-07-10, 11:07
law 19.11 relates to a player not taking part in a lineout the 2009 laws state
He must stay at least 10 metres behind the line
of touch, or on or behind that player’s goal line if that is nearer, until the lineout ends.
There are two exceptions to this:
Exception 1: Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-
metre line, a player of the same team may run forward to take the ball. If that player does
so, an opponent may also run forward.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team’s offside line, opposite the place of
infringement but not less than 15 metres from the touchline.
Exception 2: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to
any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to penalty for offences in the lineout as
would be other players in the lineout.

it does not state that the receiver is able to stand closer to the lineout before the ball is thrown in to enable hime to do this
the law clarification 2009(9) explicitly states that he must in fact remain at least 2 m from the lineout
however by now moving that exception, it is unclear. But since we are not aware that there has been any law change, then the law clarification must stand, so the issue is arouns the definition of who is a receiver and when

nealed
11-07-10, 11:07
The excepton says that he may enter the lineout. - Which means that the receiver must stand 2m from the line, EXCEPT if he choses to enter the lineout.

this is in direct contradiction the ruling of 2009(9)

Davet
11-07-10, 11:07
without explaining that the exception relates to the "offside law" at the lineout,


The exception was badly placed before - the old 19.11 was about players not in the lineout, and specifically requires them to be 10m back - since the receiver IS a participating player, and has never had to be 10m back 19.11 was not the place to talk about his options.

The exception now resides in 19.8.i and is specifically related to the Law about where the receiver must stand, and provides a specific exception saying that IF the receiver joins the linout then the injunction to remain 2m distant does not apply.

I think the Law is now crystal clear - we must not be misled by old habits.

Davet
11-07-10, 11:07
this is in direct contradiction the ruling of 2009(9)

So what?

This is 2010, and the Law book was changed for 2010, old rulings do not necessarily apply.

nealed
11-07-10, 12:07
So what?

This is 2010, and the Law book was changed for 2010, old rulings do not necessarily apply.

well the situation is not crystal clear, because the 2009 (9) ruling SPECIFICALLY states that the ability for the receiver to enter the lineout DOES NOT exempt him from the need to be 2 m from the lineout before the ball is thrown in

if a 2 man lineout is called then if the receiever enters the lineout from a position closer than 2m at the time the ball is thrown in then imo he is illegally positioned
if a man who appears to be the receiver enters the lineout BEFORE the ball is thrown in he is not a receiver
however i think the oppo have the right to know the numbers that will be in the lineout before the ball is thrown in so it is reasonable for the ref to ask "are you the receiver"
if the answer in no then the oppo can add an extra man to the lineout
if yes then he must stay 2m back until the ball is thrown in

this is an opinion but if the ruling 2009(9) has been rescinded and the law changed then that should be made clear
moving the exception in the law book does not do that

OB..
11-07-10, 13:07
Here is Ruling 9 of 2009 as it appears on the IRB website
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2009/4


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
9-2009
Union
IRFU
Law Reference
19
Date
11 November '09
Request

The IRFU request a Ruling related to the lineout.
Do the provisions of Law 19.8 (i) apply to Law 19.11 Exception 2?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The provisions of Law 19.8(i) do apply to Exception 2 in Law 19.11 which means that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in. Honest.

That final word is genuine - check it out.
(It was not in the original notification of the Ruling.)

Bryan
11-07-10, 15:07
As the teams form a lineout
1. They can choose to have no receiver.
2. A team can only have one person standing in the receiver position.
3. If they choose to have a receiver, he must be 2m from the lineout (it's 2m from his teammates, NOT from the line of touch) but the key here is "Clear and Identifiable" so don’t FK for being 1.5m instead of 2m.


Law 19.8 (i) The receiver may run into the gap and perform any actions available to any other player in the lineout
Law 19.8 (k) Participating Players may change their positions in the lineout before the ball is thrown in.

Therefore…..

Before the ball is thrown in
1. Players can change places. Should a team form with a receiver, that receiver can enter and someone can leave. What can't happen is for a receiver to enter and nobody to leave; this is liable for sanction.

Once the ball is thrown in
1. The receiver can enter, and there is now no obligation for anyone to leave.


Be aware of Law 19.11 (d). The thrower can become the receiver if there is no receiver. NB “if there is no receiver”. However, he cannot become a second receiver. This requires referring to the end of a lineout Law 19.9 (b).

SimonSmith
11-07-10, 15:07
As the teams form a lineout
1. They can choose to have no receiver.
2. A team can only have one person standing in the receiver position.
3. If they choose to have a receiver, he must be 2m from the lineout (it's 2m from his teammates, NOT from the line of touch) but the key here is "Clear and Identifiable" so don’t FK for being 1.5m instead of 2m.



Therefore…..

Before the ball is thrown in
1. Players can change places. Should a team form with a receiver, that receiver can enter and someone can leave.

With you so far


What can't happen is for a receiver to enter and nobody to leave; this is liable for sanction.

Not being awkward, but where's the Law ref?
Two teams line up, both with receivers.
Throwing team brings the "receiver" into the line, in compliance with law, well before the throw.
Are we saying that because they lined up with a receiver, they have to maintain that option?
Or, line out players may change their position, and the receiver has elected to do that?

That's the piece that I'm struggling with.

nealed
11-07-10, 16:07
With you so far



Not being awkward, but where's the Law ref?
Two teams line up, both with receivers.
Throwing team brings the "receiver" into the line, in compliance with law, well before the throw.
Are we saying that because they lined up with a receiver, they have to maintain that option?
Or, line out players may change their position, and the receiver has elected to do that?

That's the piece that I'm struggling with.

yes me too
however to my mind if the team do NOT intend to have a receiver and therefore have an extra man in the lineout, it should be made clear to the opposition, espec when the lineout is shortened
therefore i think that if there is a doubt the ref should be able to clarify the situation before the ball is thrown in to allow the oppo to adjust

Davet
11-07-10, 17:07
(i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are lineout players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the lineout begins.

Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the lineout as would be other players in the lineout.


That's the 2010 Law, copied direct from the iRB site.

I cannot see how any interpretation other than that the exception is an exception to the requirement to stand 2m away from the line until the linout begins.

Rulings on previous Laws, from the dim and distant or even the recent past surely are not relevant?

If you simply read what is written, and leave the historic baggage outside then what other meaning can there be?

What is the point of the exception if it applies only after the ball is thrown?

If the exception were not there then the Law would, in any event, free the receiver from his obligation to stay 2m away as soon as the ball had been thrown.

Forget what we thought we knew, and the tortuous history attached to it. The laws around the receiever running into the gap have been constantly rewritten ever since they were first introduced - simply read what is written now, with a fresh eye, and there can surely be no doubt?



however to my mind if the team do NOT intend to have a receiver and therefore have an extra man in the lineout, it should be made clear to the opposition, espec when the lineout is shortened



That's your personal opinion, it's not Law. Does the Law require your approval?

OB..
11-07-10, 17:07
The basic idea seems fairly clear: the attacking side sets the maximum number of players in the lineout, so if they have X in it plus a receiver, the defending team cannot have more than X.

Having the receiver run into the lineout before the ball is thrown means they have increased the maximum without giving the opponents the chance to react.

The argument that they can do so depends on the fact that there is no time specified in 19.8 (i), so it is assumed the receiver can join at any time. However Ruling 9 of 2009 mutatis mutandis says he can't.

As so often, the referee has to sort out the tangle, and I support Bryan's statement. It makes the most sense.

Davet
11-07-10, 17:07
As so often, the referee has to sort out the tangle, and I support Bryan's statement. It makes the most sense.


Only if you choose to ignore what is written in Law.
And only if you choose not to consider the fact that IF the law is as you say then the very exception we are duiscussing is wholly superfluous.

One question only - If the Law doesn't mean that this exception is to be applied as written, what is it's purpose?

OB..
11-07-10, 18:07
Only if you choose to ignore what is written in Law.
Whereas you choose to ignore the IRB Ruling.


And only if you choose not to consider the fact that IF the law is as you say then the very exception we are duiscussing is wholly superfluous.

One question only - If the Law doesn't mean that this exception is to be applied as written, what is it's purpose?

If we take out the exception, then the receiver cannot at any stage join the lineout.

Your version of "as written" ignores anything else. I don't.

As I explained, I think your view is somewhat inequitable. I am glad to learn from Bryan that it is not what is expected.

Davet
11-07-10, 20:07
If we take out the exception then there is absolutley nothing to stop the receiever joining the lineout when the ball is thrown.

Show me any law that would otherwise prevent this.

I am not ignoring the ruling - I simply suggest that it is now obsolete.

You have an odd view of equity - which simply means treating both sides the same.

And it seems that - from the post that started this thread, that the elite game, players and refs, expect the receiever to be able to join the line prior to the throw.

It is also the way that US rugby says the game must be played - there is a previous thread, and I originally agreed with your stance then, but changed that position after seeing how the arguement works.

It's only difficult and complex if you try to obfusticate the issue, take the simple reading of the law and there is absolutely no problem.

nealed
11-07-10, 20:07
That's the 2010 Law, copied direct from the iRB site.

That's your personal opinion, it's not Law. Does the Law require your approval?

Davet i agree that its my interpretation but please dont make more of it and make unnecessary personal comments
of course the law does not require my approval
i am just trying like others to interpret things and ask others to help

Davet
11-07-10, 21:07
I made no personal comment at all.

As an aside I would add that I think the Law as written makes the referee's job a lot easier. We no longer have to worry about one in, one out; or whether the ball was thrown before the player joined (if the timing is tight then that's a hard one - often handled on a rule of thumb to do with how near the front of the line the receiver joins).

It makes the refs job far simpler not to have to worry that stuff any more.

nealed
11-07-10, 22:07
asking the question "does the law require my approval" is personal, as i never inferred that it any of my posts

for reasons stated previously by myself and others there remains the question of numbers in the lineout and definition of who is a receiver

i have to say i am somewhat disappointed by the tone of your posts here. there seems to be a lack of respect for others opinions

i hope that i am misinterpreting things,

ddjamo
11-07-10, 22:07
I have a long list of things to concern myself with in front of this swap/non-swap issue. right or wrong, usar has told us to play on and it's the best answer so far IMO.

nealed
11-07-10, 22:07
its just not clear cut
both arguements seem valid
We need another law clarification

Phil E
11-07-10, 22:07
I have read this whole thread through and am more inclined to OB's version than Davet's.

Things I have pulled out of the laws that I think are relevant.

Participating players may change players (not lineout players as someone quoted). The receiver is a participating player, so he may change places with someone else in the line (before the ball is thrown).

The receiver may run into the gap, this is the problem, what exactly is "the gap" it's not defined?

Finally there is the 2009 ruling. DaveT claims the ruling has expired, but I see no precedent for rulings expiring. In fact quite the opposite. We have many rulings going back further than 2009 that are still extant.

So I am inclined to follow previous guidance until told to do otherwise. i.e. the receiver may join the line, only if someone else leaves to replace him and only if done so before the ball is thrown.

What international referees do has no relevance to what I do at grass roots level and for that there are many precedents.

OB..
11-07-10, 22:07
If we take out the exception then there is absolutley nothing to stop the receiever joining the lineout when the ball is thrown.
I have never suggested otherwise. I believe that was the original idea.



I am not ignoring the ruling - I simply suggest that it is now obsolete.
And I strongly disagree. The paragraph is question has been moved but still exists, and the Ruling is more specific than 19.8 (i)


You have an odd view of equity - which simply means treating both sides the same.
No it doesn't. It means seeking a fair basis for the contest


And it seems that - from the post that started this thread, that the elite game, players and refs, expect the receiever to be able to join the line prior to the throw.
We have one observation from an international match, contradicted by Bryan's view.


It's only difficult and complex if you try to obfusticate the issue, take the simple reading of the law and there is absolutely no problem.
There is no problem with my view either. Indeed it is what has been done in the past.

Davet
11-07-10, 23:07
Originally Posted by Davet http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/images3/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=125177#post125177)
If we take out the exception then there is absolutley nothing to stop the receiever joining the lineout when the ball is thrown.


Response by OB
I have never suggested otherwise. I believe that was the original idea.



Actually you did suggest that the if the exception was removed the receiver could not join the lineout - even after the ball was thrown in



Posted by OB: If we take out the exception, then the receiver cannot at any stage join the lineout.


The Laws provide a fair basis for the contest. Equity does not require the referee to adjust the Laws to suit that referees own perception of fairness. Equity lies in applying the same laws equally to both sides.



We have one observation from an international match, contradicted by Bryan's view.



No. We have a number of examples in the elite game, this has come up before. We have a top Canadian official's view, flatly contradicted by official US Rugby guidance.


Nealed


i have to say i am somewhat disappointed by the tone of your posts here. there seems to be a lack of respect for others opinions


I have respect for other's opinions, indeed it is because i do so that I changed my view on this. At the start of the earlier thread I thought as you do. I then looked at the issue more closely and realised how wrong I had been, especially in light of the 2010 Law book. I publicly acknowledged my change of view.

I don't apologise for taking a robust line in debate, and repeat - I made no personal comment at all. I am discussing this with grown ups and assume that others find faux humility as obnoxious as I do.

PhilE

Finally there is the 2009 ruling. DaveT claims the ruling has expired, but I see no precedent for rulings expiring. In fact quite the opposite. We have many rulings going back further than 2009 that are still extant.

And many many examples of rulings being overtaken by new, or clarified, Law.

SimonSmith
12-07-10, 00:07
No. We have a number of examples in the elite game, this has come up before. We have a top Canadian official's view, flatly contradicted by official US Rugby guidance.

A dangerous hook upon which to hang any hat, given their tendency to contract out of the law

OB..
12-07-10, 01:07
Davet - I think I see what you are getting at in 19.8 (i): "until the lineout begins".

I am still going to go with the much clearer statement in the IRB Ruling. After all they were answering precisely this question.

The Laws provide a fair basis for the contest.
A pious hope!

Equity does not require the referee to adjust the Laws to suit that referees own perception of fairness. Equity lies in applying the same laws equally to both sides.
And when there is confusion (as I insist there is here), then you use equity to help resolve it.
"Equity is the name given to the set of legal principles, in jurisdictions following the English common law tradition, which supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate harshly." Wikipedia.


We have a top Canadian official's view, flatly contradicted by official US Rugby guidance.
...but totally supported by an IRB Ruling.

Agustin
12-07-10, 02:07
I'm tending to agree with the interpretation that does not allow the receiver to join the lineout until the ball has been thrown. (And FWIW, it is the direction we have been given in Vancouver.)

However, I wonder why the exception is included in the law. Why allow the receiver to join at all? If it's not equitable to allow him to join until the ball is thrown, why is it equitable to allow him to join afterward?

tim White
12-07-10, 10:07
It's a "Numbers in the Line-out" thing.

Set your numbers PLUS a receiver;
You cannot adjust numbers from then onwards without allowing the opposition time to do likewise.
BUT when the ball is thrown the receiver may then enter the line-out in any position (a gap in his own line of players).
:cool:

Davet
12-07-10, 11:07
Why is it extra harsh to allow the receiever to enter the line before the ball is thrown when we all agree he can do so after it's been thrown?

What major difference does throwng the ball make to "equity"?

In terms of numbers the throwers set the number in the line, they may or may not choose to have a receiver. The opposition may put upto that same number in the line, and may or may not choose to have a receiver - indendently of whethe the throwers do so.

The main reason the 2m distmace was introduced was to make it clear how many their were in the line, and who (if anyone) was a receiver.

Once that is established, the numbes are set.

Having established that there is a receiver the Law then says he may join the line 18.8.i exception. I can see no other purpose to that exception other than to say that the receiever may join the line before the ball is thrown.

If the excption were not there then he could clearly join the line after the ball was thrown - 19.8.i which requires him to stay 2m back expires when the ball is thrown.

If you will not allow the Law to stand as wtitten please explain what the purpose of the exception is?

If you simply rely on the Ruling, then remember that the Law has changed in many ways since that ruling, and has been clarified in many places - perhaps because even the designated members can't always tell humerus from coccyx

TheBFG
12-07-10, 11:07
Wheres the little emoticon thingy for "around the houses" :wink:

OB..
12-07-10, 11:07
What major difference does throwng the ball make to "equity"?
As was pointed out in previous discussion, coming into the line after the ball is thrown effectively means you cannot be lifted to take it. The Matfield tactic means you can put a jumper into an undefended spot in the lineout without the opponents having the opportunity to adjust.


If you will not allow the Law to stand as wtitten please explain what the purpose of the exception is?

If you simply rely on the Ruling, then remember that the Law has changed in many ways since that ruling, and has been clarified in many places - perhaps because even the designated members can't always tell humerus from coccyx
The wording of the law has not changed - part of it has merely been shifted. This was intended to simplify the law but has instead resurrected the muddle that the Ruling was intended to resolve. I see no reason to believe that a change in law was intended.
The Ruling gives a very clear answer to the specific problem we are dealing with.

Davet
12-07-10, 11:07
So - you refuse to offer any explanation of what the purpose of the exception is? I presume you think it is simply superfluous?

OB..
12-07-10, 12:07
So - you refuse to offer any explanation of what the purpose of the exception is? I presume you think it is simply superfluous?

The Exception has been part of the Laws since before 1974. It was an exception to the 10m offside law for non-participating players. The 2m law for receivers dates from 2009 (previously as an ELV) and related to forming the lineout. By combining the two this year the IRB has resurrected a problem. Their rationale was "The amendments provide for greater clarity, simplicity, and reduce duplication." Not!

Last season the problem was spotted, and resolved by the IRB Ruling so I'll stick to that.

nealed
12-07-10, 12:07
i guess that we will all ref this the way we see it until the IRB clarify once again
it seems that there is validity in both arguments but not much room for agreement

Davet
12-07-10, 13:07
OB - you still haven't explained why the exception exists, to what it is an exception, and what would happen if they had simply deleted it.

OB..
12-07-10, 17:07
OB - you still haven't explained why the exception exists, to what it is an exception, and what would happen if they had simply deleted it.
I really don't care. I have made some comments and that is it.

As far as I am concerned, the specific question was asked of the IRB last year and they gave a specific answer. Subsequent tinkering with the laws has shown no evidence that they intended to change that decision.

If we were starting from scratch it might be different, but we are not.

Agustin
12-07-10, 18:07
Wheres the little emoticon thingy for "around the houses" :wink:

Is that an English saying? What does it mean?

B52 REF
12-07-10, 18:07
Oddyi enough i can agree with both OB and Davet,-moving the para. in LOTG re exception can give rise to Davets simple logical application ( as he says otherwise why have the "exception".) However as OB correctly observes the Ruling still stands and therefore i for one am happy to abide by it.(at least until rescinded by IRB who then would persumably clarify that the law as reparagraphed is to read logically as Davet suggests.) For clarity - S/H to stand 2m from L/O until ball leaves throwers hands but manage it - ask for numbers/who is s/h (remind him that you won't believe he can cover 2m in time taken to jump at 2 or 4 so not to even try it )
Of course this still allows a guy satnding IN S/H POSITION-to join before L/O commences but better to manage as above to prempt number problems.
Incidentally Barnsey agreed with this approach in our last thread and i will doublecheck with him that he hasn't received any contrary guidance since.

Dixie
12-07-10, 18:07
STILOBSERVES THE rULING STILL STANDS AS ob the Irb RULING STILL EXPRESSLY STANDS AND THAT TOGETHER cuaRE EXCEPYlotg AVET Ye-e-e-s. Good to see that communication is still a strong priority among London referees. Is this Latin?

B52 REF
12-07-10, 19:07
dixie-see you spotted my wordprocessing prowess before i had a chance to edit!

Rit Hinners
12-07-10, 21:07
Word pprocessing?
What is that exactly?

What ever happened to just plain writing out your thoughts?

Phil E
12-07-10, 22:07
It's a "Numbers in the Line-out" thing.

Set your numbers PLUS a receiver;
You cannot adjust numbers from then onwards without allowing the opposition time to do likewise.

That is NOT what the law says.

The law is very specific on this point.


The team throwing in the ball decides the maximum number of players in the lineout.
The opposing team may have fewer lineout players but they must not have more.
If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.


You only have to allow the opposition time to adjust if they have more, not if they have less (which is what would happen if the SH moved into the LO).

Davet
12-07-10, 23:07
I really don't care. I have made some comments and that is it.


Hmmm

OK then, if you don't feel you want to address the point then I understand.

ddjamo
13-07-10, 03:07
for discussion purposes....lets hear why moving the receiver into the line is an advantage.

Agustin
13-07-10, 03:07
for discussion purposes....lets hear why moving the receiver into the line is an advantage.

Sometimes teams like to put the receiver into the line at the last moment because it makes it harder for the opposition to predict where he will join (and hence where the jumper/catcher will be).

I used to see it a lot in short lineouts. Adding a third lineout player (from the receiver joining the lineout) makes quite a big difference. If you have a full lineout, it is not such a large difference, but it still could be an advantage if used properly.

ddjamo
13-07-10, 04:07
Sometimes teams like to put the receiver into the line at the last moment because it makes it harder for the opposition to predict where he will join (and hence where the jumper/catcher will be).

I used to see it a lot in short lineouts. Adding a third lineout player (from the receiver joining the lineout) makes quite a big difference. If you have a full lineout, it is not such a large difference, but it still could be an advantage if used properly.

couldn't the opposing receiver enter and be lifted too?

didds
13-07-10, 09:07
7. If i suspected that a man taking up the receivers position was in fact going to enter the lineout before the ball was thrown in i think it would be legitimate to ask the "number" in the lineout to give the oppo the chance of adding someone if they wishes




and what if the receiver doesn;t join the lineout ? do you FK the throwing team because the oppo have now overloaded, albeit with your connivance and their innocence?

I suspect not, but now you are entering the realms of creating issues that need not exist. I am of the opinion that this area is a perfect example of the law makers tinkering and creating bigger messes than they perceived they began with.

Meanwhile... maybe we need a ruling about how long rulings remain in force, or how rulings can be overriden! This thread has highlighted that a 2009 ruling is in direct confrontation with an explicit 2010 law provision.



didds

OB..
13-07-10, 11:07
This thread has highlighted that a 2009 ruling is in direct confrontation with an explicit 2010 law provision.
I continue to claim that the Ruling is far more explicit.

a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in

I see no evidence at all that the IRB intended to change their view or the law, whatever mess they have made in their tinkering.

That is why I am not interested in arguing hypotheticals over the current juxtaposition and wording in 19.8(i). It's irrelevant.

Dickie E
13-07-10, 11:07
That is why I am not interested in arguing hypotheticals over the current juxtaposition and wording in 19.8(i). It's irrelevant.

for someone not interested in arguing ... :D

Taff
13-07-10, 11:07
I continue to claim that the Ruling is far more explicit.I assume a ruling always takes precedence over a LoTG. :chin:

Davet
13-07-10, 12:07
That is why I am not interested in arguing hypotheticals over the current juxtaposition and wording in 19.8(i). It's irrelevant.


Irrelevant? But it's the very heart and soul of the issue.

You keep ducking the questions posed, which are - what is the purpose of the exception, and if the exception were removed would that prevent the receiver joining the line after the ball was thrown?

Actually - I apologise - You have answered the second part, you agree with me that it would not prevent this. Or at least I think you do.

OB..
13-07-10, 12:07
Irrelevant? But it's the very heart and soul of the issue.
Given that I believe the Ruling takes precedence, I see any argument over what 19.8(i) might otherwise mean as unhelpful.
"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea." [Dr Johnson]



You keep ducking the questions posed,
I keep saying I am not interested. There is clearly a mess, so it needs resolving by the IRB. Meanwhile IMHO we have a decsion - the Ruling.

didds
13-07-10, 12:07
I continue to claim that the Ruling is far more explicit.


I see no evidence at all that the IRB intended to change their view or the law, whatever mess they have made in their tinkering.


Right... OK.

Just so that _I_ am clear for the start of the new season soon-ish...

the 2010 law book says

"Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the lineout as would be other players in the lineout. "

ie the receiver CAN run into the gap.

the 2009 ruling says

"that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in."

ie the receiver CANNOT run into the gap.

So we should use the 2009 rule clarification even though the 2010 laws have been redrafted subsequently to that, and categorically state a different position? That seems totally ridiculous to me but a simple yes or no will suffice for the purposes of coaching this season :-)

cheers

didds

Davet
13-07-10, 12:07
"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea." [Dr Johnson]



By which I assume you mean that the Law as writ and the judgement as apllied to the old Law book are equal in weight?

So why do you insist on the precedence of the flea?

OB..
13-07-10, 12:07
So we should use the 2009 rule clarification even though the 2010 laws have been redrafted subsequently to that, and categorically state a different position?
I see the laws as more inferential than the Ruling which is explicit on the precise point, as I have quoted above. You cannot get a clearer statement than that.

The wording in the laws is exactly the same as last season - it is just in a different place. The point in contention is therefore the same as was addressed by the Ruling.

The IRB's own comments on the move of the Exception said nothing about changing the law, only about simplification etc.

You will of course decide for yourself if you wish to coach that there has been a law change. We are not authoritative, however strongly we feel about a point, so you should ask those who are.

OB..
13-07-10, 12:07
By which I assume you mean that the Law as writ and the judgement as apllied to the old Law book are equal in weight?

So why do you insist on the precedence of the flea?
I mean that accepting a clear direct statement in a Ruling that had adressed the exact wording of precisely the point at issue is the main point.

Arguing over hypothetical consequences of bits of the associated law (flea vs louse) is of no help whatsoever and serves only as a distraction - which is why I won't join in.

(I'm sure you do actually understand my viewpoint and are merely trying to score debating points. Have fun.)

Davet
13-07-10, 12:07
Spoilsport

didds
13-07-10, 13:07
You will of course decide for yourself if you wish to coach that there has been a law change. We are not authoritative, however strongly we feel about a point, so you should ask those who are.

OK,of course. I'll ping an email to Rcihard Shore... meanwhile what are hants refs told to do wrt this ST?

didds

FlipFlop
13-07-10, 13:07
the 2010 law book says

"Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the lineout as would be other players in the lineout. "

ie the receiver CAN run into the gap.


Correct the Receiver CAN run into the gap.


the 2009 ruling says

"that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in."

ie the receiver CANNOT run into the gap.


Correct quotation of the ruling - wrong implication. The receiver cannot run into the gap UNTIL the ball has left the hands of the person throwing in. Once the lineout has started (i.e. ball thrown) then the receiver is able to enter the lineout and perform any action (lift, jump, catch, look stupid etc)


So we should use the 2009 rule clarification even though the 2010 laws have been redrafted subsequently to that, and categorically state a different position? That seems totally ridiculous to me but a simple yes or no will suffice for the purposes of coaching this season :-)

I dispute they have different positions. I see the ruling clarifying WHEN the receiver may enter the lineout. Not stating that he can or can't.

So ball thrown in - EITHER receiver can enter the line. Ball not thrown in - receivers must stay 2m from lineout (if they elect to have one) (unless they change places....)

Adam
13-07-10, 13:07
I find it very hard to believe that the iRB would make such a drastic U-turn within a year. Like OB said, the reason for changing the location in the 2010 LOTG was to organise things better.

Organising things better is not a U-turn.

Simon Thomas
13-07-10, 14:07
Hants Refs (and assessors / referee coaches ) should follow the IRB ruling and apply the LoG as written. I see no Law change, just a relocation of the para. The November 2009 Law ruling stands in terms of it affecting Law 19.11 now 19.8 's exception 2, even though the location may have changed in the 2010 LoG .

There can be a change of receiver before the ball is thrown and numbers stay the same, but the receiver (whoever that ends up being in the moments before the ball is thrown) cannot enter the line out until the ball has left the throwers hands.

I refer you back to my earlier answer in post #2 two days ago.

I will discuss with KML1 (and perhaps check with DB too, or even our new Regional Referee Development manager for her opinion too).

We could remind our referees & assessors/referee coaches at our pre-season / September meeting if there is still any confusion.

B52 REF
13-07-10, 14:07
ST- "her" opinion -surely some mistake-if not you masons must be frothing -only kidding . Sounds like welcome news- who is she?

didds
13-07-10, 16:07
Correct quotation of the ruling - wrong implication. The receiver cannot run into the gap UNTIL the ball has left the hands of the person throwing in. Once the lineout has started (i.e. ball thrown) then the receiver is able to enter the lineout and perform any action (lift, jump, catch, look stupid etc)



Errr... can't the reciver run into a gap before the ball is thrown as long as another lineout player takes up the receiver position?

didds

OB..
13-07-10, 18:07
Errr... can't the reciver run into a gap before the ball is thrown as long as another lineout player takes up the receiver position?

didds

Already answered.
There can be a change of receiver before the ball is thrown and numbers stay the same

Davet
13-07-10, 19:07
Simon - hatver the ruling is should be adhered to in praxctiocal terms by all refs and assessors and coaches - and until overturned then the current situation is as you describe.

But it's wrong... according to the Law as writ. Just because some panel came to a decision doesn't mean they can't held to account collectivly being unable to read what is written in law.

Either the designated members are daft, or the Law is.

OB..
13-07-10, 19:07
the Law is.

I refer my learned friend "to the curious incident of the dog in the night-time," aka the missing hand-off. The laws are full of infelicities.

Davet
13-07-10, 19:07
There are gaps in law, and refs are used to using long standing custom and precedent, such that a hand off is legal.

But in this case the Law is clear and explicit and the Ruling is diametrically opposed.

I appreciate the Jesuitical imperatuive to bend the word into what fits the wishes of ones masters, but I don't approve.

Not that the world needs my approval - though if it were wiser...(said with a dark and menacingly mysterious tone...)

OB..
13-07-10, 19:07
But in this case the Law is clear and explicit and the Ruling is diametrically opposed.
The Ruling dealt with exactly the same wording as is present in the current law.

Davet
13-07-10, 19:07
Which only goes to show that it was wrong then and, following the 2010 clarification in the Laws, is even more clearly wrong now.

Don't misunderstand - the ruling determines the way we must interpret it - but we need a new ruling to fix the utter silliness o the first.

OB..
13-07-10, 20:07
Which only goes to show that it was wrong then and, following the 2010 clarification in the Laws, is even more clearly wrong now.

Don't misunderstand - the ruling determines the way we must interpret it - but we need a new ruling to fix the utter silliness o the first.

And my preference is to stick with the Ruling and correct any problems with the wording of the laws.

Have some Madeira, M'dear
It's very much nicer than beer
I don't care for sherry, one cannot drink stout
and port is a wine I can well do without
It's simply a case of Chaqu'un à son gout
Have some Madeira, M'dear!'

Phil E
13-07-10, 20:07
Presumably the powers that be were aware of the ruling when they wrote the 2010 law book. They didn't see fit to announce that there was a conflict and therefore cancel the ruling, so the ruling was known and not cancelled or changed.

The 2010 law book therefore was written with full knowledge of the ruling.

The ruling stands.

Agustin
13-07-10, 20:07
couldn't the opposing receiver enter and be lifted too?

Yes, it's just a matter of timing. The team with the plan to bring the receiver in already knows where he will go.

I'm not saying this makes it unfair; it's just the reason teams have for doing it.

Agustin
13-07-10, 20:07
And my preference is to stick with the Ruling and correct any problems with the wording of the laws.

Have some Madeira, M'dear
It's very much nicer than beer
I don't care for sherry, one cannot drink stout
and port is a wine I can well do without
It's simply a case of Chaqu'un à son gout
Have some Madeira, M'dear!'

Canadians are mocked for rhyming out and about with boat. I'd love to hear the accent in which stout and without rhyme with goût! :D

Davet
13-07-10, 20:07
You may say that the law was rewritten in the knowledege of the Ruling.

Perhaps it was.

Perhaps the analogy is that the Designated members are the court of law, the Law makers the legislature.

Courts have previouls offered interpretations that legislatures have then reacted to by rewriting the Law.

Perhaps this is what has happened here?

Phil E
13-07-10, 20:07
You may say that the law was rewritten in the knowledege of the Ruling.

Perhaps it was.

Perhaps the analogy is that the Designated members are the court of law, the Law makers the legislature.

Courts have previouls offered interpretations that legislatures have then reacted to by rewriting the Law.

Perhaps this is what has happened here?

.........and perhaps you are clutching at straws, seeing as you seem to be on your own in your interpretation?

Davet
13-07-10, 20:07
So was Galileo

My favourite piece of graffiti was spotted in the gents bog of the Green Dragon in Darlington in 1976

"Eat shit! 60 billion flies can't be wrong"

Numbers in favour of a proposition do not make it right.

I'll try to avoid the meglomaniac cackle....

And besides, I'm not on my own. If you ref in the USA then you MUST use my interpretation. It's official.

Good to know US Rugger gets somethings right
:)

nealed
13-07-10, 21:07
so if i now understand the flow
i was correct in my initial assessment
receiver needs to be identified as such before ball thrown in
if ref thinks he may enter before then should ask that of player to allow oppo to increase their number if they want to
yes or no?

SimonSmith
13-07-10, 21:07
Ever been to Glasgow?

Phil E
14-07-10, 00:07
If you ref in the USA then you MUST use my interpretation. It's official.


I rest my case.........you MUST be wrong!

Phil E
14-07-10, 00:07
SA Refs say the receiver can only join if someone else drops out (before the ball is thrown).


2. Name: Peter Shortell

Question: At a line-out on Saturday Victor Matfield stood in the receiver position to start with, but then ran into the line-out before the ball was thrown and was lifted to take it.

Law 19.8 (i): Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player's goal line from that player's team-mates who are line-out players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the line-out begins.

Exception: The receiver may run into the gap.[...]

The exception (which was in another paragraph last year) might seem to over-rule the phrase ?until the line-out begins?. However IRB Ruling 9 of 2009 said:

The provisions of Law 19.8 (i) do apply to Exception 2 in Law 19.11 [last year] which means that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the line-out until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in.

The IRB Notes on the 2010 law changes merely suggest that the move of the exception was a simplification, not a law change. So where do we stand now?

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
Receiver. The receiver is the player in position to catch the ball when line-out players pass or knock the ball back from the line-out. Any player may be the receiver but each team may have only one receiver at a line-out.

Players taking part in the line-out known as participating players. Players taking part in the line-out are the player who throws-in and an immediate opponent, the two players waiting to receive the ball from the line-out and the line-out players.

2010: Law 19.8 (i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are line-out players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the line-out begins.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the line-out. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the line-out as would be other players in the line-out.

2009: Law 19.8 (i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are line-out players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the line-out begins.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

2009: Law 19.11 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PLAYERS NOT IN THE LINE-OUT

Exception 2: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the line-out. The receiver is liable to penalty for offences in the line-out as would be other players in the line-out.

Craig Joubert: Hi Peter,

The law allows for a receiver to enter the line-out to perform any actions available to any other players in the line-out. (19.8 (i) exception). The law also allows for line-out participants (which includes the line-out players and the receiver) to change places before the ball is thrown. (19.8 (k)). Whilst the ruling 9 from the IRB confirms that the receiver cannot enter the line-out before the ball is thrown in, you would have noticed that when Matfield entered the line-out before the ball was thrown, one of his team mates would have fallen out to play receiver, thus satisfying the criteria of law 19.8 (k) which talks to line-out participants changing their position prior to the ball being thrown.

Cheers, Craig

Law 19.8 (k) Participating players in a line-out may change places before the ball is thrown.

Davet
14-07-10, 02:07
My opinion of the SA Refs commentaries remains unchanged.

FlipFlop
14-07-10, 09:07
So ball thrown in - EITHER receiver can enter the line. Ball not thrown in - receivers must stay 2m from lineout (if they elect to have one) (unless they change places....)


Errr... can't the reciver run into a gap before the ball is thrown as long as another lineout player takes up the receiver position?

didds

As you question my response - perhaps you missed the last paragraph in my post. I've highlighted it a bit to make it easier to read :D

But I also see the ST had answered this point as well.

didds
14-07-10, 11:07
so... the receiver CAN run into the lineout itself as long as somebody drops out (to become the receiver) AND before the ball is thrown in, universally applied.

*phew*

I got there! :-)

didds

Simon Thomas
14-07-10, 11:07
ST- "her" opinion -surely some mistake-if not you masons must be frothing -only kidding . Sounds like welcome news- who is she?

No mistake, yes we have a lady appointed by the RFU !

Even if you just kidding is not amusing and reflective of the misogynist & anti-masonic attitudes prevalent amonst men like you "of a certain age" with your prehistoric cultural attitudes, that do so much to hamstring the enlightened progressive inclusiveness of the RFU, opening the game out to all sexes (even those who can't quite make up their mind [e.g. King's Cross Steelers etc]), social backgrounds and cultural groupings. (tee hee - only kidding too :wink: )

After a formal interview process, including a strong Hampshire candidate, the new RFU Southern Referee Development Manager is Clare Daniels (she is our sub-region's Dave Broadwell [London & SE], Alan Biggs [Midlands], Paul Renton [North], and Steve Harland [SW]).

As of August 1st she takes over from Nigel Cowley (who is retiring as a paid RFU employee and has already been elected as Chairman of Dorset & Wilts Refs Society [a volunteer role]). She will cover Southern Federation (Hants, Berks, Bucks, Oxon) and Wessex Federation (Dorset, Wilts, Somerset [her home county]). Steve Harland still covers all the western counties and their Federations (Cornwall, Devon, Brizzol, Glaws), plus Steve covers all Level 5s (Refs, Assessors, Coaches) for the combined SouthWest/Southern division.

Clare is a L5 referee, having been a high standard lady player. She was a member of South West Group for a number of seasons, reffing weekly League matches at that level on an equal footing with the guys, including exchanges to London L5s. She has now been selected as a National Panel AR for 2010-11. She has also refereed internationally for the IRB at 15s in UK and abroad and IRB 7s (in Dubai), (matches outside UK) and is a selected referee for the Womens Rugby World Cup taking place very soon in England at Guildford.

Pretty solid resume and experience !

She has her own blog here (http://offsideallthetime.blogspot.com/)

She has been a well respected sports journalist in the Bath area for a number of years.

OB..
14-07-10, 11:07
you would have noticed that when Matfield entered the line-out before the ball was thrown, one of his team mates would have fallen out to play receiver
Actually, no they didn't.

Still, we now know that at least SA referees follow the Ruling.

OB..
14-07-10, 11:07
Canadians are mocked for rhyming out and about with boat. I'd love to hear the accent in which stout and without rhyme with goût! :D

It comes from one of Flanders and Swann's masterpieces, and they deliberately rhymed it with stout for the sake of the pun.

OB..
14-07-10, 11:07
You may say that the law was rewritten in the knowledege of the Ruling.

Perhaps it was.

Perhaps the analogy is that the Designated members are the court of law, the Law makers the legislature.

Courts have previouls offered interpretations that legislatures have then reacted to by rewriting the Law.

Perhaps this is what has happened here?

Not according to the IRB notes on the amendments.

Their rationale was "The amendments provide for greater clarity, simplicity, and reduce duplication."

Not as definitive as the Ruling itself, but if they had intended to change the law as determined in the Ruling, you might have hoped they would say something to indicate that.

Phil E
14-07-10, 13:07
so... the receiver CAN run into the lineout itself as long as somebody drops out (to become the receiver) AND before the ball is thrown in, universally applied.

By everyone except DaveT it would seem :chin:

B52 REF
14-07-10, 13:07
ST- thought the masons jape would get you going but surely "misogynist & anti-masonic" is an oxymoronic coupling if ever i saw one (;
And less of the "certain age" -as an adviser you know you're not allowed to ask or comment on a refs age.
Congrats to Clare-actually i'm looking after the refs at WRWC not that she'll need much looking after by the sound of it.

Davet
14-07-10, 13:07
By everyone except DaveT it would seem :chin:

Phil E - even I would, in reality, go with the flow. Unless I was in the USA when my opinion is the official position (maybe I should move...)

But that doesn't make the ruling any more sane.


You must stand there until X happens, except if you do Y.

But, sir, I did Y, why have you pinged me?

Because the DM have said that the exception doesn't count.

Why did they say that, sir?

Temporary insanity, maybe

OB..
14-07-10, 16:07
You must stand there until X happens, except if you do Y.

But, sir, I did Y, why have you pinged me?

Because the DM have said that the exception doesn't count.

Why did they say that, sir?

Temporary insanity, maybe

What is Y in your parody?

Davet
14-07-10, 18:07
X and Y are intended to be similar to algebraic variables, and could be any number of things.

But if you like, for present purposes, let Y = scrum half joining the line.

crossref
14-07-10, 18:07
a simple principle of equity (surely) is that the opposition must be given the chance to balance the numbers.

if you have five and no receiver, the oppo is allowed to have five + receiver
so if you form up as four plus receiver, and then at the last minute convert it to five + 0, then you need to allow time for the oppo to add the extra man they are entitled to.

I think.

Davet
14-07-10, 18:07
Well they don'y have to be given time to balance numbers after the ball has been thrown, so why before?

As soon as one reciever runs into the line then so can the other, in the same way that if one of the backs comes forward to take a long throw so can an opponent.

In any event, whilst the Law demands that if you put fewer than the normal number in the line then the opposition must be allowd to redice numbers to match (this avoiding a FK) there is no requirement to give them time to add players should the throwers for example put 10 in the line.

OB..
14-07-10, 19:07
X and Y are intended to be similar to algebraic variables, and could be any number of things.

But if you like, for present purposes, let Y = scrum half joining the line.

Therefore Y always represents that same idea, so your script can be adjusted to read as follows:

You must stand there until X happens, except if you join the line.

But, sir, I did join the line, why have you pinged me?
The referee has got it wrong. Naturally that would confuse a player. He should say, "You must stand there until the ball is thrown, unless you swap places with a lineout player."

Davet
14-07-10, 20:07
But you also need to enquire what X might represent.

X = Stay 2m from the line until the ball is thrown.

OB..
14-07-10, 21:07
But you also need to enquire what X might represent.

X = Stay 2m from the line until the ball is thrown.

Makes no difference:-

You must stand there until the ball is thrown, except if you join the line.

But, sir, I did join the line, why have you pinged me?
The referee has still misstated the requirements.

Adam
14-07-10, 22:07
I always thought that if there's a receiver set up originally, then there must be a receiver 2m away from the lineout when the ball is thrown in. They can swap receivers as many times as they like, as long as there's one receiver at the point when the ball is thrown in.

Davet
15-07-10, 00:07
The referee has still misstated the requirements.


Has he?

In what way?

didds
15-07-10, 01:07
Well they don'y have to be given time to balance numbers after the ball has been thrown, so why before?


And there is nothing to stop the throwing in side doing so any time once the lineout os formed... so if red has the throw and arrive at the lineout with five players and blue manage to get two there quickly while the rest take their time, red can still throw in. Similarly if red get two there and blue five, red can still throw in. All they can't do - MAYBE - is expect to win a numbers call.

And of course red don;t even have to wait for ANY blue players to get to the lineout before throwing in. So WADR I really can;t see where these arguments come from that red should allow blue the same numbers in the lineout before it begins - otherwise the non throwing side could always slow the game down if they so chose (within the limits of being PKd for that of course).

didds

menace
15-07-10, 06:07
You NH refs better be careful as this thread is by far the best argument you've constructed to apply all the L/O ELV's :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ahh just think - no "numbers" to have to worry about managing and probably could even rid the laws of the ambiguous 'exception' and the ruling to clear it up..wouldn't that be nice.:wink:

FlipFlop
15-07-10, 09:07
I always thought that if there's a receiver set up originally, then there must be a receiver 2m away from the lineout when the ball is thrown in. They can swap receivers as many times as they like, as long as there's one receiver at the point when the ball is thrown in.

CORRECT.

It's not difficult and it's what the laws (taken with the ruling) say.

OB..
15-07-10, 11:07
Has he?

In what way?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........

Davet
15-07-10, 11:07
OB - you appear to be simply avoiding a question to which you don't like the answer.

Noted, with sorrow.

Davet
15-07-10, 11:07
Menace

I was always in favour of abolishing numbers at the line out.

OB..
15-07-10, 11:07
You NH refs better be careful as this thread is by far the best argument you've constructed to apply all the L/O ELV's
:confused: Not to me it doesn't.

BTW the trialled lineout ELVs were:
no numbers
receiver 2m+
alternative thrower in 5m area
pre-gripping allowed
lifting allowed

Which extra ones do you have in mind?

OB..
15-07-10, 11:07
OB - you appear to be simply avoiding a question to which you don't like the answer.

Noted, with sorrow.

I am bored with arguing for the sake of it, which is what you appear to be doing.

Now I really have had more than enough.

OB..
15-07-10, 11:07
OB - you appear to be simply avoiding a question to which you don't like the answer.

Noted, with sorrow.

I am bored with arguing for the sake of it, which is what you appear to be doing.

Now I really have had more than enough.

Davet
15-07-10, 11:07
OB
You make an assertion, I challenge it, and you profess boredom.

Dickie E
15-07-10, 11:07
Menace

I was always in favour of abolishing numbers at the line out.

I like teams having the option of a short lineout which was lost to them during the ELV trial.

But it gives me the Edgar Britts having to count numbers at every lineout then put up with "numbers, sir, numbers, sir".

menace
15-07-10, 14:07
:confused: Not to me it doesn't.

BTW the trialled lineout ELVs were:
no numbers
receiver 2m+
alternative thrower in 5m area
pre-gripping allowed
lifting allowed

Which extra ones do you have in mind?

The one not accepted. Ie no team sets the number.
I can only hope all Ruck and maul elvs would follow. :chin:

OB..
15-07-10, 18:07
I agree it made life easier for the referee, but it also restricted game tactics, so it was dropped. When I ran a poll on the ELVs, there was no consensus on this one.

nealed
15-07-10, 20:07
If the attcaking team shorten the lineout to 2 then they restrict the number the oppo can put into the lineout to 2
if the receiver is allowed BEFORE the throw to enter then 3v2
this does not seem right
if i suspect this i will ask the oppo player in receiver position if he intends to enter the lineoou before the throw and if he yes then i will allow the oppo to add another player if they wish

another way may be that if it happens then i will ask them to take it again and say not allowed

didds
15-07-10, 22:07
If the attcaking team shorten the lineout to 2 then they restrict the number the oppo can put into the lineout to 2
if the receiver is allowed BEFORE the throw to enter then 3v2
this does not seem right

indeed... which is why as ascertained above, when the receiver enters to make it 3 in the line one must drop out to be the new receiver - so 2 v 2.

didds

nealed
15-07-10, 23:07
indeed... which is why as ascertained above, when the receiver enters to make it 3 in the line one must drop out to be the new receiver - so 2 v 2.

didds

but it is not clear that a person in the receiver position prior to the ball being thrown in cannot legally enter the lineout before the throw in is performed
that is to say when is it that the receiver is actually determined to be the receiver?

didds
16-07-10, 00:07
but it is not clear that a person in the receiver position prior to the ball being thrown in cannot legally enter the lineout before the throw in is performed
that is to say when is it that the receiver is actually determined to be the receiver?


Arrr!

On page three of this debate i was told that WAS the case!

I give up!

didds

Davet
16-07-10, 00:07
Didds.

Sympathy.

The Law as written allows the receiver to enter the gap in the line before the throw.

Ruling 9 of 2009 turns this on its head.

In the US the official guidance is that the receiver IS allowed to enter before the throw, without having to swap places - ie they follow the Law as written.

In the UK, and I think everywhere else, the official guidance is to follow the Ruling, rather than the word of the Law - so a reciever may NOT join the line before the ball is thrown unless he swaps.

Personally I can see absolutely no rhyme nor reason to the Ruling, I think it is just plain daft - but there we are.

Now, when I eventually come into my birthright and rule the Galaxy things will change. Until then, just hang in there.

Dickie E
16-07-10, 04:07
I always find I'm checking the backs are onside while all the chinese fire drill stuff happens. You can't ping what you don't see. :wink:

nealed
16-07-10, 16:07
The receiver if he IS the receiver MUST be at least 3m from the lineout at the time the lineout begins ie when the ball is thrown
However a person in the receiver position MAY enter the lineout BEFORE the ball is thrown in
that means that he never was a receiver, but there is an EXTRA man in the attacking lineout and the oppo have not had the chance to respond that is they have had their numbers reduced by the oppo potentially anyway.
So the question is WHEN does the receiver become the receiver?, which does not then allow him to enter the line UNTIL the ball is thrown?
the best way seems to be to ask the person in the receiver position if he is a receiver

nealed
16-07-10, 16:07
Of course the receiver CAN enter the line if another player leaves to become the receiver

nealed
17-07-10, 18:07
Sharks v Bulls
50th minute ish
Ref checks receiver and makes sure he is back 2 m
then allows receiver to enter lineout before throw in
no-one leaves!!
no-one know how to ref this

Davet
17-07-10, 19:07
Then the ref followed the Law as written.

Yet another example of the elite game following the Law. Perhaps ruling 9 of 2009 that contradicts the law, and which was made prior to the extreme clarification offered by the 2010 Law rewite, is now dead in practice, at least among professionals?

If it is the I think that's a good thing.

nealed
17-07-10, 20:07
Ah no
because the exception you keep talking about related to the receiver not needing to be 2m or more from the lineout IF he enters the lineout
what happened was the ref explicitely asked the receiver to remain 2m from the lineout, so he confirmed that he was the receiver, but then allowed him to enter the lineout without another player leaving BEFORE the ball was thrown

OB..
17-07-10, 21:07
Perhaps ruling 9 of 2009 that contradicts the law, and which was made prior to the extreme clarification offered by the 2010 Law rewite, is now dead in practice, at least among professionals?

You do keep trying. Presumably just for the love of it?

You know perfectly well that the 2009 Ruling considered exactly the same wording as appears in the 2010 law book. The only difference from 2009 is that the Exception has been moved, but the IRB itself said that was a simplification. It made no mention of a change in the law or its interpretation.

Davet
17-07-10, 21:07
Ah well - at least the good refs seem to be taking note.

Phil E
21-07-10, 16:07
As well as ruling 9 we also have this:


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling7-2004
UnionSRU
Law Reference19
Date1 January '70

This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009
Request
The SRU has requested a ruling with regard Law 19-Touch and Line-out.

(1) Ruling 4:2004 states that a receiver can only enter a line-out after the ball has left the throwers hand. How can he support the jumper if the ball is already coming into the line-out?

(2) Ruling 4:2004 states that the receiver can change places with any player in the line-out prior to the ball being thrown. This is contrary to 1 above, where the receiver cannot move until the ball is thrown.

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
(1) After the line-out commences the receiver can enter the line-out, and is free to do that which is normally done by players in the line-out. The receiver's ability to support the jumper is not an issue in Law.

(2) Prior to the commencement of the line-out, participating players may change places. The participating players in a line-out are those that line up in the line-out, the thrower and his immediate opponent, and the two players waiting to receive the ball from the line-out. Who the "receiver" actually is, cannot finally be determined until the very moment that the ball is thrown in. Until that time the players standing in the normal #9 positions are merely participants and they can change their positions at any time until the ball is thrown.

For me that settles the argument and makes US Rugby wrong in their interpetation.

Davet
21-07-10, 18:07
Nah

The Designated Members, in 2004 and 2009 have been on the gin and can't read.

Until they correct their error I suppose we'll have to follow the idiocy they perpetuate.

OB..
21-07-10, 19:07
Or simply accept that they are making sense.

menace
22-07-10, 14:07
Seriously - regardng actually applying the rulings, where does one stand to that they can see both teams receivers, and whether they swapped before the lineout starts or moved into lineout after ball's left throwers hand..all the while watching jumpers for ball straight while keepin an eye on the offside lines? surely you're going to miss something - and particuylarly the receiver moving into the lineout before vs after the throw leaves the hand?

I'm wondering if I have my lineout check list right and in the order I should be doing it?

I typically stand at the front and open my stance to get the best widest view...but often when happy with lineouts I'll go to back and get in a position ready those quick backline moves.

(perhaps I should do a search on that for other threads...but i'm lazy and hoping someone can recite theirs here and now)

nealed
31-07-10, 12:07
Aust NZ
23 rd min lineout
NZ scrum half enters lineout before throw in at front
given ball
ref allows it
ARGHHH

Davet
31-07-10, 12:07
Aust NZ
23 rd min lineout
NZ scrum half enters lineout before throw in at front
given ball
ref allows it
ARGHHH


As I keep saying, this is allowed by the wording of the Law.

The old 2009 ruling seemed to prevent this, but it now seems clear that the elite referees are following the actual 2010 law book.

OB..
31-07-10, 13:07
As I keep saying, this is allowed by the wording of the Law.

The old 2009 ruling seemed to prevent this, but it now seems clear that the elite referees are following the actual 2010 law book.

And as I keep saying, the actual wording in the law has not changed, just its location. The IRB's own comments did not even hint at a change in the meaning, and the Ruling addressed the wording, so should still be valid.

If the Elite referees have been told to rule differently, then we should be told, not be left to try and work it out by observation (when many other factors come into play).

I see no point in arguing about it amongst ourselves. We need some kind of authoritative view.

nealed
31-07-10, 13:07
And as I keep saying, the actual wording in the law has not changed, just its location. The IRB's own comments did not even hint at a change in the meaning, and the Ruling addressed the wording, so should still be valid.

If the Elite referees have been told to rule differently, then we should be told, not be left to try and work it out by observation (when many other factors come into play).

I see no point in arguing about it amongst ourselves. We need some kind of authoritative view.

fully agree
at the moment i will ref it as i have previously said
the elites refs are reffing it differently and we need to know why
the law has not changed until we are told that it has

Davet
31-07-10, 15:07
Agreed as well - I will ensure that it is refereed by Hampshire refsw in accordance with the way the Society wants it done.

An I agree that we need to understand if the elite refs have been told to follow the word of Law, or the Ruling - which are in clear conflict.

Observation seems to indicate that the text of the Law is prevailing - but this needs sorting out properly.

Dickie E
31-07-10, 15:07
the way I saw it the SH entered at the same time (or almost) as the throw.

Dixie
31-07-10, 17:07
The old 2009 ruling seemed to prevent this, but it now seems clear that the elite referees are following the actual 2010 law book.


If the Elite referees have been told to rule differently, then we should be told, not be left to try and work it out by observation (when many other factors come into play). I don't think the elite boys have been told anything different for 2010. When Clancy reffed a recent Tri-Nations (SA v NZ? or SA v AUS), I screamed at the screen when he allowed Matfield to enter at the front from the receiver position before the ball had come in. The next time Matfield stood in that position, Clancy told him not to encroach until the ball had left the thrower's hands.

Perhaps they just can't be asked to waste a valuable PK on this offence. Has anyone considered a reference to Ask Ed?

nealed
31-07-10, 17:07
I don't think the elite boys have been told anything different for 2010. When Clancy reffed a recent Tri-Nations (SA v NZ? or SA v AUS), I screamed at the screen when he allowed Matfield to enter at the front from the receiver position before the ball had come in. The next time Matfield stood in that position, Clancy told him not to encroach until the ball had left the thrower's hands.

Perhaps they just can't be asked to waste a valuable PK on this offence. Has anyone considered a reference to Ask Ed?

yes he did say that to matfield
however he still allowed matfield to enter the lineout before the ball was thrown in

nealed
31-07-10, 17:07
the way I saw it the SH entered at the same time (or almost) as the throw.

he certainly was not at least 2 metres away at the time the ball was thrown in

nealed
29-08-10, 11:08
AT LAST
Matfield penalised for entering the lineout from SH position in Aust v SA game
We have the answer
you cant do it
hurrah

Davet
29-08-10, 12:08
Or perhaps this decision was the wrong one, and the several others were right?

Dickie E
29-08-10, 13:08
Or perhaps this decision was the wrong one, and the several others were right?

The decision was right - I've seen a recent email from P O'B that supports it.

Davet
29-08-10, 15:08
Perhaps you could forward that to the site?

I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to POB and challenge the ruling and his statement - both of which are in direct contravention to the Law as written.

Clearly utill the authorities correct this wrong ruling we are stuck with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Too few people seem to challkenge the rugby authorities who seem to think they are infallible, and that what they say goes regardless of the Law or common sense. I am getting irritated by their arrogant abuse.

nealed
29-08-10, 15:08
Perhaps you could forward that to the site?

I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to POB and challenge the ruling and his statement - both of which are in direct contravention to the Law as written.

Clearly utill the authorities correct this wrong ruling we are stuck with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Too few people seem to challkenge the rugby authorities who seem to think they are infallible, and that what they say goes regardless of the Law or common sense. I am getting irritated by their arrogant abuse.

it is not clear to me how they have been either arrogant or abusive, but i am sure that they are aware of the problem and will address it
i think that this thread has made it quite clear how we should interpret the current laws and has been very helpful in doing so

OB..
29-08-10, 15:08
I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to POB and challenge the ruling and his statement - both of which are in direct contravention to the Law as written.
In your opinion.

Why not send your view in to the SA refs site and get an answer from an international (or near) referee?

chbg
03-09-10, 22:09
SA Referees, Clip 4 as at 1 Sep, covers this:

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2632441.htm

The accompanying text states:

"The law says the receiver must be two metres away, where Matfield was. He then moved closer and eventually into the line-out. The law does not say when he may enter the line-out, but the International Rugby Board, whose main concern is the framing of the laws of the game, has ruled as follows:

Ruling 7 of 2004 (1) After the line-out commences the receiver can enter the line-out, and is free to do that which is normally done by players in the line-out. The receiver's ability to support the jumper is not an issue in Law.

And when does the line-out commence? When the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing it in."

1. They agree that the "law does not say when when he may enter the line-out"!
2. A bit behind the times referring to Ruling 4 of 2004 (which has supposedly been "incorporated into Law in 2009 - don't discuss) and not Ruling 9 of 2009.

Davet's right - does the LotG state what it means?!:nono:

nealed
05-09-10, 14:09
South Africa v Australia
beginning second half
clear call by Wayne Barnes
he asks for the lineout to be rethrown and clearly explains to Matfield that he cannot enter the lineout until the ball is thrown
very clear now what is expected

Dixie
05-09-10, 19:09
very clear now what is expected
it was very clear last week too, when Rolland insisted on the same thing. Either Matfield is a bit dim or the Boks are confident they won't get pinged for the first one, so may as well try it on at least once.

nealed
05-09-10, 20:09
it was very clear last week too, when Rolland insisted on the same thing. Either Matfield is a bit dim or the Boks are confident they won't get pinged for the first one, so may as well try it on at least once.

yes agree
mind you he was getting away with it initially
they have clearly clamped down on this
probably in response to this post

The Fat
06-09-10, 00:09
I think Matfield tried it more than once in Saturday's Tri-Nations game. I'm sure on another occassion I could hear WB holding up the line-out and explaining to Matfield that the way SA was starting at the line-out, they effectively had 2 receivers. Speaking of Matfield, how good was his chip and chase to set up that try right on half time?