PDA

View Full Version : Forming a lineout revisited



Dixie
25-08-10, 10:08
While we were contemplating issues arising from what were then Experimental Law Variations, we had a lengthy but unsatisfactory and partially unresolved discussion about when a lineout formed. Now that we've all operated under these laws for a while, I thought I'd revisit the unresolved part, and ask about this scenario:
Blue kick long into touch, and the ball continues to bounce for 15m along the touchline. Red #11 picks it up 15m furthe back than where the ball went into touch, and sees his team-mates #14 and #13 standing between the 15m and 5m lines, directly ahead of him (i.e. perpendicular to the touchline). Blue #14 and #13 arrive and position themselves next to the Red players, curbing Red's initial instinct to throw in to one of them. Seeing this, Blue #14 retires to take up his position at the lineout - upon which Red #11 throws the ball to Red 15, who is standing outside the 15m line three metres behind Red #11. All other players were advancing towards where this scenario was playing out, and there was no lineout formed where the ball went into touch.. Should the referee play on or blow his whistle? If the latter, what for - and under what law?

crossref
25-08-10, 11:08
I'll leap in first: assuming all this happens at a fast tempo, in a single 'flow' as described then play on. Blue need to stay more aware.

However if Red #11 had somehow fooled them by making an elaborate show of passing up the opportunity for a QT (eg put the ball down on ground, or turned his back, or put the ball under one arm and started walking toward line of touch) then I'd think about unsporting behaviour, depneding upon what I saw in front of me.

OB..
25-08-10, 11:08
Law 19,2 (c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed.

So we look at Law 19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
19.8 (n) Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.

So you cannot form a lineout at the point where the QT is being taken, only at the line of touch.

Davet
25-08-10, 21:08
Agree, no lineout formed. QT available so long as other requirements are met.

I note you carefully extended the distance by 15 to avoid confusion - in practice the problem will arise when it 1m longer... theoretically all remains as for 15m, but you just know how the comments will go...

crossref
26-08-10, 09:08
a secondary question from this scenario... how 'Q' does a QT have to be?

in the scenarios like the one above sometimes it can take quite some time before a lineout forms.. if the forwards are a long way away, knackered, it might be - let's say- 30sec before 2 from each team arrive, and stand in the right place on the LoT, to form a lineout

So, if it had looked like the opportunity for a QT was gone, everyone had then relaxed, and then 29sec later (still with no lineout formed) the opp arises again can the wily Red #11 now suddenly take it?

or has the ball somehow gone 'dead' like in cricket

didds
26-08-10, 10:08
seems to me that until the l/o has formed the QT is "on".

didds

tim White
26-08-10, 10:08
Everything fine for the QT still except Red 15 standing beyond the 15m line -but I may not think that too material at a QT situation (or I might):cool:

Simon Thomas
26-08-10, 10:08
and the longer the time taken to execute the QT, the less likely it will be "on" as the non-throwing side players get closer to the ball (but not in 5m channel of course :wink: ) and into midifield, and so cut down options resulting from a QT.

Hence we tend to see QT from longer kicks and those that end up close to the touch-line or are caught on the full.

I wonder if anyone has done a stats analysis on QT's taken, time lapse, distances etc ?

Dixie
26-08-10, 10:08
I'll leap in first: assuming all this happens at a fast tempo, in a single 'flow' as described then play on. Blue need to stay more aware.

However if Red #11 had somehow fooled them by making an elaborate show of passing up the opportunity for a QT (eg put the ball down on ground, or turned his back, or put the ball under one arm and started walking toward line of touch) then I'd think about unsporting behaviour, depneding upon what I saw in front of me.


a secondary question from this scenario... how 'Q' does a QT have to be?

in the scenarios like the one above sometimes it can take quite some time before a lineout forms.. if the forwards are a long way away, knackered, it might be - let's say- 30sec before 2 from each team arrive, and stand in the right place on the LoT, to form a lineout

So, if it had looked like the opportunity for a QT was gone, everyone had then relaxed, and then 29sec later (still with no lineout formed) the opp arises again can the wily Red #11 now suddenly take it?

or has the ball somehow gone 'dead' like in cricketCrossref, I sense that you feel it would be impolite and infra dig for the thrower-in to bamboozle the players "marking" the QT. I don't see this; a QT is "on" until the conditions for its possibility no longer exist. The markers need to know these conditions, and they need to be alert until they no longer exist. So if the thrower puts the ball down and steps away, he's perfectly entitled to then return to the ball and execute a QT if the conditions still exist. Equally, if he's dumied a QT, smiled at his oppo and then kept hold of the ball while stooping to tie his shoelace, the markers need to see this as a potential ploy to get them to leave. It's their responsibility to stay in the face of all temptation so long as the conditions for a QT exist. It's a thinking man's game - and thinking involves being alert to feints and deceits

crossref
26-08-10, 11:08
yes, you sense correctly :)

hmm - there's a line in rugby, isn't there, between being cute, and being unsportsmanlike.

for example I remember a thread about a team that pretended to be just swapping throwers at a LO, casually tossed the ball to the #1, and ha! ha! that was the throw-in - fooled you!. Most refs here said 'no', that wasn't on

and I remember a thread about taking a PK surreptitiously by toe-poking the ball as if you are rolling it ON to thethe mark, but actually ha! ha! that was the PK. And again people didn't like that.

QT - you're not actually allowed to dummy a LO throw.... but clearly people do dummy QTs and that is allowed. curious.

Dickie E
26-08-10, 11:08
y

QT - you're not actually allowed to dummy a LO throw.... but clearly people do dummy QTs and that is allowed. curious.

Good point. I guess a dummy at a lineout can fool the opposition into offending (ie early lift). There probably isn't a similar issue at a QT.

crossref
26-08-10, 12:08
good point.

but then a dummy pass can fool people into tackling a player without the ball.
(although, yeah, in that case there's a natural advantage gained :) )

Dixie
26-08-10, 13:08
QT - you're not actually allowed to dummy a LO throw.... but clearly people do dummy QTs and that is allowed. curious.
I think we need to remember that a QT is a very different beast from a lineout. You can't take a lineout throw with fewer than 4 players around; no such issue with the QT. A lineout throw must be straight - no such issue with the QT. At a lineout, all players within 10m of the line of touch must be inside the 15m line; no such issue with the QT. I see nothing in law preventing a dummy at a QT, and I largely try not to use unsportsmanlike conduct on the pitch except for the most egregious cases. We aim for consistency, but people's definition of "sporting" conduct will vary markedly. My old school chaplain used to penalise swearing as unsporting, and treated blasphemy as a sending-off offence.

I'm pretty sure that this is not one of those areas where 90% of people asked would agree that a dummy was unsporting (OB - before you ask, I don't have any evidence for that view). That being so, if I were in authority in a Society (fat chance!), I'd be reluctant to have my referees take their own stance on this.

crossref
26-08-10, 15:08
what if you
- eye up to take a QT
- moment passes
- toss the ball to the floor
- everyone relaxes
- say 'hi' to a supporter on the touchline and chat for five seconds
- both teasm start to drift toward the LOT where the lineout will form...
- but it hasn't formed yet
- then you suddenly pick up the ball again and take the QT

OK it's an extreme example, I know, but if that it unsportsmanlike, then I guess there is a line somewhere which we would know/judge when we saw it.

Dixie
26-08-10, 16:08
OK it's an extreme example, I know, but if that it unsportsmanlike I'd view that as acceptable. I may be out on limb though - what do others feel?

crossref
26-08-10, 17:08
I am thinking that if the thrower seemed to be
- QT?
- naah, not worth it
- hey! hang on,.. here's a chance!
then it's OK

but if it all seemed like an elaborately staged/rehearsed deception I'm tempramentally against it.

Simon Thomas
26-08-10, 18:08
That being so, if I were in authority in a Society (fat chance!), I'd be reluctant to have my referees take their own stance on this.

I am in authority in a Society, and always am reluctant - consistency is paramount, whether it comes from a benign dictatorship or a anarcho-syndicalist commune

tim White
26-08-10, 20:08
"all players within 10m of the line of touch must be inside the 15m line; no such issue with the QT.:confused: I see nothing in law preventing a dummy at a QT, " :confused:

Dixie
26-08-10, 21:08
"all players within 10m of the line of touch must be inside the 15m line; no such issue with the QT.:confused: I see nothing in law preventing a dummy at a QT, " :confused:
:confused:

Not Kurt Weaver
26-08-10, 21:08
"all players within 10m of the line of touch must be inside the 15m line; no such issue with the QT.:confused: I see nothing in law preventing a dummy at a QT, " :confused:

I've been dormant the past 3 months, but have to chime in here. I agree that a QT is not a lineout, but 19.7 discusses an incorrect throw at a LO and (b) forbids pretending. The very next paragraph is the beginning of L/O at its definitions, so by sequence one could figure that 19.7 covers all throws from touch.

That writ, I'd allow a dummy QT unless the crafty little prick is a wiseass about it.

didds
27-08-10, 00:08
I'd view that as acceptable. I may be out on limb though - what do others feel?

works for me too Dixie. Oppo shouldn't take their eye off the ball.

didds

crossref
27-08-10, 10:08
dummies are defintiely de facto allowed for a QT - in fact you often see players making to do a QT, testing the oppos, and changing their mind as they do it it, realising the oppo are indeed alert.

which may not be a deliberate dummy, but is effectively the same thing (certainly you'd peep a LO thrower who made to throw and then changed his mind, even if it wasn't deliberate, it has the effect of a dummy).

Simon Thomas
27-08-10, 10:08
As previous posters have said a QT is different to a line out, and a dummy is perfectly legal (and we see if it a lot if the thrower decides at the last minute that it isn't "on".

Howver unsportmanlike behaviour is not acceptable.

crossref
27-08-10, 10:08
so... returning to my scenario if player sized up a QT, then shrugged, tossed the ball down to the ground, feigned indifference..

...and then suddenly picked the ball back up and took a QT

would that be clever play? or unsportsmanlike?

Davet
27-08-10, 15:08
so... returning to my scenario if player sized up a QT, then shrugged, tossed the ball down to the ground, feigned indifference..

...and then suddenly picked the ball back up and took a QT

would that be clever play? or unsportsmanlike?

Perfectly legal.

Why would it be unsporting?

I think we need to understand more clearly what sporting behaviour actually means. It is really about behaving in the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter.

But there is no problem with trying to fool the opposition - indeed that's a huge part of what makes the game exciting and fun. Players need to be awake.

Dickie E
27-08-10, 22:08
To me 'unsportsman' like is where a player, through deceit, attempts to get an opponent to commit an offence (eg dummying from base of scrum, dummying lineout throw, etc.)

Dummying a QT doesn't do that.

tim White
28-08-10, 09:08
Just let me get this clear in my head, the general feeling is that the QT is on/off/on is legitimate deception. BUT dummying the throw at a QT seems to be the same as dummying the throw at a normal line-out to me.

Simon Thomas
28-08-10, 10:08
so... returning to my scenario if player sized up a QT, then shrugged, tossed the ball down to the ground, feigned indifference..

...and then suddenly picked the ball back up and took a QT

would that be clever play? or unsportsmanlike?

no problem, more fool the oppo for relaxing.

No Tim, a dummy at a QT is totally different to one at a pre-set nornal line out; the biggest one being the formal line-out dummy is a specific offence in the LoG 19.7 (b).

beckett50
29-08-10, 19:08
Unless of the lineout has formed at the correct place; bearing in mind what the LotG says about players approaching the LoT

tim White
30-08-10, 11:08
Cornish Hat ON/ So if you had a QT with one opposition player at the place of the QT with any number of throwers team mates you would still allow dummying the throw -even if it suckered the individual into miss-timing his attempt to catch the ball? I am not convinced the law quoted is exclusively for formal lineouts and I (along with half the players and half the crowd -who are already turning ugly) fail to see the equity if it is actually so./Cornish Hat OFF :Nerv:

Simon Thomas
30-08-10, 11:08
Cornish Hat ON/ "Penalty to us" Cornish Hat OFF/

ctrainor
30-08-10, 11:08
I'd allow a dummy at a QT, used to do them myself before it was trendy!!

Dickie E
30-08-10, 11:08
Consider:

Blue kick from inside 22 and ball crosses touchline on Red 10 metre line. The Red winger, standing in touch, bats the ball back into FoP towards his own goal-line and the ball crosses the 5 metre line. Is this a successful QT?

OB..
30-08-10, 12:08
Law 19.7 (c) The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.

At a QT there is no lineout.

OB..
30-08-10, 12:08
Consider:

Blue kick from inside 22 and ball crosses touchline on Red 10 metre line. The Red winger, standing in touch, bats the ball back into FoP towards his own goal-line and the ball crosses the 5 metre line. Is this a successful QT?

Definitions
Throw-in: The act of the player who throws the ball in to a scrum or lineout.

Since there is no lineout at a QT, apparently this definiton does not apply. :)

The only possible objection would seem to be that batting the ball is not throwing it. Nonetheless I would allow it. It is well within the spirit of the law.

Enrique
30-08-10, 17:08
The only possible objection would seem to be that batting the ball is not throwing it. Nonetheless I would allow it. It is well within the spirit of the law.

I second OB's judgement. Requiring a "throw-in-as-per-the-handbook" seems a bit pedantic.

Dickie E
31-08-10, 07:08
I second OB's judgement. Requiring a "throw-in-as-per-the-handbook" seems a bit pedantic.

Would we look for intent here? If the batter was clearly trying to stop the ball from going into touch - would that make a difference?

OB..
31-08-10, 12:08
As usual there is a range of possibilities.

(1) Player standing well in touch chooses to bat the ball backwards to a team mate standing the other side of the 5m line. No problem.
(2) Same scenario but he does not hit it cleanly and it does not go 5m. He took the risk and failed under 19.2 (e).
(3) Player standing in the field of play bats the ball backwards into the field of play. Ball was never in touch.
(4) Player thinks he is standing in the field of play and bats the ball backwards into the field of play. Ball was in touch when he played it. You could argue that (1) or (2) applies, but I would go with intent and disallow a QT.

There is a case for deciding that it is simpler to disallow taking a QT by batting the ball, but it would encourage faster play. In any case, it is likely to be rather rare because of the risks.

Phil E
31-08-10, 12:08
(4) Player thinks he is standing in the field of play and bats the ball backwards into the field of play. Ball was in touch when he played it.

Only if it had crossed the plane of touch :nono:

Dixie
31-08-10, 16:08
Only if it had crossed the plane of touch :nono: AND the player was incorrect in thinking that he was standing in the field of play; alternatively, that the player was in the air at the time of the bat, and landed in touch. Otherwise, the player is actually standing in the field of play and bats back into the FOP a ball that has crossed the plane of touch. Such a ball is not and was not in touch.

OB..
31-08-10, 18:08
Only if it had crossed the plane of touch :nono:

Next time I'll cross all the i's and dot all the t's for you :D

Phil E
31-08-10, 21:08
Next time I'll cross all the i's and dot all the t's for you :D

I would expect nothing less from you OB :wink:

Dickie E
01-09-10, 12:09
I would expect nothing less from you OB :wink:

Can pick fly shit out of pepper, that man :D