PDA

View Full Version : [Line out] does thrower need to be on his feet?



Dickie E
30-01-16, 19:01
Saw this today and made me wonder.

Player is tackled into touch. Tackler takes ball from tackled player and, whilst in touch and on his knees, takes QTI.

In light of "rugby is a game for players on their feet", was the QTI legal?

Rushforth
30-01-16, 19:01
Nice one.

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place.

There is nothing in 19.2 mentioning standing or not, just that the correct place would be "the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball would be thrown in from a formed lineout and the player’s goal line".

Nothing wrong with taking the ball from the tackled player whilst still on the ground himself, since it isn't in the field of play. But just as a quick tap penalty MUST leave the hands/move through the mark, the player should not be getting away with shortcuts.

ChrisR
30-01-16, 21:01
I think that the primary requirement are: The player is not in the FOP, the ball goes beyond the 5m and not toward the opponents goal.

I certainly wouldn't drag a sentence out of the definitions of Law 14 as a reference. "Play on!"

L'irlandais
30-01-16, 23:01
...I certainly wouldn't drag a sentence out of the definitions of Law 14 as a reference. "Play on!"how about from
15.4 (c)
The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.forget the quick throw, he first has to get to his feet before he can even think about taking the ball from the tackled player. Only then once he has the ball can he consider taking a QT.

- - - Updated - - -Na Madraí brought up something similar 14 months ago.
We didn't get consensus then, I doubt we will this time around. Sadly seems to be the nature of these forums in the post Robbie Burns era.

Dickie E that the action made you wonder, suggests it looked wrong to you at the time.

Rushforth
30-01-16, 23:01
I certainly wouldn't drag a sentence out of the definitions of Law 14 as a reference.

Except it isn't being dragged, it was posted in quotes.

My reference from Law 19 (Touch and Lineout) is clear about "standing in the correct place". Now I've been overly literal in my comprehension of the laws before, and still consider "toward the opponents goal" very ambiguous.

Standing is not that ambiguous. It can include a step, perhaps, but not "travelling". Nor sitting, nor being on one hand and two knees. Bum or two knees on the ground is not "standing".

Law 14 needs to be strictly enforced against tacklers not "on their feet" or "standing", because it is a safety issue. Taking a quick throw in has no such safety issues. It can even be considered to help continuity of play. That said, "play on" is anything but fair contest in the scenario being discussed, which is just as important.

L'irlandais
30-01-16, 23:01
Rushforth it was Dickie E who mentioned Law 14 in his post.
It is about ball on ground, no tackle. So Marauder is suggesting a tackle situation is one where it does not apply.

The Fat
31-01-16, 00:01
Dickie E that the action made you wonder, suggests it looked wrong to you at the time.

This.
I would not allow a player who is off his feet to take a QTI.
Some will argue there is nothing to say he can't take the QTI whilst on his knees, I would argue there is nothing to say he can. Convention tells us a player needs to be on his feet to play the ball (other than a tackled player or a player who has gone to ground to gather a ball).
The action of throwing the ball whilst on his knees does not get a mention in 19.2(e), so I would simply disallow the QTI and form a lineout with the same team to throw in with a word to the "kneeler" that "You have to be on your feet when you throw the ball in"

menace
31-01-16, 12:01
We didn't get consensus then, I doubt we will this time around. Sadly seems to be the nature of these forums in the post Robbie Burns era.
.

*thread jack alert*

IMO, What a strange thing to say?
I don't think I ever experienced Robbie as the Chief Judge of all questions to try and achieve or impose a consensus - and I doubt he ever set out to do so. I think you're asking too much to get consensus from a forum population full of people that are independently minded.
If you wanted consensus on every rugby issue then you best pose them to WR and wait for their expert response (from the 12 year old law drafter :rolleyes::rolleyes: ):biggrin::biggrin:

menace
31-01-16, 13:01
This.
I would not allow a player who is off his feet to take a QTI.
Some will argue there is nothing to say he can't take the QTI whilst on his knees, I would argue there is nothing to say he can. Convention tells us a player needs to be on his feet to play the ball (other than a tackled player or a player who has gone to ground to gather a ball).
The action of throwing the ball whilst on his knees does not get a mention in 19.2(e), so I would simply disallow the QTI and form a lineout with the same team to throw in with a word to the "kneeler" that "You have to be on your feet when you throw the ball in"

sorry Fat - I would totally disagree with you about your phrase of only written in the laws can it be allowed. If the laws don't specifically outlaw it then it must be permitted...

I remember the first time I saw a hooker throw it with just the one hand...it didn't look right to me cause it wasn't like all the other hookers doing it with 2 hands and above their heads. Nothing in the law that says he can use one hand only. Did that make it wrong? Of course not. But by your reasoning someone might interpret that it's not right.
Also the first time I saw a hooker drop his hands a throw it with a spiral pass....didn't look like a proper throw in either but nothing in the laws that says he may use a passing action to pass...so does that make it illegal?

Edit: However I would ensure they are on their feet for the throw because the law requires it.

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place

Paule23
31-01-16, 14:01
- - - Updated - - -Na Madraí brought up something similar 14 months ago.
We didn't get consensus then, I doubt we will this time around. Sadly seems to be the nature of these forums in the post Robbie Burns era.

Dickie E that the action made you wonder, suggests it looked wrong to you at the time.

What's the big problem with not getting a consensus? Frequently the laws aren't very clear, and the debates on here allow me to clarify my thinking and even if the forum doesn't come up with a definitive agreed solution, the debate allows me to form my own conclusion which I Can then apply confidently.

I think the forum would be a much duller place without disagreement, although I must admit I do wish these disagreements were handle a little more politely at times.

On this topic, play on for me. Frankly who cares if he's on his knees?

Blackberry
31-01-16, 18:01
We don't need to arrive at a consensus, it would be different if we were a deciding body. Then we would have to hear all the arguments, then armed with those reach the best decision. But where the law is not clear, it is entirely appropriate to put our views into the pot. listen to others' then leave it at that.

On a similar tack, I strongly believe WR should use us as a kind of Crowd Sourcing. First off, we often highlight where the laws do not allow a consensus, thereby enabling WR to swiftly identify areas to address. Second, why don't they run law changes / clarifications past us first? We would be happy to examine them...almost forensically... and WR would be free to take on board or ignore anything we come up with, but it would give the proposals another thorough examination before they become official.

Dickie E
31-01-16, 21:01
Dickie E that the action made you wonder, suggests it looked wrong to you at the time.

Not really. I see things that look unusual and wonder about them, that's all.

OB..
01-02-16, 00:02
My feeling is that the thrower should be on his feet, but I cannot convince myself that the referee has any remedy if he isn't.

Ian_Cook
01-02-16, 02:02
This.
I would not allow a player who is off his feet to take a QTI.
Some will argue there is nothing to say he can't take the QTI whilst on his knees, I would argue there is nothing to say he can. Convention tells us a player needs to be on his feet to play the ball (other than a tackled player or a player who has gone to ground to gather a ball).
The action of throwing the ball whilst on his knees does not get a mention in 19.2(e), so I would simply disallow the QTI and form a lineout with the same team to throw in with a word to the "kneeler" that "You have to be on your feet when you throw the ball in"

... as Vinnie Munro would say... "its Rugby 101 - play the game on your feet!"

Dickie E
01-02-16, 03:02
... as Vinnie Munro would say... "its Rugby 101 - play the game on your feet!"


I'll see Vinnie next weekend. I'll seek his view.

menace
01-02-16, 04:02
My feeling is that the thrower should be on his feet, but I cannot convince myself that the referee has any remedy if he isn't.

Is 19.6 not convincing enough for you that the referee Can require it? If not, what would be the mitigating factor to negate its use?

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

The sanction is as per incorrect throw in...ie scrum/throw in option to opposition.

Was 'stand' used to ensure thrower on their feet otherwise the word 'be positioned' could/would have been used?

Not arguing - just wondering why this law would not specifically indicate thrower must be on their feet to take the throw?

Dickie E
01-02-16, 04:02
Is 19.6 not convincing enough for you that the referee Can require it? If not, what would be the mitigating factor to negate its use?

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

The sanction is as per incorrect throw in...ie scrum/throw in option to opposition.

Was 'stand' used to ensure thrower on their feet otherwise the word 'be positioned' could/would have been used?

Not arguing - just wondering why this law would not specifically indicate thrower must be on their feet to take the throw?

Since that law was written we have seen the ongoing evolution of the QTI that kinda means that anything goes as long as same ball, doesn't touch another person, travels 5 metres, is behind LoT and isn't thrown forward.

Ian_Cook
01-02-16, 05:02
I'll see Vinnie next weekend. I'll seek his view.

Well, you can remind him that his ref-mike recorded him saying that to Conrad Smith when Smith tried rolling along on the ground with the ball.

Ian_Cook
01-02-16, 05:02
Is 19.6 not convincing enough for you that the referee Can require it? If not, what would be the mitigating factor to negate its use?

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

The sanction is as per incorrect throw in...ie scrum/throw in option to opposition.

Was 'stand' used to ensure thrower on their feet otherwise the word 'be positioned' could/would have been used?

Not arguing - just wondering why this law would not specifically indicate thrower must be on their feet to take the throw?

Remember that the Laws were originally written when a formal line-out was the only option after the ball went into touch. QTI's didn't come into the game until the 1970's

menace
01-02-16, 07:02
Remember that the Laws were originally written when a formal line-out was the only option after the ball went into touch. QTI's didn't come into the game until the 1970's

Agree...but that one is in the 'touch' section immediately following the QTI being introduced and before the 'lineout' section? :shrug:
This suggests a linkage....surely (even for the 12 yo law drafter!)

Camquin
01-02-16, 09:02
If I were allowed to redraft the laws, I would move the statement 'The game is to be player by players on their feet' from the definitions of law 14 to the first sentence of law 7. I might also move law 7 to be law 1 so we start with the description of the game and not the technical stuff. But until then we have to make sense of the laws as the are.

However, I would say that even though the tackled player went into touch, the tackler is still bound by 15.4(b) and that comes before the technical offence against 19.6. But of course a tackle has to occur in the field of play, so maybe it doesn't. In the past this was not an issue, you went into touch and you had a line out. We are told in 19.2(i) that the tackled player must release the ball to allow the quick throw - if we thought the laws had been systematically edited we would have to assume that as 19.2 does not mention the tackled player then there are no obligations on them. But we know that is not the case - so we have to guess what the law makers intended.

OB..
01-02-16, 11:02
Is 19.6 not convincing enough for you that the referee Can require it? If not, what would be the mitigating factor to negate its use?

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

The sanction is as per incorrect throw in...ie scrum/throw in option to opposition.

Was 'stand' used to ensure thrower on their feet otherwise the word 'be positioned' could/would have been used?

Not arguing - just wondering why this law would not specifically indicate thrower must be on their feet to take the throw?19.2 For a quick thrown-in, the player may be anywhere ...
19.6 The player taking the throw-in must stand ... 19.2 could have said "stand" but didn't. Perhaps the point did not occur to the lawmaker, but it does seem to be covered. I distrust subtle inferences in most cases, but maybe this is an exception? Enough to cause doubt, anyway.

The Fat
01-02-16, 11:02
A player kneeling on the ground is as much off his feet as one who is laying on the ground or is sitting on the ground.
Hands up all those referees on here who would allow a player who is sitting on his bum to grab the ball and throw it back into the field of play for a QTI.
Then after you put your hand up, go into the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror and then say to yourself, "Really?":confused::wow:

didds
01-02-16, 12:02
I remember the first time I saw a hooker throw it with just the one hand..
Edit: However I would ensure they are on their feet for the throw because the law requires it.

19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place


WRT to throw in with one hand... I used to play against a hooker with only one arm back in the 80s. ..

and wrt
19.6 How the throw-in is taken
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place

then you'd also not permit a player making a QTI on the run - you wold expect at least a momentary total stop?

didds

menace
01-02-16, 12:02
WRT to throw in with one hand... I used to play against a hooker with only one arm back in the 80s. ..

and wrt

then you'd also not permit a player making a QTI on the run - you wold expect at least a momentary total stop?

didds

Maybe? :shrug:

But 'stand' by definition does not require it to be stationary?

didds
01-02-16, 12:02
Maybe? :shrug:

But 'stand' by definition does not require it to be stationary?


We'll have to agree to disgaree about that then ;-)

If your legs are moving your body then I would claim you cannot be "standing". But its pointless semanr=tics really :)

FWIW I suspect the 12 year old law maker used stand because he hadn;lt actually considered that somebody wouldn;t actually be upright ever.

didds

menace
01-02-16, 12:02
We'll have to agree to disgaree about that then ;-)

If your legs are moving your body then I would claim you cannot be "standing". But its pointless semanr=tics really :)

FWIW I suspect the 12 year old law maker used stand because he hadn;lt actually considered that somebody wouldn;t actually be upright ever.

didds
Fair enough.

I was just trying to find a law that backs up that the QTI thrower should be on their feet....maybe I'll just let it play on as there seems no justification at all. Though I'll be coaching my kids to be in their feet!:wink:

crossref
01-02-16, 13:02
I think i'd NOT allow a QTI from a kneeling player. But because it's not clearly covered by the Law I'd be likely to let them keep the lineout throw-in . I think it's an oddity rather than an offence : same as if a player standing on the touchline were to accidentally drop the ball into Field of Play, or absently mindedly toss the ball to the hooker who is approaching to take the lineout. I wouldn't treat those as a QTI, either correctly or incorrectly taken -- we'll just have the lineout.

Paule23
01-02-16, 13:02
A player kneeling on the ground is as much off his feet as one who is laying on the ground or is sitting on the ground.
Hands up all those referees on here who would allow a player who is sitting on his bum to grab the ball and throw it back into the field of play for a QTI.
Then after you put your hand up, go into the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror and then say to yourself, "Really?":confused::wow:

Yes, really.

SimonSmith
01-02-16, 14:02
So it isn't explicitly and unambiguously expressed in law, although many of us are making a very reasonable inference from the language of the law. I would never make a referee down for insisting on a thrower being on his feet.

It strikes me that when in the field of play, we ask a player who has effected a tackle to get to his feet before taking any further action in the game. The only exception to this is 14.1:

a)A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:



Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.

Here's how I would see it:
If you make a tackle and go to ground out of the field of play, then you must get to your feet before throwing it.
If you leave your feet (sliding gather of the ball, for example), then I would be OK with the ball being thrown in from the ground, consistent with the premise of "pass the ball"

L'irlandais
02-02-16, 08:02
*thread jack alert*

IMO, What a strange thing to say?
I don't think I ever experienced Robbie as the Chief Judge of all questions to try and achieve or impose a consensus - and I doubt he ever set out to do so. I think you're asking too much to get consensus...menace,
I didn't suggest that Mr. Burns ever tried to impose consensus, nor do I ask for consensus.
I simply said we didn't get it last time and surprise, surprise won't this time. The OP is about ball carrier tackled into touch. Law 15 applies before any QT can be taken. The tackler taking the ball from the tackled player, without ever regaining his feet is not part of the game. The QT is not on, and I like the suggestion of calling play back for the line out.


My point is that the absence of the founder member is palatable. The forum is missing something more than his 1000 posts a year, along with his countless articles. There are others who post far more often, with less effect than Robbie.

Why is it odd to bring up "the Elephant NOT in the room"?

Pegleg
02-02-16, 08:02
menace,
I didn't suggest that Mr. Burns ever tried to impose consensus, nor do I ask for consensus.
I simply said we didn't get it last time and surprise, surprise won't this time. The OP is about ball carrier tackled into touch. Law 15 applies before any QT can be taken. The tackler taking the ball from the tackled player, without ever regaining his feet is not part of the game. The QT is not on, and I like the suggestion of calling play back for the line out.


My point is that the absence of the founder member is palatable. The forum is missing something more than his 1000 posts a year, along with his countless articles. There are others who post far more often, with less effect than Robbie.

Why is it odd to bring up "the Elephant NOT in the room"?

Well this is what you posted...


We didn't get consensus then, I doubt we will this time around. Sadly seems to be the nature of these forums in the post Robbie Burns era.

It is odd to bring it up if it has no relevence to the debate. Yo upoint out that there has never been consensus and then claim it to be the nature of the POST RB era. Well it it was ever thus the reference to the post RB era is nonsense.

Pegleg
02-02-16, 09:02
Remember that the Laws were originally written when a formal line-out was the only option after the ball went into touch. QTI's didn't come into the game until the 1970's

Here's the rub!

The QTI came in and no one at the IRB gave the question of a player sitting on the floor or "standing" on one knee a second thought. Hence we have inadequate law.

Personally I'd be inclined to say no QTI in the scenario in the OP. However, I'm not the final word on law. So...

My solution?

Ask your society for a "ruling" and at least you will have a standard approach for clubs in your area and not inconsistency from week to week. Of course we could try and get an official ruling from WR but would that make anymore sense that what we havw now?

Camquin
02-02-16, 09:02
I suspect it means no one has tried doing this in a senior international for the last 40 years.
If they had we would probably have had a 'clarification'

crossref
02-02-16, 10:02
I suspect it means no one has tried doing this in a senior international for the last 40 years.
If they had we would probably have had a 'clarification'

agreed, and we might wait a long time for that -- it's not the sort of thing that you would set out to do, it's not going to happen very often.

didds
02-02-16, 10:02
i'd think a clarification of whether a tackle ending up outside the FoP still counts as a tackle wrt getting to feet etc. is more likely to be required

didds

menace
02-02-16, 11:02
menace,
I didn't suggest that Mr. Burns ever tried to impose consensus, nor do I ask for consensus.
I simply said we didn't get it last time and surprise, surprise won't this time. The OP is about ball carrier tackled into touch. Law 15 applies before any QT can be taken. The tackler taking the ball from the tackled player, without ever regaining his feet is not part of the game. The QT is not on, and I like the suggestion of calling play back for the line out.


My point is that the absence of the founder member is palatable. The forum is missing something more than his 1000 posts a year, along with his countless articles. There are others who post far more often, with less effect than Robbie.

Why is it odd to bring up "the Elephant NOT in the room"?

You did intimate that consensus was arrived at when Robbie was a constant....
Pegleg sums it up....vv

Well this is what you posted...



It is odd to bring it up if it has no relevence to the debate. Yo upoint out that there has never been consensus and then claim it to be the nature of the POST RB era. Well it it was ever thus the reference to the post RB era is nonsense.

ChrisR
02-02-16, 12:02
The event described in the OP is not likely to be seen again by any of us so debating ad nauseam with the object of arriving at a forum consensus on how to handle the incident isn't worth expending my precious bandwidth except .......

It raises three larger issues.

1. How broadly should "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." be applied? Should it be written into law 7 and universally applied or addressed where appropriate?

2. When situations occur that not specifically covered in the Laws what should be the response? Is the default to play on or to try to make a call?

3. How critical is uniform application of Law? Does some variation lead to improvement of the game?

crossref
02-02-16, 13:02
2. When situations occur that not specifically covered in the Laws what should be the response? Is the default to play on or to try to make a call?



neither really, it depends.

I went to a talk by Wayne Barnes once and he talked about making the 'safe' decision.
By which I would say he meant (my words not his) the decision that has people nodding their heads, or shrugging, rather than the decision that leads to red-faced outrage.

Here I would say the safe decision is '"peep, Nice try, but no you need to be on your feet to do a QTI, we'll just have a line out"

so you disallow the QTI attempt, but don't penalise it.

Pegleg
02-02-16, 14:02
The event described in the OP is not likely to be seen again by any of us so debating ad nauseam with the object of arriving at a forum consensus on how to handle the incident isn't worth expending my precious bandwidth except .......

It raises three larger issues.

Agreed. But it does make for an interesting discussion.



1. How broadly should "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet." be applied? Should it be written into law 7 and universally applied or addressed where appropriate?

For me this should be at the core of our game. It should be applied at the ruck! where the players are supposed to be on their feet! Ho Ho Ho!




2. When situations occur that not specifically covered in the Laws what should be the response? Is the default to play on or to try to make a call?

We need to strive for an equitable / common sense call. We all have society meetings and after the event we do need to thrash these anomilies out to try and close gaps where possible.




3. How critical is uniform application of Law? Does some variation lead to improvement of the game?

As far as possible consistant interpretation of law is needed. That is why I suggested we need to talk in our own society meetings so that we have as consistant an approach as possible in our areas at least.

Players will at least know what they can legitimately expect from us.

OB..
02-02-16, 15:02
As far as possible consistant interpretation of law is needed. That is why I suggested we need to talk in our own society meetings so that we have as consistant an approach as possible in our areas at least.Agreed.

"When is the ball out of the ruck?"
I hear this at just about every pre-match briefing. I also used to hear a wide variety of answers. This was raised at a society meeting last season and this season the standard answer is along the lines of "two hands and lifted".

Phil E
02-02-16, 15:02
Agreed.

"When is the ball out of the ruck?"
I hear this at just about every pre-match briefing. I also used to hear a wide variety of answers. This was raised at a society meeting last season and this season the standard answer is along the lines of "two hands and lifted".

So if a player in the SH position lifts the ball off the floor with one hand it's not out?

Thunderhorse1986
02-02-16, 15:02
I always say "hands on the ball and off the floor, or ball clear of the back foot" - people can interpret that how they want I guess but I've never had any problems with it. I don't specify "both" hands for the reason you mention.

didds
02-02-16, 15:02
Agreed.

"When is the ball out of the ruck?"
I hear this at just about every pre-match briefing. I also used to hear a wide variety of answers. This was raised at a society meeting last season and this season the standard answer is along the lines of "two hands and lifted".

I woudhope that when all referees provide the same answer at PMBs for long enough the message will sink in and the question will stop.

But all the time the asker (presuambly the #9!) is given a different answer from different referees i would imagine the questions will continue.

Its a bit chicken and egg really

didds

crossref
02-02-16, 17:02
I woudhope that when all referees provide the same answer at PMBs for long enough the message will sink in and the question will stop.

But all the time the asker (presuambly the #9!) is given a different answer from different referees i would imagine the questions will continue.

Its a bit chicken and egg really

didds

I thought the IRB cleared that up ?

When a scrum half attempts to retrieve the ball from a ruck, the ball is not out until that player has picked the ball up from the ground.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=7

why isn't everyone giving that answer

OB..
02-02-16, 21:02
So if a player in the SH position lifts the ball off the floor with one hand it's not out?Any SH who tries to lift it one handed is asking for trouble. I have never felt the need to deal with a one-handed lift.

I suppose it could technically occur briefly if a SH is digging for the ball one-handed .... De minimis non curat lex.

menace
03-02-16, 04:02
I thought the IRB cleared that up ?

When a scrum half attempts to retrieve the ball from a ruck, the ball is not out until that player has picked the ball up from the ground.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=7

why isn't everyone giving that answer
Because they're wrong....:shrug:
I'm still waiting until is picked up AND/OR clear of bodies in the ruck.
(And of course when the birdy poops on it..:buttkick::biggrin::pepper::Looser::rolleyes:)

*sits back and watches the debate start all over again......:biggrin::biggrin:

crossref
15-02-16, 21:02
My point is that the absence of the founder member is palatable. The forum is missing something more than his 1000 posts a year, along with his countless articles. There are others who post far more often, with less effect than Robbie.

Why is it odd to bring up "the Elephant NOT in the room"?

Robbie may be lost to us here on the forum -- but he's still alive and well - and active - on twitter where he is the voice of rugbyrefs.com

https://twitter.com/RugbyRefscom

Rolomoto
21-07-16, 20:07
I have a question related to the original that I can't find an answer: where does the thrower have to stand at a lineout? The reason I'm asking is I often see them with their feet on the TL (TL squarely beneath their feet, w/ heels in touch and toes in the field of play), is this legal?

Pegleg
21-07-16, 21:07
They should not be in the field of play. but let's not be pedantic if they err slightly. Manage it.

Law 19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step
into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it
travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches
or is touched by a player.

Dickie E
21-07-16, 22:07
as long as some part of both feet is on or over touchline I am OK

OB..
22-07-16, 10:07
6.B.5 (d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge or assistant referee must lower the flag, with the following exceptions:

Exception 1: When the player throwing in puts any part of either foot in the field of play, the touch judge or assistant referee keeps the flag up.This is a more stringent requirement than Law 19.

In practice, as long as the thrower has both feet on the touchline, nobody complains.

Pegleg
22-07-16, 12:07
In practice, as long as the thrower has both feet on the touchline, nobody complains.

Unless it is the "other" side throwing in.

OB..
22-07-16, 13:07
Unless it is the "other" side throwing in.Why bother? It is only going to come back to bite you when it is your turn!

Pegleg
22-07-16, 15:07
Why bother? It is only going to come back to bite you when it is your turn!

Totally agree but they still do it.