PDA

View Full Version : LINEOUT ELVs BIG NEGATIVE STEP



ctrainor
22-08-08, 10:08
Do you think the new ELV’s reduce Line out options?

In my first game all lines out had 6 or 7 players in.

Attacking teams particularly those who were stuggling in line outs used to be able to use tactics and skill to outwit opponents using shortened line outs and planned moves.
In my playing days we used to score direct from shortened lineouts timing throws and runners shuffling.
Sadly I think this is now lost to the game and a massive negative step.

Dixie
22-08-08, 11:08
last season, my U.13 side used a 4-man line as a default option, sometimes varying to 2. This confused the opposition no end, and we waited ages for them to figure out who was staying and who going. This season, we will avoid forming a line until the last minute, keeping open the option of throwing to the huddle; we will probably have to attack with six or seven, but may well put in four jumpers when we defend, and perhaps sack the jumper to create a ruck. We will also put 10 and 12 into the lineout to get them 10m closer to their opposite numbers.

Actually, once people figure out all the options, I imagine we'll see more lineout innovation than for many years past. But it will be very different from the sort of ploys that have gone before.

Davet
22-08-08, 12:08
Raises an interestin question.

Previously if the throwing team huddled then came in for a quick throw we refs would either make 'em wait while the opposition adjusted numbers, or make sure they knew they would never get numbers called if the came in with fewer than 7.

Now there is no need to match numbers should the defenders still be given time to respond tactically to the actual number put in by the throwers?

As far as I know the law allowing that time to adjust numbers is still in force.

Davet
22-08-08, 12:08
We will also put 10 and 12 into the lineout to get them 10m closer to their opposite numbers.



So long as they all stay between 5 & 15 (or as adjusted for age), and don't leave the lineout until it's over.

I suspect that there may be some excitable youngsters who will try to break as soon as the ball is caught, and suffer the consequences.

OB..
22-08-08, 13:08
Now there is no need to match numbers should the defenders still be given time to respond tactically to the actual number put in by the throwers?

As far as I know the law allowing that time to adjust numbers is still in force.
The IRB ELV guide does not say that Law 19.7 (e) has been rescinded, but it says:
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.

Given ELV 19.7 (b), this law is automatically satisfied, so the team does not need time to move players out.

I can see a lot of teams delaying to see what the opposition is going to do. Mexican stand-offs will have a field day :D

chopper15
22-08-08, 22:08
Ref. Dixie; We will also put 10 and 12 into the lineout to get them 10m closer to their opposite numbers.

It seems such good sense I'm wondering why we haven't seen it yet on Tri Nats or in last weeks friendlies. Any coaches/fwds care to explain?

Ian_Cook
23-08-08, 13:08
Ref. Dixie; We will also put 10 and 12 into the lineout to get them 10m closer to their opposite numbers.

It seems such good sense I'm wondering why we haven't seen it yet on Tri Nats or in last weeks friendlies. Any coaches/fwds care to explain?

Because it sounds good in theory chopper, but it would be tactical stupidity. You may gain an advantage by bringing 10 & 12 up to the line-out, but you then restrict them to with 15m of touch, and they cannot leave until the ball leaves the line-out.

Lets say its reds throw to the line-out and blue bring up 10 & 12

Scenario 1: Red wins line-out with a 2 handed take and comes to ground to form a maul. 10 and 12 either join the maul or stay behind the hindmost foot. Red drives the maul away from the LoT. The remaining blue players come up, and blue has gained nothing.

Scenario 2: Red wins line-out with a 2 handed take and throw to the SH, who rifles a pass acrossfield to Red 10 beginning a passing movement where they will outnumber their opposing backs because 10 & 12 were up in the line and restricted to 15m from touch.

Scenario 3: Red wins line-out with a 2 handed take and throw to SH who chips over the top of the line out. 10 and 12 are up in the line, leaving only four players defending the chip kick. Very risky.

Scenario 4: Red line-out executes "peeling off" maneuver, wins line-out with a long throw just short of the 15m. As the ball is passed from the 15m line outwards to the advancing Red backline, they now outnumber their opponents who were restricted to the 15m line at the time the ball was passed.

All four scenarios above were seen in the ANZC "B" competition last year, played under the full ELV's. In almost every case, teams who tried "stacking" the line-out with backs came unstuck.

There is an old adage in rugby which is as true today as it ever was....

"The ball can be passed faster than a player can run"

chopper15
23-08-08, 14:08
You've convinced me ,Ian! Seemed a good idea at the time!

With ref to your "The ball can be passed faster than a player can run"

But, can you run faster without it?

ctrainor
24-08-08, 20:08
Bu it is the end of the 2,3 or 4 man attacking line do you agree??

Emmet Murphy
24-08-08, 21:08
It seems such good sense I'm wondering why we haven't seen it yet on Tri Nats or in last weeks friendlies. Any coaches/fwds care to explain?I think that tactic would be far more effective in junior rugby because there are far fewer catch and drives at that level; most lineouts end pretty quickly. At senior level it wouldn't work because you'd lose more than you would gain (for the reasons Ian gave).

ctrainor - maybe. You need to remember that it is still 15v15 so if the throwing in team calls a shortened line, the opposition can't put too many more in or else run the risk of leaving a huge overlap should the team throwing in win the ball. It'll certainly be different and players, coaches, and referees will need to be on their toes because new things will get tried. Some will be legal, some won't!

Ian_Cook
25-08-08, 03:08
Bu it is the end of the 2,3 or 4 man attacking line do you agree??

Not necessarily. Top level coaches in NH and SH pro rugby are cunning buggers. They will find a way to use short lineouts to their advantage.

In fact the law, as it is in the ELVs is actually a return to a similar law in force when I was a player and a referee. In those days, the throwing team set the length of the line-out; the number of players in it were not relevant. No player in the line-out was allowed to stand beyond the last player in of the team throwing in. So....

Red is throwing in, and they opt for a 4 man lineout, the Red 3 is on the 5m line and the back player (Red 7) is 10m in from touch. If the opposition wanted to stack the line-out with 10 players, they all had to fit between Red 3 and Red 7. Both back markers were allowed to go beyond (in this case, 10m) if the ball was thrown beyond the last player.

It was a much better Law all round. I don't know why they ever ditched it, but I think it went around 1996 (I think the Line-Out was Law 23 then).

Perhaps OB can shed some light.

OB..
25-08-08, 12:08
It was indeed Law 23.

1963 clear gap between lines
1964 at least 5 yards from the touch line
1973 2 feet between lines, 1 yard between players in each line, furthest player of throwing side <=15 yards
(1975 metrication)
1982 15 m limit, not furthest player
1983 throwing side sets numbers
1992 1m gap between lines

Ian_Cook
26-08-08, 11:08
Interesting OB.

I had thought I'd remembered the Law correctly?

In the early 1980's I was refereeing JAB rugby, so I wonder if there was a JAB variation in force. I remember (not very clearly) a discussion about Law 23 at a meeting of JAB referees, conducted by Laurie Mahoney (now deceased) who ran the JAB referees at that time. We were definitely told "the team throwing in sets the length of the line-out".

OB..
26-08-08, 15:08
In the early 1980's I was refereeing JAB rugby, so I wonder if there was a JAB variation in force. I remember (not very clearly) a discussion about Law 23 at a meeting of JAB referees, conducted by Laurie Mahoney (now deceased) who ran the JAB referees at that time. We were definitely told "the team throwing in sets the length of the line-out".
Up to 1982 that was true, but then the 15m line was brought in, and that became the limit.

(I am quoting from the RFU version of the law book, so there may have been variations elsewhere.)

Ian_Cook
26-08-08, 20:08
Up to 1982 that was true, but then the 15m line was brought in, and that became the limit.

(I am quoting from the RFU version of the law book, so there may have been variations elsewhere.)

Ok. So my point is, it was a good Law. You could have a short line-out and keep it physically too short for the opposition to stack too many players in there. Makes me wonder why they just didn't go back to that Law when removing the "numbers" requirement

ctrainor
28-08-08, 19:08
Helping my club at training last night they realised that the 4 or 5
moves we used to use for a 3 man line out are now finished.
Opposition can cancel almost any advantage out by putting 5 men in with the back "flanker" at 15M line ready to fire off at the stand off.
Pity really we used to sore tries from them :chin:

chopper15
29-08-08, 10:08
Helping my club at training last night they realised that the 4 or 5
moves we used to use for a 3 man line out are now finished.
Opposition can cancel almost any advantage out by putting 5 men in with the back "flanker" at 15M line ready to fire off at the stand off.
Pity really we used to sore tries from them :chin:


Hopefully, I'll be watching Pirates v Newbury on Sunday. It'll be interesting to see if the coaching has cottoned on to this apparent advantage.

The trend so far in the friendlies I've watched has been 9 standing in the trams on the other's throw, with no receiver in position . . . both sides doing it!

I'll also be watching to see if the ref warns the 'trammer' (tin mining name for the man working the line!) if he's standing within 2m zone, allbeit 2m from the front of his line. During the last game neither ref nor ARs didn't seem concerned . . . 'not interferring with play' perhaps?