PDA

View Full Version : aus v sa matfield as receiver



nealed
05-09-09, 13:09
Aus v sa
4 man line out with matfield in receiver (SH) position
enters lineout BEFORE put in
obviously planned but surely illegal

comments?

ddjamo
05-09-09, 15:09
game clock time? would like to see it.

Bryan
05-09-09, 15:09
Did South Africa drop a player back to the receiver position? If so, this is not illegal.
EDIT
49:50 - Matfield steps in, nobody leaves.

Dixie
05-09-09, 17:09
SA have been doing this and getting away with it throughout the tri-nations.

nealed
05-09-09, 21:09
SA have been doing this and getting away with it throughout the tri-nations.

i know but is this not illegal
receiver entering line before throw in, or is it seen that they have no receiver and matfiels just completing the lineout formation
just does not seem right

ddjamo
05-09-09, 21:09
49:50 on the game clock? august 29 match?

Bryan
05-09-09, 22:09
i know but is this not illegal
receiver entering line before throw in, or is it seen that they have no receiver and matfiels just completing the lineout formation
just does not seem right

It is illegal. Before the ball is thrown in, participating players can change positions. However, the receiver CANNOT enter without someone leaving to take up the position of a receiver.

It was clear that he was a receiver, and it was clear that he entered before the ball was thrown in, with nobody stepping out to replace him.

DDJamo: September 5th match (today).

nealed
05-09-09, 22:09
It is illegal. Before the ball is thrown in, participating players can change positions. However, the receiver CANNOT enter without someone leaving to take up the position of a receiver.

It was clear that he was a receiver, and it was clear that he entered before the ball was thrown in, with nobody stepping out to replace him.

DDJamo: September 5th match (today).

yes amazing he got away with it
i thought wayne barnes had quite a good game, but that particular annoyed me somewhat

Ian_Cook
06-09-09, 00:09
Does a team have to have a receiver?

I thought it was optional


LAW 19.15 PLAYER THROWING-IN

(d) The thrower may move into the receiver position if that position is empty.
If the thrower goes anywhere else, the thrower is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line

So, for the receiver position to be empty, the receiver has to have gone somewhere.

Where, if not joining the line out?


LAW 19 DEFINITIONS
Players taking part in the lineout known as participating players. Players
taking part in the lineout are the player who throws-in and an immediate
opponent, the two players waiting to receive the ball from the lineout and the
lineout players.


Since the receiver is already participating in the line-out, it would be difficult to justify a PK/FK for joining something he is already, under Law, participating in.

Donal1988
06-09-09, 01:09
Ian, Law 19.8 (f) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least two metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team mates who are lineout players and between five and fifteen metres from the touchline until the lineout begins.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

ddjamo
06-09-09, 01:09
ian: clear distinction between lineout players and participating players. participating players do include lineout players - but lineout players are exclusive and defined by themselves.

OB..
06-09-09, 01:09
As I read it, the law does not cover the point. You do not need to have a receiver, but if you do, he must be two metres away from the lineout players. However the law does not say when this applies. It would seem that the laws about the actual formation are only to be checked when the ball is thrown in.

The receiver for the non-throwing side cannot enter the lineout because that would (usually) be a numbers violation. However there is nothing to say the throwing side cannot add their receiver. 19.8 (d) prevents them from reducing their numbers after forming the lineout, but there is nothing about increasing them.

OB..
06-09-09, 01:09
ian: clear distinction between lineout players and participating players. participating players do include lineout players - but lineout players are exclusive and defined by themselves.
Law 19.12 (c) Players may change their position in the lineout before the ball is thrown in.

"Players" is not further defined.

Ruling 9 of 2002 (which I claim is still valid) says this allows the receiver to change places with a lineout player. It does not say that this is the only way the receiver can enter the line.

Ian_Cook
06-09-09, 01:09
i thought wayne barnes had quite a good game, but that particular annoyed me somewhat

I was not impressed with his scrum management. He allowed too much to go on before he took control

I also thought his application of the advantage Law, particularly from Penalty Advantage, was less than satisfatory.

OB..
06-09-09, 01:09
Donal, that does not say you must have a receiver - it just says where he must stand if you have one. Note the difference in 19.8 (j) "The team not throwing in MUST have ..." (my emphasis).


Also Ruling 7 of 2004: "
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.

Dickie E
06-09-09, 02:09
I also thought his application of the advantage Law, particularly from Penalty Advantage, was less than satisfatory.

Ian, can you be specific please?

Ian_Cook
06-09-09, 03:09
Ian, can you be specific please?

About the 70th minute.

Barnes played advantage to Australia for a head high tackle, 35m out from the South African goal-line, directly in front of the posts; a near certain 3 points. A few seconds later, the Wallabies knocked the ball on only 20 metres closer, and he awards a scrum with opposition feed. This is NOT sufficient advantage in those circumstances.

Advantage means tactical and territorial. For advantage to really be advantage, the non-offending team must get something that is at least as good, if not better than what they had before the offence/infringement, otherwise its not an advantage.

In this case, what they had was a shot at goal, 35m out directly in front of the posts. At elite level, that is a gimme. If what they get is not at least as good as or better than that, the game should come back for the PK. In this case, the Wallabies had to score a try otherwise there was no advantage.

You might argue that a 5m scrum attacking feed could be an advantage, but a scrum 15m out with defending team feed definitely is not.

Likewise, his decision would have been acceptable if he was playing "scrum" advantage, but not for "penalty" advantage, where the benefit to the non-offending team, be it tactical or territorial, has to be greater.

Dickie E
06-09-09, 03:09
I'll have a look. If it is as you descibe, I agree with your comprehensive explanation.

Bill Lee
06-09-09, 12:09
Not quite correct Ian, (P.17) The high tackle in the 71st minute was followed by a good Australian attack down the left wing which was stopped short about 7 to 8m out from the SA line. The ball went forward in the tackle and that's where the resulting scrum took place. (not 15m out)

With regard to a penalty advantage, if the infringement was within kicking distance of the posts then I would expect the referee to return to award the penalty. A territorial gain, following a call of "Advantage - penalty" I am also not in favour of unless it be considerable and offers a possible tactical advantage. ie, a scrum 7m out depending on if the attacking side are dominating at that time.....in the opinion of the referee.

There was a possible tactical advantage to Australia in the scrum as they had been dominant in the scrums prior to this incident & on the SA feed. However, this would be irrelevant if the referee had called advantage over...albeit too early.

In my opinion there were three incidents in the game , this being one of them, where I as a non-panel or non-International referee, would have disagreed with Wayne Barnes. but then, I was only an armchair referee at this game and despite 2 of these incidents, which would have resulted in a Penalty and a Free kick against Australia I thought the referee performed well.

Ian_Cook
06-09-09, 13:09
Not quite correct Ian, (P.17) The high tackle in the 71st minute was followed by a good Australian attack down the left wing which was stopped short about 7 to 8m out from the SA line. The ball went forward in the tackle and that's where the resulting scrum took place. (not 15m out)

Fair enough. Initally I had the impression it was 15m out, but I went back and looked agan and it is about 7m out. Still not enough advantge IMO to be called better than what they had


With regard to a penalty advantage, if the infringement was within kicking distance of the posts then I would expect the referee to return to award the penalty. A territorial gain, following a call of "Advantage - penalty" I am also not in favour of unless it be considerable and offers a possible tactical advantage. ie, a scrum 7m out depending on if the attacking side are dominating at that time.....in the opinion of the referee.


As I said, I would have had no beef if he was playing "scrum" advantage.

Also, if the head high had happened, say, on the Aussie 22, and ended up with same 7m out defending team throw-in, that IMO would be sufficient territorial advantage for a call of advantage over.

ddjamo
06-09-09, 14:09
As I read it, the law does not cover the point. You do not need to have a receiver, but if you do, he must be two metres away from the lineout players. However the law does not say when this applies. It would seem that the laws about the actual formation are only to be checked when the ball is thrown in.

The receiver for the non-throwing side cannot enter the lineout because that would (usually) be a numbers violation. However there is nothing to say the throwing side cannot add their receiver. 19.8 (d) prevents them from reducing their numbers after forming the lineout, but there is nothing about increasing them.

19.8(b) ????

now I am confused.

in thinking this through...cannot find law stating how many lineout players is the max? could a team put 10 players between the 5m and 15m?

Bryan
06-09-09, 15:09
Ian/Bill,
I have a hard time with folks wanting to return back to the Place of Infringement after a 25m run. I saw the incident and thought "damned if you do, damned if you dont".

This idea of returning to the place of infringement if the PK is makeable is NOT a good rule of thumb at the top level. If it's their 5m scrum or my 40m PK, I'll take either!

It's one of those "2 bites of the cherry" issues, and the incident in yesterday's game was a prime example of a 50/50 call...but that's just me.

Thought Barnes reffed the best game I've seen him in to date. Really had no issues, and heck Kearnsy and co also thought he did a good job!

dave_clark
06-09-09, 16:09
I was not impressed with his scrum management.

crouch touch pause in?

ctrainor
06-09-09, 16:09
I was specifically asked about Matfield before my game Saturday.
Sorry guys didn't see sky match however go through your routine.
2 man line, Ball in throwers hand ready to throw, receiver runs in before ball is thrown and is lifted.
That's illeagal I said. Line out numbers are set and receiver must be 2M away.
They accepted my interpretation which I beleive was correct.
but of course they said Mattfield did exactly that this morning and no penalty.
Well we all know there are different laws for the elite!!!:nono:

Bill Lee
06-09-09, 20:09
Ian. (P.20) No disagreement.

Bill

Bill Lee
06-09-09, 20:09
Brian...P.22
the application of Penalty advantage and Scrum advantage are entrely different.

If a penalty advantage is called then then the non offending side are looking for a tactical advantage and a 25m territorial gain is certainly not that with the throw in to the line or scrum handing the advantage right back to the offending side.

By returning for the penalty the non offending side can decide to kick for the posts, kick for touch or run it. Going back to the "old days" when the referee's arm went out with the call of advantage the call from a player or players would be "FREE BALL" when most sides would run it. knowing full well they could go back for the penalty if the screwed up.

I would love to spend more time on this but am trying to conclude a report.
I am sure that there will be others who can expand on this area.

Bi

Ian_Cook
06-09-09, 21:09
It's one of those "2 bites of the cherry" issues, and the incident in yesterday's game was a prime example of a 50/50 call...but that's just me.


Green committing a foul play offence is hardly the first bite of the cherry for Gold!! This was supposed to be a penalty advantage. If a team commits a penalty, for example, directly in front of the posts, they would be punished for defending well, and rewarded for defending poorly and giving 20 or so metres.

I reiterate. An advantage from a penalty MUST be at least as good if not better than what the penalty was worth, otherwise the advantage is not worth having.

Ask yourself if this exact same scenario was transplanted with a head high tackle on a Wallaby 10m out in front of his own posts, and ending up with a scrum to South Africa 35m from the Wallaby line. Would you still think that was a fair advantage, given that if you went back for the penalty, it would likely be a line-out near half-way with a Wallaby feed.

Whenever I played advantage from a penalty, I would always think "Is this better than what they had?"

►If yes then advantage over
►If no or undecided, go back. to the PK

OB..
06-09-09, 21:09
19.8(b) ????
I quoted 19.8 (d) which says you cannot leave a lineout once you have formed it (except under 19.8 (e)).

See also my #15.


in thinking this through...cannot find law stating how many lineout players is the max? could a team put 10 players between the 5m and 15m?
Ireland once put everybody except the receiver and thrower in a 5m lineout.

ddjamo
06-09-09, 22:09
I posted 19.8(b) because it was worth noting that the throwing in side sets the maximum. wouldn't that require them to commit to a number prior to the throw? wouldn't the receiver joining after "deciding the maximum" be contrary to 19.8.b?

chopper15
07-09-09, 15:09
Donal, that does not say you must have a receiver - it just says where he must stand if you have one. Note the difference in 19.8 (j) "The team not throwing in MUST have ..." (my emphasis).


Also Ruling 7 of 2004: "
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.



2009. LoG now state; The receiver must stand at least two metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are lineout players and between five and fifteen metres from the touchline until the lineout begins. (Bold now added)

And to complicate matters even more they changed the opp. thrower's terms of reference which now states; There are four options available to the player throwing in (and the thrower’s immediate opponent). (Bold now deleted)

The opp. thrower during the ELV trials could move into the receiver position if it was vacant on the throw-in. Must he stay at his 'fixed' position now until the ball is put into play?

Bryan
07-09-09, 15:09
Bill & Ian.

In general I'm on your side, but Ian I do think things change closer to the opposition goal line. A 20 metre gain from the 22m to 2m from the try-line is a LOT different (relatively) than a 20m gain from one 10m line to the other..

In the incident above, the key point is that the turnover occurred. Losing possession after 25 metres is not something accepted at the the international level to conclude a PK advantage has been gained. in particular b/c the Australian lineout was crap and has little chance of winning ball on a Springbok throw.

Davet
07-09-09, 17:09
With respect to the reciever joining the lineout then he can only do so after the ball has been thrown, law is quite specific. It also allows players to exchange places before the ball is thrown - eg 3 and 5 in line may swap places - and 6 and receiver may swap places - but if there is no swapping of place - then it's illegal.

Matfield was in receiver position, he had cearly adopted the position, and the requirement for the position being 2m from line of players is to enable the ref to identify who is the reciever - or that there is not one. Once identified as reciever then before the line out begins he can change places with another lineout player - potentially including the thrower, who is also a lineout player (but I would be surprised to see it happen). But he cannot simply join the line, if he does that then he is no longer in the required receover position, and is penalisable.

As for advatage - then I do have sympathy with Ian's view, if the PK would be a fairly straightforward attempt on 3 points then the tactical or territorial advantage has to be pretty damn good. If they won a scrum or line out 7m out, then I may well go with that, but if the opposition got the put-in then I would probably be tempted to go back to the kick.

At a low level I may even ask the captain if he wanted his kick or their throw, if the ball is dead we have a second spare.

Probably not at international, though;)

nealed
07-09-09, 20:09
so was what matfield did illegal?
i think it was do we have a concensus?
there does seem to be some dispute (OB)

OB..
07-09-09, 23:09
I'm inclined to change my view and lean towards Matfield being illegal, but I am not comfortable with it. At what stage do you decide who is the receiver? The Ruling clearly said you could not tell until the ball was thrown in. Has that bit been over-ridden by the new law?

Here's another fine mess you have got me into, Stanley.

nealed
07-09-09, 23:09
i think that this needs another law clarification

chopper15
07-09-09, 23:09
And with the opp. thrower's terms of reference now withdrawn, can he vacate his 'fixed' position?

OB..
07-09-09, 23:09
And with the opp. thrower's terms of reference now withdrawn, can he vacate his 'fixed' position?
I think we have to assume he can, because that makes better game sense.

Ian_Cook
08-09-09, 03:09
I can see a time in the not too distant future where the whole line-out Law will be completely revised. It is far too complicated as it is now.

Perhaps they could have two defined "line-out boxes" for each team from 0.5m to 2m either side of the LoT, and running from the 5m to the 15m line

► Throwing in team sets the maximum numbers in their box, opposition same or less in theirs

► Both team's players can go where they like inside their own box, it theyt step out they're offside

► the thrower and the trammer can enter their own box any time after the ball is thrown.

This would dispense with Laws 19.8 (i), (j), (k),(l), (m) and (n)

Lee Lifeson-Peart
08-09-09, 09:09
Perhaps they could have two defined "line-out boxes" for each team from 0.5m to 2m either side of the LoT, and running from the 5m to the 15m line



Won't it spoil the game waiting for the groundsman to come on and mark the lineout boxes before every lineout?

FlipFlop
08-09-09, 09:09
Won't it spoil the game waiting for the groundsman to come on and mark the lineout boxes before every lineout?

You just need a moveable set of plastic lines that each AR carries, and puts down when he puts the flag up, and the LO is marked.

chopper15
08-09-09, 17:09
I’ve followed these threads with interest, and would very much appreciate someone putting me right on the participating players individual ambit.:hap:

Participating Players: Thrower, Receiver (optional), Opp. Thrower (mandatory) and Opp. Receiver (optional)

Thrower: On immediate throw; can act as or replace receiver, join LO, move into own tramlines or retire 10m if receiver present.
Receiver: Prior to throw; can interchange/join LO. After immediate throw can receive, join LO, or move within own TL/15m ‘box’.

Op. Thrower: On immediate throw; can act as or replace receiver, join LO, remain ‘unfixed’ in own tramlines or retire 10m if receiver present.
Op. Recvr: Prior to throw; can interchange/join LO within limit restriction. After immediate throw can receive, join LO, or move within own TL/15m ‘box’.:Nerv:

Dixie
08-09-09, 18:09
I’ve followed these threads with interest, and would very much appreciate someone putting me right on the participating players individual ambit.:hap:

Participating Players: Thrower, Receiver (optional), Opp. Thrower (mandatory) and Opp. Receiver (optional) and Lineout Players (mandatory)
Thrower: On immediate throw; can move into the receiver position if it is empty, join LO, move into own tramlines (staying behind the offside line) or retire 10m if receiver present. [Note: he may not act as a peeling player, unless doing so as a receiver]
Receiver: Prior to throw; can interchange/join LO Not in my book. If the line is set, he may interchange. If he wants to join all the existing lineout players, he must wait until the ball has been thrown.. After immediate throw can receive, join LO, or move within own TL/15m ‘box’.As I understand it, he can't move into the tramlines without first going back 10m, as he's then offside (assuming a ruck/maul forms, and stays within the 5-15m lineout zone)

Op. Thrower: Must stand 3m from touch and 2m from LOT. On immediate throw; can act as or replace absent receiver, join LO, remain ‘unfixed’ in own tramlines behind the offside line or retire 10m if receiver present.
Op. Recvr: Prior to throw; can interchange/join LO See comment re defensive receiver, above within limit restriction. After immediate throw can receive, join LO, or move within own TL/15m ‘box’. :Nerv: See above for comments about moving into the 5m channel Some red comments for you.

chopper15
08-09-09, 23:09
Just glanced at your comments, Dixie. Looks very thorough.

Will now read and digest.:hap: Very grateful. Thanks.

voice of reason
09-09-09, 02:09
You just need a moveable set of plastic lines that each AR carries, and puts down when he puts the flag up, and the LO is marked.

Easy - digitally render directly onto the field with a high power laser projector!! Anyone stepping through the beam would of course be burnt but this would reduce off-side play

Greg Collins
09-09-09, 10:09
Ireland once put everybody except the receiver and thrower in a 5m lineout.

but today they could do without a receiver and legally put 14 in the line. Might be a bit cosy and you'd have to be damn sure of winning it with all that space out wide.....

Dixie
01-03-10, 23:03
I think the receiver's options have been changed from 1 January. Has this been flagged as a change?

In September, the LoTG absolutely required that the receiver should remain 2m back from the lineout players until the ball left the thrower's hand:
(i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least two metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are lineout players and between five and fifteen metres from the touchline until the lineout begins.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line The 2010 LoTG now seems to permit him to encroach for the purposes of entering the line:
(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.As I read this, the ability to run into the gap and act as a lineout player is an exception from the requirement that he must remain 2m back until the ball is thrown.

This was not flagged up as a change in the iRB's 13-page 090611 SG Law Book Review, nor has it been highlighted in comms from my Society (which, in turn, have been informed by iRB and RFU comms). Have I been wandering around with my head in the clouds on this issue?

OB..
01-03-10, 23:03
In 2009 the Exception was in 19.11. It has simply been moved. No change in the law.

ctrainor
02-03-10, 08:03
The receiver can't move until the ball is thrown, thats how I ref it amd i right??

Ian_Cook
02-03-10, 09:03
The receiver can't move until the ball is thrown, thats how I ref it am i right??

AIUI, the receiver cannot move within 2m until the ball is thrown. However, he can move up an down the line-out as much as he likes

Dixie
02-03-10, 11:03
The receiver can't move until the ball is thrown, thats how I ref it amd i right??


AIUI, the receiver cannot move within 2m until the ball is thrown. However, he can move up an down the line-out as much as he likesI don't see how the views above square with the idea of there being an exception to the normal rule that the receiver must stay 2m back until the ball is thrown. The exception applies when the receiver runs into the gap; accordingly, if that is happening the receiver surely is not required to adhere to the normal 2m rule.

So we are reffing it wrong (mea culpa, and I suspect most others too)!

Dixie
02-03-10, 11:03
In 2009 the Exception was in 19.11. It has simply been moved. No change in the law.OB, I disagree. The old 19.11 was very broad, and mostly addressed the backs:
In general, a player not taking part in a lineout 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. While the wording is the same, the emphasis is totally changed by the relocation. While the above was in force, we debated long and hard and concluded that the requirement to stay back 2m until the ball was thrown trumped the option to enter the line. Consequently, if a receiver entered at the front of the line, we'd ping him because he couldn't get there legally, restricting his entry option to the back.

What we see now is that the exception is a very specific exception to the 2m rule, rather than a rather weird exception to the 10m requirement for non-participants.

Ian_Cook
02-03-10, 11:03
I don't see how the views above square with the idea of there being an exception to the normal rule that the receiver must stay 2m back until the ball is thrown. The exception applies when the receiver runs into the gap; accordingly, if that is happening the receiver surely is not required to adhere to the normal 2m rule.

So we are reffing it wrong (mea culpa, and I suspect most others too)!


19.11 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PLAYERS NOT IN THE LINEOUT
In general, a player not taking part in a lineout 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.

Neither of the exceptions apply until the ball is thrown.

Under exception1, I cannot imagine any referee allowing a player 10m back to run up to the line of touch before the ball is thrown in anticipation of it being thrown over the 15m, so why would you allow a player under Exception 2 to the same law to move before the ball is thrown?

TheBFG
02-03-10, 12:03
Guys my 2p worth

the receiver can swap with a player in the line, before the ball is thrown. As a receiver he is covered by the laws of the LO and therefore can changes places with any other player, but this must happen before the ball is thrown.

So receiver enters the LO and another player drops out, as long as the "new" receiver is 2m from the LO before the ball is thrown i'm happy.

while we're on this subject, "receiver" stood 6-7m from LO, happy with that?:chin: Had this on Sunday, it' just looks messy and wrong, but any laws covering it?

Dixie
02-03-10, 12:03
Ian, you are referring to the old 19.11, and I agree with you. The new 19.8 creates an exception to the law about where the receiver may stand before the ball is thrown. It is thus an unannounced change in law.


BFG, I hear your opinion, which relies on 19.8(k).
(k) Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown. What I don't see is any view on whether the receiver may encroach within 2m before the ball is thrown, in order to enter the lineout. If you have a view that differs from mine, are you able to square it with the new 19.8(i)?

TheBFG
02-03-10, 12:03
Ian, you are referring to the old 19.11, and I agree with you. The new 19.8 creates an exception to the law about where the receiver may stand before the ball is thrown. It is thus an unannounced change in law.


BFG, I hear your opinion, which relies on 19.8(k). What I don't see is any view on whether the receiver may encroach within 2m before the ball is thrown, in order to enter the lineout. If you have a view that differs from mine, are you able to square it with the new 19.8(i)?

19.8i

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.

my bit in bold,

so if he makes the change before the throw i.e. before the LO begins, no issue?

OB..
02-03-10, 13:03
It is thus an unannounced change in law.

The IRB does not think so. Their comment on this move are:

Move 19.11 Exception 2 to 19.8(i)
Delete remainder of 19.11 as it is incorporated into the new 19.15


The current law is spread over diverse sections and paragraphs. The amendments provide for greater clarity, simplicity and reduce duplication.

I think the situation is fairly straightforward.
Before the lineout begins the receiver (if there is one) must be clearly identifiable by being at least 2m from the lineout players, and less than 10m from the line of touch.

He can change places with a player in the lineout before the ball is thrown.

The exception allowing him to join the lineout does not spell out that this applies only after the lineout has begun, but it does not make sense otherwise.

Dixie
02-03-10, 13:03
19.8i

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.

my bit in bold, Let's complete the provision:
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. as this is an exception to the general rule telling the receiver where to stand, it surely means the general rule does not apply if the receiver is running into the gap. What else can it mean?


The IRB does not think so. Their comment on this move are:

Move 19.11 Exception 2 to 19.8(i)
Delete remainder of 19.11 as it is incorporated into the new 19.15


The current law is spread over diverse sections and paragraphs. The amendments provide for greater clarity, simplicity and reduce duplication.This suggests that the iRB disagreed with our majority interpretation of how to apply the ELV - i.e. that a receiver entering the line at the front was to be penalised as Usain Bolt in disguise, whereas a receiver entering at the back may be legal.


I think the situation is fairly straightforward.
Before the lineout begins the receiver (if there is one) must be clearly identifiable by being at least 2m from the lineout players, and less than 10m from the line of touch.

...The exception allowing him to join the lineout does not spell out that this applies only after the lineout has begun, but it does not make sense otherwise.OB, I'm confused as to why you think it makes no sense. Why is it nonsensical to allow the receiver to encroach within 2m before the throw-in in order to make clear that he is entitled to enter at the front as well as at the back of the line? I don't see that entitlement as a bizarre one for the lawmakers to enact, and if they intended to do so, they needed to ensure that refs wouldn't ping him for a technical offence that gets in the way of him doing that.

Equally, the exception is not a provision allowing him to join the lineout. It is provision stipulating that the normal rules about where he must stand do not apply if he chooses to join the lineout. There's a big difference. The wording simply does not support your interpretation.

Tryer
02-03-10, 13:03
I'm confused!!!!! We use the following move at a LO, let me know if legal or not and then I think I'll have grasped it....... it will then help me when I'm with the whistle rather than a coach.

Shortened LO to 4, front player on the 5m, receiver 2m back from LO. All 4 playesr step back 2-3 paces before ball is thrown. Ball is thrown in as receiver runs into the space vacated at the front of LO, who then hopefully catches. This is an U14 team but that shouldn't make any difference as we're all short thoughout the club so trying to be innovative......

ctrainor
02-03-10, 13:03
if he runs in when the ball is thrown, fine, if he comes in before, offside, penalty, though i would reset and warn first time it happens to time it right especially at youth level

Dixie
02-03-10, 13:03
Shortened LO to 4, front player on the 5m, receiver 2m back from LO. All 4 playesr step back 2-3 paces before ball is thrown. Ball is thrown in as receiver runs into the space vacated at the front of LO, who then hopefully catches. This is an U14 team but that shouldn't make any difference as we're all short thoughout the club so trying to be innovative...... This was exactly the situation that led to my checking the new laws. The forwards coach of my U.15 team needs to win some ball against an upcoming team of giants, and he wants to use precisely your move.

In 2008/9 under the ELVs, we as refs had mostly decided that this was illegal, as the receiver couldn't make it into the line in time to catch the ball without first encroaching within 2m. Most competent refs you'll find will still adhere to this view, as there was no notification of any change in law. At U.14, however, you may well find refs for whom the ELVs were an inconvenience not really to be embraced, adn such refs will remember your move from their own playing days and see nothing wrong in it.

To that group of unaware refs who will allow it, you might also now add a small group of alert refs who read the new laws, and see that there is an exception to the requirement that the receiver stands 2m back. That exception is when the receiver is running into the gap to join the lineout. If those refs take the obvious wording of the new law ahead of what the more experienced ref is able to divine from seeing it evolve, then they may also allow your move as legal.

However, the majority of referees will operate as though the ELV still applies, and penalise your move because the receiver is not quick enough to cover 2m from a standing start before the ball can cover 6.

TheBFG
02-03-10, 14:03
Let's complete the provision: as this is an exception to the general rule telling the receiver where to stand, it surely means the general rule does not apply if the receiver is running into the gap. What else can it mean?

but do you agree that the receiver is part of the LO?

if yes then:

(k) Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown

Applies surely:chin:

Tryer
02-03-10, 15:03
Thanks Dixie....... we also have a similar move where the last LO player starts at the 15m and and the receiver is stood 2m back from the first receiver. They all step forward and the ball is thrown long as they are moving and the receiver then runs around the back. Not quite as effective but varies it a bit. Reading previous posts this appears fine as the ball has further to travel etc and the receiver is unlikely to have moved until the ball is thrown. Seems more preventative to innovation if it can't be used at the front.

Of course the other alternative to the above, which we have used to good effect is the front player of the LO runs forward to receive the throw, hopefully catching his oppo of guard. He is then supported by the receiver and hooker.

We'll keep using the first one posted until we're picked up on.

Of course the other side of the coin is that I now coach one way which may not be legal and when with the whistle could be potentially picking a team up for something that I coach my team to do....... double standards or what!!!!

Davet
02-03-10, 15:03
BFG - yes no problem - 1 in = 1 out - before the ball is thrown - fine.

So the ploy discussed above would be fine if say the rear player in the 4 man line stepped 2m out as the 9 ran in at the front just before (or simultaneoulsly with) the ball being thrown.

The issue is when no-one steps out of the line.

We were generally agreed that the 9 cannot simply join the line UNTIL the ball was thrown. That now seems in doubt due to amended sequencing of Laws, which read literally show an exception to the requirement to remain 2m away until lo begins, if 9 joins line

TheBFG
02-03-10, 15:03
BFG - yes no problem - 1 in = 1 out - before the ball is thrown - fine.

So the ploy discussed above would be fine if say the rear player in the 4 man line stepped 2m out as the 9 ran in at the front just before (or simultaneoulsly with) the ball being thrown.

The issue is when no-one steps out of the line.

We were generally agreed that the 9 cannot simply join the line UNTIL the ball was thrown. That now seems in doubt due to amended sequencing of Laws, which read literally show an exception to the requirement to remain 2m away until lo begins, if 9 joins line

Davet, we've agreed on this one before, others just need convincing:=

OB..
02-03-10, 15:03
OB, I'm confused as to why you think it makes no sense.

The point of having the receiver 2m back is to avoid confusion over numbers in the lineout. The throwing team sets the maximum and if their receiver is allowed to run into the lineout before the ball is thrown, he is increasing that maximum without the opposition having a reasonable chance to respond.

Dixie
02-03-10, 15:03
but do you agree that the receiver is part of the LO?

if yes then:

(k) Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown

Applies surely:chin:


Davet, we've agreed on this one before, others just need convincing:= BFG - no-one needs convincing. I re-introduced the thread to discuss the receiver running into the gap per 19.8(i). You answered by saying what is allowed under 19.8(k) - perfectly permissible and all fine, but nothing to do with 19.8(i), and thus nothing to do with the thread. I've maintained the focus on 19.8(i) rather than following your deviation - which you've taken as indicative of disagreement with your view on 19.8(k). 19.8(k) is incontrovertible, and not at issue. Why not let it drop, and focus back on 19.8(i)?

TheBFG
02-03-10, 15:03
BFG - no-one needs convincing. I re-introduced the thread to discuss the receiver running into the gap per 19.8(i). You answered by saying what is allowed under 19.8(k) - perfectly permissible and all fine, but nothing to do with 19.8(i), and thus nothing to do with the thread. I've maintained the focus on 19.8(i) rather than following your deviation - which you've taken as indicative of disagreement with your view on 19.8(k). 19.8(k) is incontrovertible, and not at issue. Why not let it drop, and focus back on 19.8(i)?

(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

The receiver can be any member of the LO and until the ball is thrown the LO hasn't begun.

So if the player stood 2m from the LO swaps with another player in the LO that is fine because the LO has yet to begin. Once the LO begins IF you have a receiver they must be 2m from the LO:wink:

How's that sound?

Dixie
02-03-10, 15:03
The point of having the receiver 2m back is to avoid confusion over numbers in the lineout. The throwing team sets the maximum and if their receiver is allowed to run into the lineout before the ball is thrown, he is increasing that maximum without the opposition having a reasonable chance to respond.Surely if he does this before the ball is thrown, he gives the opposition more chance to respond than if he does it after the ball is thrown? If your logic is to be followed, OB, the receiver should be prevented from entering the line at all - which clearly contradicts 19.8(i), where the exception specifically mentions it, from which we may infer that it is legal. The implication is that the logic is unreliable.

OB, in the thread on France v Wales, you commented on law interpreation as follows:
Yes, but the specific has been put in precisely to cover a situation that the IRB wants to deal with. You are making that change more or less meaningless by choosing to apply a more general provision. I do not see how that can be justified in terms of law interpretation. It is being done to get the result we prefer - but that is not our job if, as in this case, the law clearly says otherwise. It seems to me that the law now says very clearly that there is an exception to the general rule, but you want the general rule still to apply. I refer you to your own words in red, M'Lud.

OB..
02-03-10, 15:03
Surely if he does this before the ball is thrown, he gives the opposition more chance to respond than if he does it after the ball is thrown? If your logic is to be followed, OB, the receiver should be prevented from entering the line at all - which clearly contradicts 19.8(i), where the exception specifically mentions it, from which we may infer that it is legal. The implication is that the logic is unreliable.

OB, in the thread on France v Wales, you commented on law interpreation as follows: It seems to me that the law now says very clearly that there is an exception to the general rule, but you want the general rule still to apply. I refer you to your own words in red, M'Lud.

The question as to whether or not the the numbers in the lineout can be changed after being set is moot. If done slowly, then of course the opponents can be given time to react.

However that is not the problem we are faced with. It is the receiver moving from his 2m position to become a lineout player at the last second and the ball being thrown before he gets into the lineout.

The law in this case does not say anything very clearly since it does not deal with the point. The IRB is of the opinion that there is no change in the law. I think the whole thing is a mess yet again, but I'll stick to my view.

Dixie
02-03-10, 16:03
Yes - there is clear scope for two interpretations, which is unsatisfactory. I agree there's little point batting the two possibilities around as though they were facts - another one perhaps for the iRB?

Ian_Cook
02-03-10, 20:03
Yes - there is clear scope for two interpretations, which is unsatisfactory. I agree there's little point batting the two possibilities around as though they were facts - another one perhaps for the iRB?

A new one for OB's list, as if there weren't already enough :mad:

lawsons
04-03-10, 16:03
I think you've complicated something that's quite simple.

Some refs may allow it if you read this literally, but practically it would run counter to everything that has gone before. Thus to keep it simple, I don't allow the receiver to enter the line before the ball is thrown without allowing the oppo to match numbers. Much like you would with an attempt to gain a free kick on shortened line swifty. That puts a stop to it. Otherwise nothing makes sense!

Dixie
04-03-10, 20:03
Thus to keep it simple, I don't allow the receiver to enter the line before the ball is thrown without allowing the oppo to match numbers. ... That puts a stop to it. Otherwise nothing makes sense! If I've read your post correctly, it doesn't "put a stop to it" at all. It just gives it tacit acceptance. I don't think anyone's suggested to date that the throwing side alone should be allowed to create a numbers imbalance; merely that there is an exception to the law keeping the receivers back 2m. The exception would, naturally, apply both ways if it applies at all.

Rit Hinners
04-03-10, 23:03
If I've read your post correctly, it doesn't "put a stop to it" at all. It just gives it tacit acceptance. I don't think anyone's suggested to date that the throwing side alone should be allowed to create a numbers imbalance; merely that there is an exception to the law keeping the receivers back 2m. The exception would, naturally, apply both ways if it applies at all.

Since what he says does not preclude the defending team from inserting their reciever into the line after the ball has been thrown, I believe he is applying it both ways.

B52 REF
05-03-10, 01:03
I'm with Lawsons, OB and Dixie on this (: Seriously i was at same meet as Barnsey re the Elv where we decidec that reciver could not enter at 2 or 4 in LO after ball thrown as could not safely cover 2m in time. We decided to managereceivers "slowly" joining LO before throw by either asking no's or are you the receiver if so stay out 2 or if not get in quicker etc. So either Barnsey just messed up or he thought Matfield jsut about got in LO before throw or more interestingly he has been told that the rewording this year of the "exception" means what Dixie thinks it does i.e. receiver may ignore the 2M bit to enter a LO (back to old days and negates most of its purpose.) Anyway have emailed him to get an answer. Meanwhile am not allowing it as have been to every meet and nobody has communicated any change to me.

B52 REF
08-03-10, 17:03
horses mouth (WB)- receiver "CANNOT enter the line until the ball is thrown and must stand two metres away until that point."
so in practice we should continue to only let receiver enter rear of LO.

Not Kurt Weaver
08-03-10, 18:03
Since what he says does not preclude the defending team from inserting their reciever into the line after the ball has been thrown, I believe he is applying it both ways.

Rit, we (US refs) have guidance that differs from this thread.
i'll try and find the e-mail from PW. It has a completely different interpretation from what is discussed on this thread. "the moment of the throw" theory, if you are already familiar with that.

Maybe you have alrady seen it.

Casey Bee
08-03-10, 18:03
horses mouth (WB)- receiver "CANNOT enter the line until the ball is thrown and must stand two metres away until that point."
so in practice we should continue to only let receiver enter rear of LO.

B52, would you confirm my understanding please. Receiver can swap any time with a line out player before throw. Receiver can enter lineout, and not be replaced, after throw, in which case the only place he can do this is at back of line.

Thanks

B52 REF
08-03-10, 18:03
B52, would you confirm my understanding please. Receiver can swap any time with a line out player before throw. Receiver can enter lineout, and not be replaced, after throw, in which case the only place he can do this is at back of line.

Thanks

CORRECT.

Casey Bee
08-03-10, 18:03
CORRECT.

Thank you kindly! I might have to create situation in my first game whereby I can say 'Wayne Barnes said... blah blah blah'. Only joking, I shall be happy to spot the basics and hopefully give players a clean enjoyable game:Nerv:

Not Kurt Weaver
09-03-10, 20:03
Rit,

Here is the US interpret. Differs from others, I think.

http://www.scrrs.net/irb-rulings/irb-ruling-9-lineouts/

B52 REF
11-03-10, 12:03
Rit,

Here is the US interpret. Differs from others, I think.

http://www.scrrs.net/irb-rulings/irb-ruling-9-lineouts/

Though the ruling is clear the commentary ("not be pedantic" etc. re moment of throw muddies it somewhat. Commentary says receiver may swop/enter right up to throw which rather negates must be 2m back bit.) Best to manage it as per previous post so you are happy who/if there is receiver before throw.

OB..
12-03-10, 16:03
IRB Ruling 9 of 2009 (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/englishrulings_9202.pdf)
Request from the IRFU

Do the provisions of 19.8 (i) apply to Law 19.11 Exception 2?

Ruling of the Designated Members

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.

[NB In the 2010 law book Law 19.11 Exception 2 has now been moved to Law 19.8 (i)]

Phil E
12-03-10, 17:03
IRB Ruling 9 of 2009 (http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/englishrulings_9202.pdf)
Request from the IRFU

Do the provisions of 19.8 (i) apply to Law 19.11 Exception 2?

Ruling of the Designated Members

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.

[NB In the 2010 law book Law 19.11 Exception 2 has now been moved to Law 19.8 (i)]

So once again USA Rugby have got it wrong?