Is it material ...

[ChrisR]

The following scenarios occurred in different matches earlier this season and got me thinking about 'materiality' of numbers matching.

1. Red throw. Red put 4 in the LO, Blue put in 5. No call for "numbers". Red get a clean catch and serve to 10 and the play continued out wide. Peep! Red are awarded FK for Blue not matching numbers.

2. Same as above but Red throw not straight. Peep! Red are awarded FK for Blue not matching numbers.

Seems to me that in both cases, although correct in Law, 'numbers' was not a factor. Any thoughts?

 

[crossref]

I am probably not reffing correctly but one way or another I just manage it, I almost never give a FK for numbers. Can't remember the last time exactly - - but it would have been against a team who were just unwilling to be managed. the FK is to make them pay attention from now on

 

[didds]

I suppose for the first scenario, how would you know that the extra blue lineout player wasn't the reason that red went OTT rather than catch and drive with a one man disadvantage?

didds

 

[Iron_Lung]

I would have hoped that you'd attempt to manage the numbers issue before it becomes a FK situation. Otherwise it's a "gotcha" which players hate. I always use my pre-match to get the front man at the lineout to manage the gap and the numbers, using him a bit like a captain to help me keep things moving. It seems to work well most of the time.

In scenario 1, you could play advantage as a reminder that they did something wrong and then chat with them at the next lineout.

In scenario 2, the first offence was the numbers, therefore FK is correct.

However, in both cases the ref has failed to note the issue early enough to manage. Or possibly the throwing team was pulling a bait and switch as they walked in? In which case the ref should have called no numbers to manage. Ultimately I don't like giving that free kick as it means I've mismanaged something in the lead up to the throw.

 

[FlipFlop]

Numbers FK. I ask the team throwing in the announce the number they have. If they mess around, I slow it all down, and make sure everyone is aware of numbers. If the non-throwing team still get it wrong, then shame on them.

But... I still won't call it, if the throwing team catch and go wide. (basically advantage, advantage over)
So the throwing team has to lose the ball, or try to drive a maul/go close, and so the numbers not 10m back makes a difference.

I think I give 1 a year at most.

 

[ChrisR]

I suppose for the first scenario, how would you know that the extra blue lineout player wasn't the reason that red went OTT rather than catch and drive with a one man disadvantage?

didds

As a referee you wouldn't know what the influence is but as a coach I'd rather have clean ball going wide with the extra defender in the LO than have a FK back at the LOT. I suspect that you would, too.

I agree mostly with Iron Lung's "manage it".

 

[didds]

As a referee you wouldn't know what the influence is but as a coach I'd rather have clean ball going wide with the extra defender in the LO than have a FK back at the LOT. I suspect that you would, too..

WADR I think that would depend on what you were trying to do. If you were looking for a catch and drive to tie in their back row, going wide OTT instead leaves their tailgunner flanker still available to poach in midfield.

I don;t want a FK particularly as they are totally rubbish on the whole to be awarded one... but that at least provides the option in one way shape or form to tie in that back row. (eg scrum and #8 pick n go) etc.

didds

 

[didds]

But... I still won't call it, if the throwing team catch and go wide. (basically advantage, advantage over)

you are just making the mistake that possession = advantage.

It doesn't. Possession "out wide" isn't necessarily tactical advantage either, depending on what you are trying to do.

didds

 

[crossref]

if the throwing team care about numbers, and the numbers are not matched, why throw it in?

conversely if they do throw it in, can't we assume they don't really care and they'd rather have the possession than the FK?

if their whole objective is a FK then I am not so sympathetic.

 

[Paule23]

I agree as referees we should be looking to manage this, but I don't see any failure in my refereeing if I give a numbers free kick. Whilst I will help teams with this, it is not my responsibility to ensure the defending team have the right numbers. If they don't listen or act on information from the throwing team, they are open to being penalised.

On the 2 scenarios mentioned I agree, advantage for the first one, FK for the second one (first offence was numbers).

 

[Decorily]

you are just making the mistake that possession = advantage.

It doesn't. Possession "out wide" isn't necessarily tactical advantage either, depending on what you are trying to do.

didds

Agree didds..possession under pressure is no fair advantage.

 

[didds]

if the throwing team care about numbers, and the numbers are not matched, why throw it in?

conversely if they do throw it in, can't we assume they don't really care and they'd rather have the possession than the FK?

if their whole objective is a FK then I am not so sympathetic.

You guys do seem to have a fixation that throwing teams are hell bent on winning FKs for numbers - FKs are bloody useless pretty much (I can think of one reason why they wuild be useful - cos the team's lineout is actually ineffective but scrumming is fine!) so who the hell wants one?

Do you really see multiple attempts to con a FK this way?

didds

- - - Updated - - -

if the throwing team care about numbers, and the numbers are not matched, why throw it in?
.

Because they've been told to do so by a ref who believes that possession is advantage over anyway?

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

you are just making the mistake that possession = advantage.

It doesn't. Possession "out wide" isn't necessarily tactical advantage either, depending on what you are trying to do.

didds

I agree also, at lower level, with poor skills levels, they may get the ball all the way to the far touch line, without having crossed the gain line. Then their lightweight winger finds himself in possession of the ball but isolated. The notion of playing a long advantage only to come all the way back for the free kick seems a waste of time.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I'm happy with
1. Red have clean possession play on if they get back to the gainline. If Red moan a bit I just say sorry lads I missed it play on.
2. Easy free Kick to Red

 

[crossref]

You guys do seem to have a fixation that throwing teams are hell bent on winning FKs for numbers

sometimes they appeal for one!

But look - this is very rarely an issue : IME by far the majority of lineouts the throwing team announce clearly how many people in the line, the oppo listen and form up accordingly, and if the call is something unexpected then the throwing team, without having to be told, give them a second or too more.

when things need managing it's not usually teams playing for gotchas, it's most likely a throwing team so absorbed in the complicated dance for the move they've just called they completely forget to tell the oppo that there's only six people in the line this time... and it's easily managed.

 

[Dickie E]

Or possibly the throwing team was pulling a bait and switch as they walked in? In which case the ref should have called no numbers to manage.

I'm not a fan of this approach. If you ignore this law to teach 'em a lesson, what other laws are you ignoring? Its not a good message to the players. I prefer to use 19.8:

[LAWS](e) 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.[/LAWS]

"Green, hold the throw please. Red, I suggest you check numbers"

 

[Dickie E]

you are just making the mistake that possession = advantage.

It doesn't. Possession "out wide" isn't necessarily tactical advantage either, depending on what you are trying to do.

didds

A couple of good passes out to the centres is "advantage over" for a FK offence for me.

 

[Dickie E]

You guys do seem to have a fixation that throwing teams are hell bent on winning FKs for numbers

It happens a lot here but we don't have the gentlemanly protocol of declaring numbers like is done in England. I had one team use a call of "all in" then put in 6 as a ploy.

 

[Nigib]

sometimes they appeal for one!

I get this issue occasionally - I treat it as ungentlemanly conduct. Manage by slowing things down, pointing out they are likely to get pinged. Doesn't happen again. Otherwise, generally lower down, I will ask what the numbers are and repeat loudly so no-one can be in doubt. Manage it rather than whistle.

 

[Rushforth]

It happens a lot here but we don't have the gentlemanly protocol of declaring numbers like is done in England. I had one team use a call of "all in" then put in 6 as a ploy.

I recall thinking that a clever move.

In the 80s.

As a referee, I don't get amused.