Receiver position at LO.

[DocY]

I'm coming to this late, but a few points:

I can see no reason for a team to stand their receiver close to 10m back unless it's a screw up, and I'd have no qualms about penalising.

If someone more imaginative than me could think of a reason I'd expect them to ask the referee about it before the game.

If a team is throwing in to a defensive 5m lineout and didn't have an obvious receiver I'd ask if they have one and who it is (TBH I'd not thought about such a situation before this thread).

I'm sure that it used to be quite common to have the receiver behind the rest of the back line before lineouts had to be at least 5m out.

If an assessor pulls you up for a law error, unless it's clear that he's wrong, don't argue. You might have him again next week!

 

[OB..]

If an assessor pulls you up for a law error, unless it's clear that he's wrong, don't argue.

If the referee has a different view, I want to hear it. If I don't, he will probably simply ignore my view. If we have a discussion and I fail to convince him, I will note it as a law error in my view but say that the referee had a different view of the law. That should get people looking into the point to get it clarified.

 

[DocY]

If the referee has a different view, I want to hear it. If I don't, he will probably simply ignore my view. If we have a discussion and I fail to convince him, I will note it as a law error in my view but say that the referee had a different view of the law. That should get people looking into the point to get it clarified.

I was more meaning "avoid a protracted argument (like this one)". I'd expect a discussion about something unusual, but I expect you wouldn't approve of a referee trying to use any vagueness to justify a 'surprising' decision.
I think when you're unsure if you were right or not (which was the tone I got from the OP), to look for technicalities to support your view would be unwelcome.

 

[Balones]

DocY - I can see no reason for a team to stand their receiver close to 10m back unless it's a screw up, and I'd have no qualms about penalising.

I have seen it done several times where the defending side have a man short in the back line because of a card. If by chance they win the line they rely on one of the forwards taking the ball first before he moves up.

 

[Pegleg]

If the referee has a different view, I want to hear it. If I don't, he will probably simply ignore my view. If we have a discussion and I fail to convince him, I will note it as a law error in my view but say that the referee had a different view of the law. That should get people looking into the point to get it clarified.

If (when) I disagree with an advisor I will always explain my understanding. That way he can see any flw in my thinking and advise me of that. Or it is possible that he may change hiw view. i will always go away and consider hhis comments as sometimes it is only a few days later that you mull through it all and then can see the point.

We have one, notorious, advisor who is not listen to. Even when we explain the reason is that a very senior assesor gave the advice we now follow. We tend to let him verbalize whils we admire the Cyanistes on show.

 

[didds]

DocY - I can see no reason for a team to stand their receiver close to 10m back unless it's a screw up, and I'd have no qualms about penalising.

I have seen it done several times where the defending side have a man short in the back line because of a card. If by chance they win the line they rely on one of the forwards taking the ball first before he moves up.

the query I have is why would you then leave a defender 10m back when in effect they could be in a receiver position at the rear of the lineout acting as another backrower, closer to the oppo backline?

didds

 

[Balones]

the query I have is why would you then leave a defender 10m back when in effect they could be in a receiver position at the rear of the lineout acting as another backrower, closer to the oppo backline?

didds

Comes down to how you want to defend or the previous playing pattern, and the particular strengths of the player concerned. If the opposition have been whipping the ball wide, by having the receiver drop into the outside half position (for example) the midfield can come up quick to tackle and the 'receiver' can cover the chip kick over or a missed tackle. The normal backrow can chase the line/ball.

By leaving an obvious gap or weakness in the back line at a lineout could allow the offence to attack it at pace and having an extra 'backrow' would have no benefit. E.g. if you have an obvious overlap then you are likely to move the ball wide at pace and no backrow is likely to get to the right position to plug that gap before the ball gets there. By having a full complement in the backline you plug that gap. Channel one balls should be absorbed by the existing backrow as normal.

What I do tend to see at a defensive lineout more and more at the level I observe is the S/H (receiver) standing at the front and the hooker either going into the line and the W/F standing in the receiver position, or vice versa, to enable the situation that you have described.

 

[didds]

OK - I'll accept that.

You might be better off a coach working out ways to NOT lose you own ball at the lineout of course!

LOL

didds

 

[Balones]

OK - I'll accept that.

You might be better off a coach working out ways to NOT lose you own ball at the lineout of course!

LOL

didds

I was of course only referring to a defensive lineout and not if you were the throwing in side.

 

[didds]

Ah. That wasn't obvious as the OP was discussing an attacking lineout into which that team was throwing. I hadn't realised that the discussion had moved on generally away from solely attacking lineouts.


didds

 

[TheBFG]

Yes....and I appreciate that.
I actually am convinced that I was correct to allow it.......just nobody else on the day agreed!
Edit. I think even the player himself expected to be penalised!!

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, chances are........ it's a duck :wink: Clear Obvious and Expected ?

Pitch management, tidy up things like that before the phase of play starts, i.e. make sure the receiver is 2m or 10m and they're not part of the LO. So for a LO i'm looking, numbers for both hookers, receivers and finally both FH's back 10m.

Ask yourself this question, if the ball is "off the top" from the LO, would you have allowed a (very) quick defending player to run through and intercept the ball before it got to the receiver :chin:

 

[DocY]

DocY - I can see no reason for a team to stand their receiver close to 10m back unless it's a screw up, and I'd have no qualms about penalising.

I have seen it done several times where the defending side have a man short in the back line because of a card. If by chance they win the line they rely on one of the forwards taking the ball first before he moves up.

Yes, defensively there is merit in not having a receiver (Wales used to do it with Mike Philips standing in for the hooker to be on hand in case the lineout went against the throw), but that's quite different from having a receiver standing deep, especially when you expect to win the ball.

 

[Phil E]

If the acting scrum half stands deep then he needs to be identifiable to the referee, its as simple as that.

If he doesn't identify himself and stands so deep as to be indistinguishable from the back line then he has to deal with the consequences.
I'ts the same as the scrum half standing at the back of the line, the referee needs to know if he is the scrum half, or just the tail gunner leaving it late to join the line.