Quiz #6 - short lineouts

[Rich_NL]

I hadn't even looked at the video! What a dog's dinner.

[crossref]

I can see the logic for an asymmetric sanction

If the team with possession infringe , they lose possession

If the team without possession infringe .. well they don't have possession to lose .. so the sanction is a FK

[Taff]

Bizzaro changes. Rightly or wrongly I used to think the lineout/scrum options was for the case of a mistake by the thrower (it was described under "incorrect throw-in"). And any player preventing the throw reaching 5m was FK.

That's exactly what I STILL believe.

.... Now, 18.23.b covers all scenarios of not reaching 5m and it is lineout/scrum option though bizarrely the sanction implies it's a sanction against the throwing-in team. And the video example shows the referee simply awarding a FK, with no lineout/scrum option!!

The Ref didn't give an option because it was the player in the LO that infringed.

I'd bet £20 that if the thrower had ballsed it up and just failed to chuck the ball 5m, then he would have given the LO / Scrum option.

[menace]

I can see the logic for an asymmetric sanction

If the team with possession infringe , they lose possession

If the team without possession infringe .. well they don't have possession to lose .. so the sanction is a FK

I see your logic - BUT I can't recall any other law that provides a different sanction based on who is in possession? Are you aware of any other?

So for me - I just can't, and won't, apply a vastly different sanction for the exact same offence. That is not equitable.(noting that if I did then I've made a error in consistency and I expect to be pulled up for it!)

So for the scenario I'm applying the FK. Pretty much based on the reasons the others cite.
I think the FK can also be backed up by the similarity of the Quick Throw law

18.6. The ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres. Sanction: Free-kick.

It is the same sort of offence (and sanction).
Surely that law was derived and based on the lineout laws (being a very similar 'action') when the QT came into the game and it's based on the intent that no player can step or reach into the 5m channel? It applies equally to the throwing team as the non-throwing team.

In terms of the "Blocking" law I interpret that to mean someone has created an obstruction (which is a definition of "block") on the thrower or the ball path reaching the 5m line. Under current laws, the only person in a legal position inside the 5m channel that could possibly do that would be the player opposing the thrower ie opposing hooker. But I think the 2 x 2m position criteria on the opposing hooker has now prevented that player from being able to block - but IIRC the 2 x 2m criteria is only relatively new? (OB??? do you know?). Prior to the 2x2 Im sure opposing hooker could virtually stand on the line-of-touch so could be in a position to be able to block...but the block law prevented them from doing so?
Maybe in eras gone by, players could legally be in position to block, so the block law came in to stop them??
So under current laws there really is no one that can be in a legal position to block - and they can be sanctioned under that? The blocking law within the lineout section possibly is now redundant but left in there "just to make sure covering law"?!

[crossref]

I can see all the arguments above ...


But the hard reality is that - with a year to think about it - in the Law they wrote "opponent"

That and it was already the custom of many refs to apply an asymmetric sanction here, so they very likely considered that they were simply bringing current practice into Law

[menace]

I can see all the arguments above ...


But the hard reality is that - with a year to think about it - in the Law they wrote "opponent"

That and it was already the custom of many refs to apply an asymmetric sanction here, so they very likely considered that they were simply bringing current practice into Law

Yeah...Im not buying that.

I could easily say they threw in "opponent" cause it just doesnt make sense youd block your own player so they were unable to throw it! And they would have spent 2 minutes on it and moved on.

[crossref]

Yeah...Im not buying that.

I could easily say they threw in "opponent" cause it just doesnt make sense youd block your own player so they were unable to throw it! And they would have spent 2 minutes on it and moved on.

It was one of just two corrections they made to the 2018 book. I think we can be confident that they thought carefully about it

Plus we need to be very cautious about claiming that a Law is clearly a mistake, so we won't apply it, as that argument means you are free to reject any law you dislike, which is chaos

[menace]

It was one of just two corrections they made to the 2018 book. I think we can be confident that they thought carefully about it

Plus we need to be very cautious about claiming that a Law is clearly a mistake, so we won't apply it, as that argument means you are free to reject any law you dislike, which is chaos

Ive never said that it was a mistake.
I simply reject your interpretation.

[crossref]

? The blocking law within the lineout section possibly is now redundant but left in there "just to make sure covering law"?!

In fact it is brand new , and was added to the Law book a month ago . Does that alter your perspective on it ?

[didds]

And in the first example, if you took the view that it was a rehearsed move and thus an intentional infringment...

why wold you spend any time on learning a move that is quite easy to spot as illegal/not permissable and likely to be called up fairly often?

i just don't get that - particularly at community levels where training time is limited.

didds