Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

      
  1. #31
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,225
    Thanks (Received)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    328

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

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

  2. #32

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,935
    Thanks (Received)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    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

  3. #33

    Referees in Wales
    Taff's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Llanelli District
    Grade
    WRU Level 2
    Join Date
    23 Aug 09
    Posts
    6,925
    Thanks (Received)
    34
    Likes (Received)
    341

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by Treadmore View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treadmore View Post
    .... 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.
    Last edited by Taff; 05-02-19 at 00:02.

  4. #34

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,554
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    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"?!
    Last edited by menace; 05-02-19 at 03:02.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  5. #35

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,935
    Thanks (Received)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    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

  6. #36

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,554
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    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.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  7. #37

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,935
    Thanks (Received)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by menace View Post
    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
    Last edited by crossref; 05-02-19 at 08:02.

  8. #38

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,554
    Thanks (Received)
    61
    Likes (Received)
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    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.
    Last edited by menace; 05-02-19 at 08:02.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  9. #39

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,935
    Thanks (Received)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by menace View Post
    ? 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 ?

  10. #40

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,781
    Thanks (Received)
    68
    Likes (Received)
    954

    Default Re: Quiz #6 - short lineouts

    Quote Originally Posted by tewdric View Post
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •