PDA

View Full Version : Line Out Query



Na Madrai
30-11-14, 09:11
Under fifteen schools' knock out cup match.

Blue putting into a LO. All blue players in LO except the very first, run backwards taking their opponents with them. Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty for playing the ball 'off his feet' which everyone bought without question.

Thinking about it later, however, was my instinct correct?




NM

Stuartg
30-11-14, 10:11
Under fifteen schools' knock out cup match.

Blue putting into a LO. All blue players in LO except the very first, run backwards taking their opponents with them. Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty for playing the ball 'off his feet' which everyone bought without question.

Thinking about it later, however, was my instinct correct?




NM

Interesting question. My instinct would be to play on. They've been positive and inventive, something to be encouraged with so much boring over-coached rugby to be seen. Unless it's clearly wrong I'd not blow the whistle. If in doubt, don't blow.

Did the coach say anything afterwards?

Browner
30-11-14, 11:11
Deliberately going to ground to receive the ball ( and expecting law protection from being landed on?) does not fit the spirit of "trying to play the game on your feet"

Never seen this happen, so if it did my initial reaction would probably be .....IMO the catcher has placed himself in a vulnerable position ( ie unable to evade a tackle) so I'd disallow it, although id probably FK it, as a line out error ..... Seems a more appropriate sanction, albeit not covered in law specifically.

RobLev
30-11-14, 13:11
Under fifteen schools' knock out cup match.

Blue putting into a LO. All blue players in LO except the very first, run backwards taking their opponents with them. Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty for playing the ball 'off his feet' which everyone bought without question.

Thinking about it later, however, was my instinct correct?

In my amateur view - no, you were not correct.

The ball went 5m before hitting the ground, and was presumably straight, so no lineout offence.

There's no ruck, so no prohibition on going to ground to pick up the ball.

Aren't we in Law 14 territory here?

Definitions

This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.

Or are we saying that the player has to let the ball hit the ground before trying to gather it? If it had been a pass in open play that dropped short of the intended receiver, would you ping him for going to one knee to catch it?

By Law 14:

(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:

Get up with the ball
Pass the ball
Release the ball.

Provided he did one of these things - no infringement, play on, surely?

Browner
30-11-14, 13:11
I don't see that we are in Law 14 territory, until the Lineout has ended.

The pictorial in 19.8 , nor any wording in any of Law remotely suggests that being off your feet when receiving the lineout throw is acceptable , whatever next?, a player lying on the ground receiving the ball, I'm dismissing this invented ( imaginative that i grant you ) ploy as being not in the spirit or ethos of the game, and specifically outside the general expectation of where players must STAND .

19.8(h)
All lineout players must stand between these two points.

ChrisR
30-11-14, 15:11
which everyone bought without question.

.... and if they didn't they'd be 10m toward their own goal. Just because there is not a howl of protest doesn't mean you got it right. Rather, it means that these kids have been well coached to respect your decision, right or wrong.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty

If you don't know, don't blow. Read the definitions of Law 14. There is no prohibition for gathering the ball but there is a requirement to act immediately afterwards.

Browner, your extrapolations are beyond reason, again.

RobLev
30-11-14, 16:11
I don't see that we are in Law 14 territory, until the Lineout has ended.

The pictorial in 19.8 , nor any wording in any of Law remotely suggests that being off your feet when receiving the lineout throw is acceptable , whatever next?, a player lying on the ground receiving the ball, I'm dismissing this invented ( imaginative that i grant you ) ploy as being not in the spirit or ethos of the game, and specifically outside the general expectation of where players must STAND .

19.8(h)
All lineout players must stand between these two points.

So if the ball lands on the LoT and sticks in the mud, the lineout player can pick it up from a standing position; but he can't make an attempt to catch it on the way down if that involves putting a knee down? I've been accused in the past of being pedantic and lacking empathy...

SimonSmith
01-12-14, 00:12
I'm struggling with that decision. Nothing in law precludes it. Why on earth would you penalize it?

Rushforth
01-12-14, 01:12
If you don't know, don't blow. Read the definitions of Law 14. There is no prohibition for gathering the ball but there is a requirement to act immediately afterwards.

Browner, your extrapolations are beyond reason, again.

It definitely looks like Law 14 territory to me, specifically the definition "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down."

Falling on both knees, a better case could be made under dangerous play (to himself). Not in the original scenario as posted by NM, though.

If it looks wrong because it might be dangerous, whistle immediately. If it 'just looks wrong', see what happens.

menace
01-12-14, 02:12
which everyone bought without question.

.... and if they didn't they'd be 10m toward their own goal. Just because there is not a howl of protest doesn't mean you got it right. Rather, it means that these kids have been well coached to respect your decision, right or wrong.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty

If you don't know, don't blow. Read the definitions of Law 14. There is no prohibition for gathering the ball but there is a requirement to act immediately afterwards.

Browner, your extrapolations are beyond reason, again.


So if the ball lands on the LoT and sticks in the mud, the lineout player can pick it up from a standing position; but he can't make an attempt to catch it on the way down if that involves putting a knee down? I've been accused in the past of being pedantic and lacking empathy...

I think you're both being a bit harsh on browner for his perceived extrapolation. If they weren't meant to stand in the lineout then perhaps why did the law lords write 'stand' at all in that part?I have some sympathy as to why Browner may interpret that to mean the lineout players literally must stand up at all times.

Browner could equally accuse you of extrapolating law 14 beyond its realm. Its definition specifically says "ball available ON THE ground AND player goes
to ground to gather the ball" - so technically both conditions need to be true before before law 14 is enacted. In the OP only one condition is true, and that is the player has gone to ground, the ball was not on it. One could argue that law 14 is not in play here.
So by induction you're extrapolating law 14 beyond its meaning just as much as Browner may be in his interpretation.
It's not his fault as it is not yours that you're trying to make the best of poorly written laws.

Having said that, my inclination would have been to allow play on if I thought going to one knee was in reaction to catching the ball because it wasn't going to reach, but perhaps if I saw it as a planned move and the player went to his knee in advance of the throw then I'd be inclined to just reset it and ask the lineout player to remain on his feet.

RobLev
01-12-14, 04:12
I think you're both being a bit harsh on browner for his perceived extrapolation. If they weren't meant to stand in the lineout then perhaps why did the law lords write 'stand' at all in that part?I have some sympathy as to why Browner may interpret that to mean the lineout players literally must stand up at all times.

Browner could equally accuse you of extrapolating law 14 beyond its realm. Its definition specifically says "ball available ON THE ground AND player goes
to ground to gather the ball" - so technically both conditions need to be true before before law 14 is enacted. In the OP only one condition is true, and that is the player has gone to ground, the ball was not on it. One could argue that law 14 is not in play here.
So by induction you're extrapolating law 14 beyond its meaning just as much as Browner may be in his interpretation.

Browner was ignoring my comment:


Or are we saying that the player has to let the ball hit the ground before trying to gather it? If it had been a pass in open play that dropped short of the intended receiver, would you ping him for going to one knee to catch it?

Are we? Would you?

If it is legal to pick the ball up off the ground, going to one knee while doing so, I see it as the height of pedantry to require the player to make no effort to prevent it hitting the ground by catching it - even if that does require his putting a knee down. Provided of course he immediately gets up with it, passes it or releases it.

menace
01-12-14, 06:12
You seem to have conveniently left out the the part of my quote where I pretty much answered that. But ho hum.

You can't also tell me that you weren't having a crack at Browner because of his interpretation of the words?

I seem to recall you said this in another thread.

Gold #1 is supporting illegally (Law 19.10(d)):

Lifting and supporting. Players may assist a team-mate in jumping for the ball by lifting and supporting that player providing that the lifting and/or supporting players do not support the jumping team-mate below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the front.

and bearded Gold, if he helped his team-mate get up there, is acting illegally, because he isn't "lifting and supporting" him. Mind you, he would have been supporting illegally anyway (hands below shorts).

So one the one hand you seem to suggest that applying the 'and' is the heigh of being pedantic in interpreting one law, but not when interpreting another! Interesting.

RobLev
01-12-14, 08:12
You seem to have conveniently left out the the part of my quote where I pretty much answered that. But ho hum.

I apologise; I saw the piece I left out as takihjg the view that you considered going to one knee to take the catch not to be permitted by the Laws, but you'd let it go if you thought it wasn't a planned move. If that isn;t what you meant, let me know.

My position is that it isn't forbidden by the Laws.


You can't also tell me that you weren't having a crack at Browner because of his interpretation of the words?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that insisting that the player allow situation B to develop before taking expressly legal action, rather than taking action in situation A which isn't expressly legal, is pedantic.


I seem to recall you said this in another thread.


So one the one hand you seem to suggest that applying the 'and' is the heigh of being pedantic in interpreting one law, but not when interpreting another! Interesting.

Not guilty of the first. As for Law 19.10(d), if a lifter isn't required to continue to support the player he llfted, Law 19.10(g) requiring him to bring the jumper safely to ground becomes a dead-letter.

RobLev
01-12-14, 08:12
To approach it slightly differently:

The lineout player is expressly permitted to try to catch the ball while it is in the air - that's the point of a lineout. He is expressly permitted to pick the ball up, going to one knee as he does so, after it hits the ground. Why would you want to prevent him from going to one knee to catch the ball before it hits the ground?

crossref
01-12-14, 10:12
I think that

- if you receive a poor pass, clearly it's acceptable to go off your feet to gather it (and then immediately get up/pass/place etc)

- but you can't throw a pass to someone who is already on the floor. The game is to be played by players on their feet.

And I would apply the same in the line out.
It's hard to imagine a poor throw that necessitated a player to go off his feet to catch, but if it happens that's OK.

But this was a planned move and they planned to throw to a player who was not on his feet, so NM was right. peep.

ChrisR
01-12-14, 13:12
I don't see that we are in Law 14 territory, until the Lineout has ended.

The pictorial in 19.8 , nor any wording in any of Law remotely suggests that being off your feet when receiving the lineout throw is acceptable , whatever next?, a player lying on the ground receiving the ball, I'm dismissing this invented ( imaginative that i grant you ) ploy as being not in the spirit or ethos of the game, and specifically outside the general expectation of where players must STAND .
19.8(h)
All lineout players must stand between these two points.

You're right, menace, taking shots at Browner is unfair and not in the spirit of this forum. So let me, instead, point out what I see wrong with his post.

In his previous post he quotes "trying to play the game on your feet" which is taken(mangled) from Law 14 then, in this post, says "we're not in Law 14 territory".

To suggest that the Law Makers use the word "stand" to imply that any other posture would be liable for sanction is just silly. What would he expect them to say? If you are restricted to 'standing' then 'jumping' would be prohibited.

Did Browner read the OP? From the OP: "All blue players in LO except the very first, run backwards taking their opponents with them." So, is the catcher in danger from being crushed?

As a coach it can be wholly frustrating to have the referee pull this kind of logic out of his arse.

didds
01-12-14, 13:12
Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

It simply looked wrong and I gave a penalty for playing the ball 'off his feet' which everyone bought without question.

Thinking about it later, however, was my instinct correct?




NM


IMO - it was incorrect.

If there is general open play and as an inside centre passes to the outside centre, the OC slips and ends up on a knee(s), catches the ball and passes it onto a winger... are you really going to penalise the OC for playing the ball whilst off his feet?

Look for a reason to NOT blow the whistle - have some empathy with what is going on. Play on for pete's sake...

didds

ChrisR
01-12-14, 13:12
The game is to be played by players on their feet.

crossref, this is an oft quoted sentiment and, as a sentiment, I agree with it. But when you apply it as a piece of law then you should include the rest of the paragraph to put it in its proper context. Law 14, definitions, third paragraph expressly addresses players going off their feet to make the ball unplayable.

Nowhere in Law 14 does it prohibit a player from going to ground to take possession of a ball in the air. It does require that players on the ground, in possession of the ball, to act immediately to allow play to continue.

crossref
01-12-14, 13:12
The game is to be played by players on their feet.

crossref, this is an oft quoted sentiment and, as a sentiment, I agree with it. But when you apply it as a piece of law then you should include the rest of the paragraph to put it in its proper context. Law 14, definitions, third paragraph expressly addresses players going off their feet to make the ball unplayable.

Nowhere in Law 14 does it prohibit a player from going to ground to take possession of a ball in the air. It does require that players on the ground, in possession of the ball, to act immediately to allow play to continue.

I agree with you, bu there's a world of difference between going to ground, and being on the ground.

In open play if there is a player sitting/kneeling on the ground -- can you pass the ball to him ? I'd suggest no, a player on the ground can't receive a pass.

So by extension a player on the ground can't receive a line out throw.

didds
01-12-14, 14:12
In open play if there is a player sitting/kneeling on the ground -- can you pass the ball to him ? I'd suggest no, a player on the ground can't receive a pass.


law reference?

In my query above if the OC slips as the IC passes and ends up kneeling on the ground, OC catches the ball and passes it on to the winger... what do you do?

didds

crossref
01-12-14, 14:12
law reference?

In my query above if the OC slips as the IC passes and ends up kneeling on the ground, OC catches the ball and passes it on to the winger... what do you do?

didds

that's different, players slipping over, and players going to ground to collect a loose ball are every day occurences. Play on.

But once a player is on the ground, I don't think he can play a ball, or a ball carrier, that comes in his direction. He should get up first.

(we have discussed this before: player is on the ground and a loose ball happens to come in his direction, can he play it? IIRC opinions differed ans some one asked SAREFS who said no. I guess it's the same thing)

RobLev
01-12-14, 14:12
I think that

- if you receive a poor pass, clearly it's acceptable to go off your feet to gather it (and then immediately get up/pass/place etc)

- but you can't throw a pass to someone who is already on the floor. The game is to be played by players on their feet.

And I would apply the same in the line out.
It's hard to imagine a poor throw that necessitated a player to go off his feet to catch, but if it happens that's OK.

But this was a planned move and they planned to throw to a player who was not on his feet, so NM was right. peep.

If going to one knee was planned: I have to say that if the throwing team plan a move that might possibly be seen as not entirely legal but that puts them at a disadvantage by virtue of that very putative illegality, I'd be very tempted to take the view that they'd made their bed, and so should lie on it.

In this case the throwing team gain no possible advantage from throwing to a player who takes it on one knee. There was no-one in the area who could have contested the throw, we are told, so they don't get any advantage there. He has to get to his feet before making a run forward, so by going to one knee he has to that extent wasted the advantage of time and space that the rush to the back of the lineout has created.

Play on, I still say.

crossref
01-12-14, 14:12
from the OP, my emphasis-


Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

I take NM to mean that the player dropped to one knee in advance of the throw -- ie it was planned.

(i do agree, it does seem an odd plan, being stationary I assume he then immediatley passed the ball to the 9, back to the 2 or someone peeling)

ChrisR
01-12-14, 15:12
I take NM to mean that the player dropped to one knee in advance of the throw -- ie it was planned.

(i do agree, it does seem an odd plan, being stationary I assume he then immediatley passed the ball to the 9, back to the 2 or someone peeling)

Agree that it seems an odd thing to do. However, there are things we don't know ...

Was the throw intended to be that low? Or was it intended to be level with his shorts? My choice would be at the shorts.

What was the follow up action? We won't know because the whistle blew.

Does it really matter? I don't think so. Play on.

crossref
01-12-14, 15:12
well I guess that's the crux of it - intention.

I think there is widespread agreement that if the #1 is forced to drop to one knee to collect an unxepectedly low throw, then this is fine, play on.

The query is whether its OK to have a planned move that involves deliberatly dropping to one knee, so that the throw can be extremely low, too low for the oppo to catch.

I think we pretty much agree that this one can be argued either way ...

didds
01-12-14, 17:12
(we have discussed this before: player is on the ground and a loose ball happens to come in his direction, can he play it? IIRC opinions differed ans some one asked SAREFS who said no. I guess it's the same thing)


And then the question is asked can a player prone on the floor reach out and touchdown a ball in goal?

We don;t know from NM's OP whether the catcher

1) slipped
2) the poor throw meant he ended up on a knee in order to catch it
3) did it deliberately as a planned manouver

Given the entire oppo lineout has been dummied away from the 5m line in NM's OP, why would 3) be the case - 1 or 2 are far more likely surely? And if 3 IS true - where is the materiality? If anything the catcher has shot himself in the foot really, as he now gets pounced on by the defending 5m channel player, rather than being on his feet to run past him or attract that defender to slip the ball away to the thriower now unopposed in the channel. If the knee is a deliberate ploy its a pretty rubbish one!

didds




didds

Browner
02-12-14, 00:12
Browner was ignoring my comment:





Ooooops , sorry, I didnt realise i was compelled to answer all the comments you make, it wasn't C&O to me, promise to do so from now on ( fingers crossed)

:booty:

To aid clarity, a player who slips or falls forward when trying to catch a low pass at the front of lineout=ok, play on, but a player who drops to a knee or two/sits/or lies prone awaiting a ball to arrive ? No thanks , not for me.

If others want to see the game evolve with a new set of plays to players on/near the ground, then that's their choice.

Law doesn't prevent a hooker taking a 20m run up, but I wouldn't allow that either.

Anyway, as I said, never seen it, & doubt I might. ( anyway when we do, the Federação Portuguesa de Rugby are sure to table a clarification request !!! LoL)

OB..
02-12-14, 12:12
Law doesn't prevent a hooker taking a 20m run up, but I wouldn't allow that either.

When I was living in the USA my son played peewee soccer. One team had an acrobat who would throw in by doing a handspring off the ball to increase distance. Impressive and effective.

RobLev
02-12-14, 15:12
Ooooops , sorry, I didnt realise i was compelled to answer all the comments you make, it wasn't C&O to me, promise to do so from now on ( fingers crossed)

...

It's not compulsory to answer all comments, of course; but it's polite (hence my apology to Marauder upthread) to answer the whole of a comment rather than omitting a part which forms part of the argument being made.

crossref
02-12-14, 15:12
When I was living in the USA my son played peewee soccer. One team had an acrobat who would throw in by doing a handspring off the ball to increase distance. Impressive and effective.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gBxEfwbYvY

FlipFlop
02-12-14, 16:12
I have no problem with the move. But the player on the ground must do one of those things that is required of a player off their feet in possession of the ball (not in tackle).

WE used to have this move at college, except all of us would drop to knees - we called it Snow White. Called quickly it confused to oppo, and got us clean ball to the backs.

menace
02-12-14, 23:12
It's not compulsory to answer all comments, of course; but it's polite (hence my apology to Marauder upthread) to answer the whole of a comment rather than omitting a part which forms part of the argument being made.

First Didds blames marauder for one of my highly controversial and offensive comments, now he gets my rare but deserved apology too! Oh well, karma I guess. :shrug: Maybe marauder and menace are the same person? I didn't know I had a split personality?
What's that?
Shut up Smeagol, they're all just fats hobitses!

RobLev
03-12-14, 04:12
First Didds blames marauder for one of my highly controversial and offensive comments, now he gets my rare but deserved apology too! Oh well, karma I guess. :shrug: Maybe marauder and menace are the same person? I didn't know I had a split personality?
What's that?
Shut up Smeagol, they're all just fats hobitses!

Ooops - sorry.