PDA

View Full Version : Non contest linout - tackling the ball carrier



lawsons
16-05-15, 10:05
After one view what would you have given ?

I assume we'll see more of this at the world cup and as a result probably more in club rugby next season. Better get my head round all the permutations ?

Defending player gets his timing wrong - 5m's out - yellow car if maul beautifully formed ?

https://youtu.be/0vyK_iV2twY

Ian_Cook
16-05-15, 10:05
PK to Gold.

Maul was formed the moment the Black player nearest the touchline held the Gold player

Phil E
16-05-15, 10:05
Hmmmm

For me (after one quick look and a quick think)........
Defender crosses the line of touch before the ball has left the lineout.
However the first offence was (no maul having been formed) accidental offside (in line with clarification).

Defending scrum.

Edit: just watched it again. The defenders only make contact with the attackers at arms length, nothing resembling a bind, so no maul.

Ian_Cook
16-05-15, 10:05
Edit: just watched it again. The defenders only make contact with the attackers at arms length, nothing resembling a bind, so no maul.


On review, I think you're right.

Also, its arguable whether the jumper waited until his feet were back on the ground before handing the ball back, so even of black did contest, the maul might have been formed illegally.

damo
16-05-15, 10:05
I can't see a maul formed. The ball has been moved off the line of touch so the lineout is over. Chiefs player was OK and the referee correct.

RobLev
16-05-15, 15:05
On review, I think you're right.

Also, its arguable whether the jumper waited until his feet were back on the ground before handing the ball back, so even of black did contest, the maul might have been formed illegally.

IMHO he clearly didn't wait; and the lifters close in behind him, that is between him and the Black defenders, before he gets down. So: No maul - PK advantage Black for offside for the lifters, or for obstruction for the early handing back. When no advantage accrues, back for the PK.

Taff
16-05-15, 15:05
After one view what would you have given?
Honestly? PK to Gold.

The logic: The LO had not finished, so the ball is the offside line. If Gold had pushed beyond the LoT then the BC was fair game - but they hadn't.

Given that rolling / moving mauls are difficult to defend, I reckon we're going to see a lot more of these; so we'd better get our head round it before next season.

ChrisR
16-05-15, 18:05
19.14(d) The referee must penalise any player who, intentionally or not, moves into an offside
position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

My understanding of this law is that a player may cross the LOT to tackle a player with the ball.

Since no maul formed (I don't count the laying on of hands) then I'd say "Play on!"

RobLev
16-05-15, 20:05
Honestly? PK to Gold.

The logic: The LO had not finished, so the ball is the offside line. If Gold had pushed beyond the LoT then the BC was fair game - but they hadn't.

Given that rolling / moving mauls are difficult to defend, I reckon we're going to see a lot more of these; so we'd better get our head round it before next season.

The LO finished when the ball was handed back (Law 19.9(b) - third bullet point) - which was before the jumper's feet hit the ground.

Taff
17-05-15, 12:05
The LO finished when the ball was handed back (Law 19.9(b) - third bullet point) - which was before the jumper's feet hit the ground.
Are you sure RobLev?

19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout

(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.1234

This includes the following:
標hen the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
標hen the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
標hen a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. Nobody peeled.
標hen the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
標hen a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. It wasn't even a maul
標hen the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE


... For me (after one quick look and a quick think)........ Defender crosses the line of touch before the ball has left the lineout. However the first offence was (no maul having been formed) accidental offside (in line with clarification).
Somehow, I've missed this clarification. Anyone got a link?

OB..
17-05-15, 14:05
19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout

(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.1234

This includes the following:
[..]
•When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. Nobody peeled.[...]

If they weren't peeling, how did they legally get to be in a position behind the jumper?

ChrisR
17-05-15, 15:05
Taff, the ball is handed to the receiver . It may not be specified but I think that is a law oversight.

Taff
17-05-15, 16:05
If they weren't peeling, how did they legally get to be in a position behind the jumper?

Taff, the ball is handed to the receiver . It may not be specified but I think that is a law oversight.
Mmmm. OK, I can see what you're driving at, but joining a maul isn't what I would have called a "Peel" if I'm honest. 19.12(b) seems to back up what I would class as "Peeling".

19.12 Peeling off
Definitions: A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.
(b) A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player’s line of touch to 10 metres from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended.
If a player joins a maul, he obviously can't keep moving, but I'm pretty relaxed about it.

Is this what the "clarification" says? :chin:

irishref
17-05-15, 19:05
My gut feeling on the first view was the uncontested lineout clarification - ball transferred to the back so obstruction on the trundle forwards by gold.

ddjamo
17-05-15, 21:05
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.

Crucial
17-05-15, 22:05
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.

Seriously?

Nothing personal, but this is why the Maul is such a sore point in the game at the moment and causes so much controversy. The attacking side appears to viewers to be immune from sanction.

What the Hurricanes worked out quickly from GJs handling of the maul was that he was letting them get away with handing the ball back before the catcher touched the ground and the defence could touch him. Then the lifters were allowed to fall to the ground and create a blockade that made it near impossible for the defence to legally put any drive on the ball carrying pod. To engage the group with the ball raised a PK for side entry. The attacking side was then able to set up a flying wedge and pick whichever side they wanted to drive around. And you wonder why defensive teams try to get cute to stop the maul.
I have even recently seen defending players legally caught in the middle of the maul and coming through toward the ball be pinged after attacking players on one side unbind and leave them 'un-caught'.

At least WR have finally woken up and have agreed that they need to try and provide clearer guidance and better contestability before the RWC or the tournament will be focussed on kicks for touch, lineout drives and endless controversy.

Frankly I'm surprised that referees themselves have allowed this situation to develop.

ChrisR
17-05-15, 22:05
I think it's important to referee the maul as you would a tackle. That is as a distinct series of stages. If you get too focused of the details you won't see the big picture.

Ian_Cook
17-05-15, 23:05
Seriously?

Nothing personal, but this is why the Maul is such a sore point in the game at the moment and causes so much controversy. The attacking side appears to viewers to be immune from sanction.

What the Hurricanes worked out quickly from GJs handling of the maul was that he was letting them get away with handing the ball back before the catcher touched the ground and the defence could touch him. Then the lifters were allowed to fall to the ground and create a blockade that made it near impossible for the defence to legally put any drive on the ball carrying pod. To engage the group with the ball raised a PK for side entry. The attacking side was then able to set up a flying wedge and pick whichever side they wanted to drive around. And you wonder why defensive teams try to get cute to stop the maul.
I have even recently seen defending players legally caught in the middle of the maul and coming through toward the ball be pinged after attacking players on one side unbind and leave them 'un-caught'.

At least WR have finally woken up and have agreed that they need to try and provide clearer guidance and better con testability before the RWC or the tournament will be focussed on kicks for touch, line-out drives and endless controversy.

Frankly I'm surprised that referees themselves have allowed this situation to develop.

100% agree. This has made it virtually impossible to stop a maul being formed and pretty much neuters any legal defence to the the maul.

I would like to see WR rule that the catcher must not even begin to hand the ball back until his feet are on the ground and the maul is actually formed.

Either that, or rule that if the catcher holds the ball out away from the LoT before the maul is formed, then the ball has left the LoT and the line-out is over. Opposition players would then be free to swarm though and come up from their 10m offside lines. I feel this would encourage jumpers to come to ground still holding the ball in (to prevent the line-out ending) and this would give the ball winning team an opportunity to legally; form a maul, and their opponent the same opportunity to legally sack it.

RobLev
17-05-15, 23:05
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.

Which set play? The attackers' or the defenders'?

ChrisR
18-05-15, 13:05
I can understand why the non-ruck after a tackle and the non-maul at the lineout are a cause of consternation to referees.

They both add a level of complexity to an already complex scenario. However, both can be handled by adding a single checkpoint to the list. "Did the ruck/maul form?" The answer is binary, yes or no. Each brings into play a different set of laws and checkpoints.

What has to happen is referees becoming accustomed to the sequence and anticipating it instead of being caught off-guard. Meanwhile coaches will devise strategies to respond to what they get.

The worst response is what has happened in WR coming out with a half-baked directive for the non-maul. Let the game evolve. Change is good. Ruckitis is a plague. The predictable 5m driving maul is about as bad. Long live the innovators!

ddjamo
18-05-15, 13:05
guys...I am commenting on that particular situation, based on a video that I watched for 30 seconds - I am not debating law or saying that everything was perfect in that scenario. the non throwing side chose not to engage and wanted to come around and make a tackle at the back - which they did.

turning the ball over that close to the line is serious stuff. not sure I would agree that this situation warranted a turn over pk or scrum.

is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.

Taff
18-05-15, 23:05
...The worst response is what has happened in WR coming out with a half-baked directive for the non-maul.
Can someone please give us a link to this directive?


... is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.
Probably the same one mentioned earlier, which I'm trying to get hold of. There's nothing about it on the World Rugby website under Clarifications or Guideline.

Ian_Cook
19-05-15, 00:05
guys...I am commenting on that particular situation, based on a video that I watched for 30 seconds - I am not debating law or saying that everything was perfect in that scenario. the non throwing side chose not to engage and wanted to come around and make a tackle at the back - which they did.

turning the ball over that close to the line is serious stuff. not sure I would agree that this situation warranted a turn over pk or scrum.

is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.


Can someone please give us a link to this directive?


Probably the same one mentioned earlier, which I'm trying to get hold of. There's nothing about it on the World Rugby website under Clarifications or Guideline.


This is all I can find so far

http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

Taff
19-05-15, 11:05
This is all I can find so far. http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/
Thanks Ian.

OB..
19-05-15, 11:05
This is all I can find so far

http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/
I note the following extractWe believe that teams who are adept at mauling will very quickly make use of their options to their advantage & therefore defending teams will be taking a massive risk if they choose not to compete with the initial maul.This comes close to saying that defenders really should be made to play the attackers' game. It explains why the suggested approach is slanted in the attackers' favour: they can get a PK (for "leaving the lineout") whereas the defenders can only get a scrum (for "accidental offside" rather than a PK for obstruction).

ChrisR
19-05-15, 12:05
From the link:

In order to provide clarity around the reaction to a defending team choosing not to engage in the potential maul from a lineout, all referees are advised to apply the law as follows:

If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the lineout drive by “leaving the lineout as a group”. Penalty Kick to team in possession.
If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the lineout, the following process should be followed:
attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
If they immediately pass it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.
if they drive forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.

Thank you for the link, Ian.

This is the half-baked directive. There are debatable flaws in the logic of this directive but my principal objection is its blatant purpose of determining how the game is to be played. As OB noted above it is biased toward the attacking side by making the penalty for the defenders not engaging far greater than the risk to the attacking side.

Consider this: Most mauls from lineouts occur within the range of a penalty goal. Giving up a scrum 5m from the defenders goal is not a game changing event. This exacerbates the discrepancy in sanctions.

Were the players of the game consulted in this decision? Were the coaches? This is a blatant attempt to manipulate the game to conform to an image of how it must be played. What a crock!

didds
19-05-15, 13:05
does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

didds

OB..
19-05-15, 14:05
does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

diddsWhy should it? It's open play. A tackle does not form a maul.

ChrisR
19-05-15, 15:05
does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

didds

In practice, yes. But not in law.

Here's the scenario:

Ball taken by the throwing (attacking) team, catcher brings it down but does not hand the ball back, lifters bind onto the catch as do others to form the phalanx. Ball is still in the catchers hands at the front.

Defenders, not wishing to engage to form a maul follow the directive and stay at the lineout but move to the side. There is now a huge gap for the opponents to advance through. The lineout laws are still in play until the ball moves off the line-of-touch, so players are prohibited from retiring to get a shot at the catcher. If they don't retire they'd have to go through the bound on lifters.

Law 19 becomes Catch 22.

How is demanding that an onside defender move out of the path of an advancing ball carrier be consistent with the principles of the game?

:shrug:

Crucial
19-05-15, 20:05
The way defending teams are playing this is that they place a loose forward in the halfback position, open the gap and then as soon as the ball has moved off the line of touch the player in the halfback position flys in to tackle the ball carrier.

As the mauling team is now aware, it becomes a game of cat and mouse with things getting really complicated for the ref. If the BC passes the ball back through his bound players, instead of the 'halfback' coming in and (according to the directive) earning a scrum for accidental offside (how on earth is it accidental?), another player will come around and attack the back of the maul.

This, of course is a risky tactic as the ref is working off instinct and blows the whistle for offside.

In the example in this thread I would say that the Chiefs discussed their intent in these situations with GJ beforehand to get clarity. In previous games they have suffered from incorrect (instinctive) calls that have gone against them.

Taff
19-05-15, 22:05
.... The lineout laws are still in play until the ball moves off the line-of-touch
But for the Lineout to be over, the ball has to leave the Lineout NOT the LoT.

The Lineout is obviously wider than the LoT; so even after the ball has been touched, until the ball leaves the lineout the ball is still the offside line.

RobLev
20-05-15, 00:05
But for the Lineout to be over, the ball has to leave the Lineout NOT the LoT.

The Lineout is obviously wider than the LoT; so even after the ball has been touched, until the ball leaves the lineout the ball is still the offside line.

The Lineout in this sense is the two lines of players forming the lineout.

didds
20-05-15, 09:05
Why should it? It's open play. A tackle does not form a maul.

that's what I am trying to ascertain OB. The directives talk about PKs for leaving the lineout en masse. it doesn't include the situation of a single defender "leaving the lineout" to tackle the front BC.

didds

lawsons
20-05-15, 21:05
Many thanks for all your responses, seems we have some work to do as the result would be penalties and scrums both ways it seems.

Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?

Crucial
20-05-15, 23:05
Call for the stretcher.

Ian_Cook
20-05-15, 23:05
Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?


That is not a flying wedge....

Law 10.4 (p) Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the 詮lying Wedge or the 舛avalry
Charge.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.
詮lying Wedge. The type of attack known as a 詮lying Wedge usually happens near the
goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or
by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side
of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front
of the ball carrier. A 詮lying Wedge is illegal.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.


...nonetheless, I agree with you that players binding onto a ball carrier and then charging forwards is potentially dangerous for both the ball carrier and anyone who tries to tackle him.

ChrisR
20-05-15, 23:05
The term "Flying Wedge" invokes the image of a phalanx of players at high speed.

However, "driving forward" could be at pace or at plod.

The only thing for sure is "The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack" and "Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation."

Questions: Can a Flying Wedge start in any other manner other than a tap kick?

I'd say Yes, and the formation in an uncontested lineout is a Flying Wedge when it moves forward.

ChrisR
21-05-15, 03:05
On another point ...

Law 19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...

RobLev
21-05-15, 10:05
On another point ...

Law 19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...

I think the answer to that is 19.8(d):

When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.

which I believe specifically refers to lineout players, not participating players.

And 19.12, dealing with peeling off, sets the conditions upon which a lineout player may leave the LoT - which would be unnecessary if there were no general prohibition.

RobLev
21-05-15, 10:05
Many thanks for all your responses, seems we have some work to do as the result would be penalties and scrums both ways it seems.

Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?

<smartarse>Ping the catcher's side, because there are 9 forwards in that formation (catcher plus 8 forwards bound on), implying they've got 16 on the field in total</smartarse>

ChrisR
21-05-15, 15:05
I think the answer to that is 19.8(d):

When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.

which I believe specifically refers to lineout players, not participating players.

And 19.12, dealing with peeling off, sets the conditions upon which a lineout player may leave the LoT - which would be unnecessary if there were no general prohibition.

And the sanction for offending, including 'leaving the lineout, is a FK. Not a PK. So why is the sanction in the directive for a non-maul a PK?

Don't you think that the directive should reference actual Law and their proscribed sanctions?

Ian_Cook
21-05-15, 20:05
On another point ...

Law 19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...


Law 19 Lineout Definitions

DEFINITIONS

.....

Lineout players. Lineout players are the players who form the two lines that
make a lineout.

Receiver. The receiver is the player in position to catch the ball when lineout
players pass or knock the ball back from the lineout. Any player may be the
receiver but each team may have only one receiver at a lineout.

Players taking part in the lineout known as participating players. Players
taking part in the lineout are the player who throws-in and an immediate
opponent, the two players waiting to receive the ball from the lineout and the
lineout players.

All other players. All other players who are not taking part in the lineout must
be at least 10 metres behind the line of touch, on or behind their goal line if that is
nearer, until the lineout ends.

.....




What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

ChrisR
21-05-15, 20:05
What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

This is where I'm going with this argument:

There is "leaving the lineout" and then there is "leaving the lineout".

The first reference is in 19.8(d) when the lineout is being formed. See the next box.

Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the
lineout until the lineout has ended. Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Here the "lineout" is the two lines of "lineout players". The purpose of 19.8(d) should be clear: Prevent players from getting to the LOT then leaving. The ball has not yet been thrown.

The second reference to "leaving the lineout" is 19.14(e). See the next box:

No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

Here the players are "participating" players. That includes the lineout players, thrower and opposite and receivers.
The term "lineout" cannot mean the two rows of players at the LOT. Here "lineout" must include all the area between the two opposing 10m from the LOT between touch and 15.

Therefore there should be no prohibition against a player who starts at the LOT from stepping back from the LOT as long as he stays within the lineout area as defined above.

The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

Ian_Cook
21-05-15, 21:05
The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

100% agree.

IMO, that whole directive is driven by a person or persons with their own private BS agenda trying to direct how the game will be played. It seems they don't want teams NOT competing at the formation of a maul from a line-out as a means of defending it, perhaps because it offends their sense of fair play, i.e. it must seem like a dirty trick to them.

On another note, this is another area where the Law 19 is a complete mess. It goes to the trouble of defining who all the line-out, participating and other players are, but nowhere does it actually define in black and white, what a line-out is.

Go figure!

RobLev
21-05-15, 22:05
What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

This is where I'm going with this argument:

There is "leaving the lineout" and then there is "leaving the lineout".

The first reference is in 19.8(d) when the lineout is being formed. See the next box.

Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the
lineout until the lineout has ended. Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Here the "lineout" is the two lines of "lineout players". The purpose of 19.8(d) should be clear: Prevent players from getting to the LOT then leaving. The ball has not yet been thrown.

The second reference to "leaving the lineout" is 19.14(e). See the next box:

No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

Here the players are "participating" players. That includes the lineout players, thrower and opposite and receivers.
The term "lineout" cannot mean the two rows of players at the LOT. Here "lineout" must include all the area between the two opposing 10m from the LOT between touch and 15.

Therefore there should be no prohibition against a player who starts at the LOT from stepping back from the LOT as long as he stays within the lineout area as defined above.

The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

While I don't like the "directive", your logic means that 19.12 is unnecessary, because lineout players can leave the LoT with impunity, without keeping moving, any time they like.

ChrisR
22-05-15, 12:05
Yes, after the ball is thrown in, but they must remain between 10m from the LOT and not stray beyond the 15m.

Why not? If they step back from the LOT they are ceding ground to the opponent.

When a ruck or maul forms they must join the ruck/maul or retire to the hind foot, thus "leaving the lineout" if that is your narrow definition of a lineout.

Note the wording of 19.14(i):

A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside. Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Is a player liable for PK if he's 2 steps behind that line? Why That would be silly. One of Law 19 problems is the attempt to micro-manage players during a lineout.

Browner
22-05-15, 17:05
Modern line outs are such a mess

http://miyagi.sg/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/rugby-punch-tm.jpg

OB..
23-05-15, 15:05
Browner,

If you're offended by my post, then its either 'tough' or 'it's time you raised your barometer setting above such a low level'
I am not amused by that last sentence in your new sig block. Are you claiming carte blanche to write as you like, careless of what others think?

Browner
24-05-15, 10:05
"I am not amused" .....

Hi OB
You had the option to PM me.
Maybe I'm not amused by your public challenge to my personal choice of Sig :sarc:

Anything rugby related happening???

damo
24-05-15, 13:05
Modern line outs are such a mess

http://miyagi.sg/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/rugby-punch-tm.jpg
Lineouts from pre 1996 were a lot worse. A lot worse.

Ian_Cook
24-05-15, 13:05
Lineouts from pre 1996 were a lot worse. A lot worse.


Amen to that.

They were an utter shambles, of pushing and shoving and elbowing. Lifting is the best thing that ever happened to the line-out

OB..
24-05-15, 15:05
Hi OB
You had the option to PM me.Why should I PM you? I don't mind others knowing my opinion. Your statement (and response) make it clear you are not going to change anything.

Chris_j
24-05-15, 23:05
Hi OB
You had the option to PM me.
Maybe I'm not amused by your public challenge to my personal choice of Sig :sarc:

Anything rugby related happening???

Hi Browner

From what I've seen this year you are a good referee with potential to climb the ladder. However you need to understand a few important things:

As a referee you are representing the game at every fixture and need to make sure that you are both seen to be and are in practice impartial at all times.

We, the referees, are a team as well. Most people on this forum are here because we want to learn and improve our time with the whistle. Robust discussion is fine. Cheap shots such as this are not. A lot of your posts on here are positive, but you don't appear to be able to resist the odd abusive rant. Why?

If you can take this on board and cut out the daft stuff you have a future on here and with the whistle.

Dickie E
24-05-15, 23:05
Hi Browner

From what I've seen this year you are a good referee with potential to climb the ladder. However you need to understand a few important things:

As a referee you are representing the game at every fixture and need to make sure that you are both seen to be and are in practice impartial at all times.

We, the referees, are a team as well. Most people on this forum are here because we want to learn and improve our time with the whistle. Robust discussion is fine. Cheap shots such as this are not. A lot of your posts on here are positive, but you don't appear to be able to resist the odd abusive rant. Why?

If you can take this on board and cut out the daft stuff you have a future on here and with the whistle.

IMO Browner and Ian Cook have had a number of personal spats and one is as guilty as the other. The difference is that Ian is a mod and has been able to pull out the big stick that Browner has not had access to. I can see why Browner is a bit brittle. He has been left with little recourse. Signatures are just signatures (how non-PC is mine). Let's focus of posts and their content.

Chris_j
25-05-15, 00:05
IMO Browner and Ian Cook have had a number of personal spats and one is as guilty as the other. The difference is that Ian is a mod and has been able to pull out the big stick that Browner has not had access to. I can see why Browner is a bit brittle. He has been left with little recourse. Signatures are just signatures (how non-PC is mine). Let's focus of posts and their content.

Yours; "I'm trying to give up sexual innuendos. But it's hard ... so very hard." , crass but not personal.

Browners; a direct attempt to goad, and not just at IC who does give as good as he gets. There is a big difference.

Crucial
25-05-15, 21:05
Some sensitive souls indeed.

I don't find Browners sig goading at all. It gives me an insight into his online 'personality' though, so in a way, it is good, as I can see what I am dealing with and the approach I would need to take in a debate (or whether to bother at all)

Dickie E
25-05-15, 21:05
Browners; a direct attempt to goad,

use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is. Let me know your thoughts. Nobody (unless they're sociopathic) does anything without a reason.

didds
26-05-15, 11:05
I am sure I am not alone here with personal expereince of lineouts pre-lifting.

As a prop my general lineout job was to just get in the way of the oppo on our throw to remove the challenge to our jumpers. this varied from just stepping into a gap - probably being offside as i did so - though to smashing the oppo jumper in the ribs as he set to jump or had just started (meaning his own props weren't cheating to stop me cheating!).

On the oppo ball it was just general disruption... to taking out the oppo blocker to expose the jumper/caught ball, to taking out the jumper as above.

"The gap" was observed mainly in the breach (tho some chinese firedrills these days at eleite elevel end up much the same).

Compare and contrast with lifting that requires the previously disruptive to now have a positive role that removeds the time/opportunity to disrupt.

didds

OB..
26-05-15, 11:05
use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is.Because he resents the attempt to stop him trolling?

Let's leave it for a while, shall we?

Marchioly
27-05-15, 08:05
use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is. Let me know your thoughts. Nobody (unless they're sociopathic) does anything without a reason.
Sociopaths have their reasons too, just different to most people. Sociopaths are people too:hap:

Browner
27-05-15, 17:05
Hi Browner

1) From what I've seen this year you are a good referee with potential to climb the ladder. However you need to understand a few important things:

2) As a referee you are representing the game at every fixture and need to make sure that you are both seen to be and are in practice impartial at all times.

3) If you can take this on board and cut out the daft stuff you have a future on here and with the whistle.

Hi Chris_j
1) I don't believe you've assessed me, therefore its inappropriate to opine on a Forum as to my laddering potential.
2) Fixture impartiality ??? I'm bemused by your motivation for this statement.
3) My future on RR.com, or with the whistle !! - WADR this isnt your personal concern. ( note how polite that reply was! )

Your message seems to be a pitch for a RR.com mod vacancy :chin: does one exist ?( rhetorical only)

Ive PM'd you with my mobile no#, which is my invite ( request) to continue to discuss rugby politics offline.

Browner