PDA

View Full Version : [Line out] Quick Line Out vs. Quick Throw in



talbazar
04-03-16, 17:03
Something struck me tonight as I was AR'ing and I'd like to run it through the eminent members of this community.

Quick Throw In:
Restriction of same ball, not being touched, etc...
Can be taken backwards
Taken anywhere between where the Line Out would take place and the try line.

That's my question
Admitting the QTI is not possible anymore (ball touched for example), is there any restriction for a player not to take a quick line out?

Example scenario:
1. Red restart direct to touch and caught by a spectator
2. Everyone jogs towards the centre while the ref is like "Blue, option? Blue Captain, what do you want?"
3. Blue scrum-half grabs the ball and goes play the line out on the middle line (where it would take place) and sends it 5m straight and all other requirement for a Throw-In.
4. Either he catches it himself and goes
4'. Or the winger comes full pace on the line of touch to catch the ball should not make any difference in the final call... But if it does, please tell.

Any issue?

Cheers,
Pierre.

crossref
04-03-16, 17:03
We have discussed this general question quite a few times, without reaching agreement.


It's not a black and white issue - obviously some lineouts are taken more quickly than others, and it follows that it's possible to take a legitimate lineout more quickly than perhaps the oppo were expecting...

But personally I don't think its possible to have a legitimate lineout taken in such a way that one team is completely unaware that a lineout is even taking place -- but opinions will differ.

But in your specific scenario: I don't think anyone would consider 4 or 4' to be a legitimate lineout. I certainly wouldn't ! I think if you allowed that you're going to be having a very difficult afternoon...

For me
- there are QTIs, which are quick, unstructured and can happen in an instance : players be alert !
- and there are lineouts, which are formal and follow many more rules.

it's a bit like a scrum : if everything works well you can have a quick scrum, but you can't have a surprise scrum.

Dickie E
04-03-16, 19:03
Generally agree with crossref and cite these 2 pieces of law:

DEFINITIONS
The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.


(a)
Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.

crossref
04-03-16, 19:03
NB *fairly*...

Pinky
04-03-16, 21:03
For me, if the throwing in side have formed their lineout - however many they want in the line plus a receiver if they wish, then as long as the other team meets the minimum standar two in the line, I would probably let the throwin happen. But I'd not be inclined to offer a fk for not having a hooker or numbers if the had too many and the throwing in team did not allow time to match.

talbazar
05-03-16, 02:03
Thanks a lot guys!
That's in line with my thoughts, so all good...

I guess I somehow got mixed up with my (very) old playing days...

Cheers,
Pierre.

Ian_Cook
05-03-16, 02:03
Generally agree with crossref and Dickie (now there's something that needs to be recorded for posterity!)

A quickly taken line-out has to be thrown along the line of touch, straight, and there has to be at least two players from each team.

However, I would not entertain any calls from the throwing team if it goes wrong, and ostensibly offside opponents get in the way. If you want to take the lineout quickly, then that is your risk.

NOTE: I put it in the same category as teams who get cute with line-out numbers. One trick I have seen tried (and it didn't fool that ref either) was for the throwing team to line up without a receiver - which they are entitled to do; Law 19.8 (i). The opposition line up with the same numbers in the line, but they do have a receiver. Just as the ball is about to be thrown, one of the players ducks out to the receiver position and the skipper calls out "numbers ref!". No team would be getting any mileage from me if they tried that it on.

RobLev
05-03-16, 08:03
Generally agree with crossref and Dickie (now there's something that needs to be recorded for posterity!)

A quickly taken line-out has to be thrown along the line of touch, straight, and there has to be at least two players from each team.

However, I would not entertain any calls from the throwing team if it goes wrong, and ostensibly offside opponents get in the way. If you want to take the lineout quickly, then that is your risk.

NOTE: I put it in the same category as teams who get cute with line-out numbers. One trick I have seen tried (and it didn't fool that ref either) was for the throwing team to line up without a receiver - which they are entitled to do; Law 19.8 (i). The opposition line up with the same numbers in the line, but they do have a receiver. Just as the ball is about to be thrown, one of the players ducks out to the receiver position and the skipper calls out "numbers ref!". No team would be getting any mileage from me if they tried that it on.

Can I add my agreement too?

Dickie E
05-03-16, 23:03
I wonder what we do here:

All the requirements for a QTI are met and Red thrower is standing on LoT ready to take lineout throw. Blue lineout participants duly form their line. Red forwards hover around 5 metres from LoT for all the world looking like they're about to move into the lineout. Before they do so, Red thrower throws ball straight to his #10 who is 10 metres from LoT and 15 metres in. Play on?

didds
05-03-16, 23:03
.... and another scenario... for any blue lineout...

blue form quickly including thrower. red have deliberately not put anybody near the LoT, except maybe a soliitary chaser to mark a QTI. Now there is never two red's to form a lineout until they are ready to make it one. So the lineout cannot be taken until they arrive ie not taken quickly.


Or at least similar non joining tactics for any ball in touch that cannot be taken as a QTI. (Its a risky tactic I'd agree!)


didds

RobLev
06-03-16, 00:03
.... and another scenario... for any blue lineout...

blue form quickly including thrower. red have deliberately not put anybody near the LoT, except maybe a soliitary chaser to mark a QTI. Now there is never two red's to form a lineout until they are ready to make it one. So the lineout cannot be taken until they arrive ie not taken quickly.


Or at least similar non joining tactics for any ball in touch that cannot be taken as a QTI. (Its a risky tactic I'd agree!)


didds

Law 19.8(g):

Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.

didds
06-03-16, 07:03
But they aren't failing to join... Just delaying join it until it tactically best for them.

Just like throwing teams' huddles - they don't get pinged it seems.

Didds

OB..
06-03-16, 10:03
It is clear that the team throwing in must meet all its obligations. It is not laid down that they must wait for their opponents to be ready. A team must not "voluntariiy fail to form a lineout" Law 19.8 (g), but that is different from not being ready.

In practice the defending team usually arrives first, so the situation rarely arises and presumably would happen as a ploy eg didds' scenario, or unusually getting to the line of touch first.

There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

RobLev
06-03-16, 11:03
But they aren't failing to join... Just delaying join it until it tactically best for them.

...

At the time you ping it, because you've waited long enough, they've failed to join...

RobLev
06-03-16, 11:03
It is clear that the team throwing in must meet all its obligations. It is not laid down that they must wait for their opponents to be ready. A team must not "voluntariiy fail to form a lineout" Law 19.8 (g), but that is different from not being ready.

In practice the defending team usually arrives first, so the situation rarely arises and presumably would happen as a ploy eg didds' scenario, or unusually getting to the line of touch first.

There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

On the other hand, there's also a similarity to scrums, where there is an obligation to wait for the opponents. In fact, that similarity is closer since there are detailed rules (over and above offside) about the formation of the lineout and where the non-throwing team must stand (just as with a scrum) which are entirely absent from restart kicks.

OB..
06-03-16, 13:03
On the other hand, there's also a similarity to scrumsYou cannot form a scrum without having two sets of forwards, so I see no similarity whatsoever. It is physically impossible for one team to have a "quickly taken scrum".

crossref
06-03-16, 14:03
There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

I had one of those yesterday! I can't remember the last time I saw it. One player caught the miss hit conversion, raced up the field and kicked off. The oppo were almost all in their own half, but hardly any were 10m back. The kicker was still on his way back.

The restart kick went really long and the defenders let it cross the DBL

decision anyone?

winchesterref
06-03-16, 14:03
I had one of those yesterday! I can't remember the last time I saw it. One player caught the miss hit conversion, raced up the field and kicked off. The oppo were almost all in their own half, but hardly any were 10m back. The kicker was still on his way back.

The restart kick went really long and the defenders let it cross the DBL

decision anyone?

I'd allow the kick off. Scrum back or kick off again.

OB..
06-03-16, 15:03
I would also allow the kick-off - in this case nobody can complain!

RobLev
06-03-16, 15:03
You cannot form a scrum without having two sets of forwards, so I see no similarity whatsoever. It is physically impossible for one team to have a "quickly taken scrum".

Since the definition of a lineout includes both sides having at least two players in the lineout, and the non-throwing team having a player 3m in 2m back from the LoT, it is impossible to have a quickly-taken lineout (where those conditions are not met) in accordance with the Laws.

It is of course possible and indeed appropriate to overlook non-compliance with the Law by the non-throwing team by applying advantage...

OB..
06-03-16, 17:03
Since the definition of a lineout includes both sides having at least two players in the lineout, and the non-throwing team having a player 3m in 2m back from the LoT, it is impossible to have a quickly-taken lineout (where those conditions are not met) in accordance with the Laws.The law says where players should be. It does not say that they have to be there before the ball can be thrown in. For example it says where a receiver should stand, but we all know you do not have to have one.

There is a gap in the law. How far we should close that gap by interpretation is unclear (largely because the opposition usually makes a point of being there first).

RobLev
06-03-16, 17:03
The law says where players should be. It does not say that they have to be there before the ball can be thrown in. For example it says where a receiver should stand, but we all know you do not have to have one.

The Law is clear that a receiver is optional:

If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

Equally, it makes clear that a player at 3 + 2 is compulsory:

The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team’s side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.


There is a gap in the law. How far we should close that gap by interpretation is unclear (largely because the opposition usually makes a point of being there first).

A combination of the definition of a lineout:

The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.

and Law 19.8(g):

A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.

make clear that the norm is that the ball is thrown in only when the lineout has been formed.

OB..
06-03-16, 18:03
The Law is clear that a receiver is optional:

If a team uses a receiver, then that player, must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout, and between the 5m and 15m lines, until the lineout begins.

Equally, it makes clear that a player at 3 + 2 is compulsory:

The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that teamís side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.



A combination of the definition of a lineout:

The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.

and Law 19.8(g):

A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.

make clear that the norm is that the ball is thrown in only when the lineout has been formed.The gap is that it does not say the thrower must wait until the lineout is fully formed.

Dickie E
06-03-16, 22:03
The gap is that it does not say the thrower must wait until the lineout is fully formed.

The inference is pretty clear to me. The throw is to commence a lineout. A lineout doesn't exist until 2 + 2 from each team.

OB..
07-03-16, 00:03
The inference is pretty clear to me. The throw is to commence a lineout. A lineout doesn't exist until 2 + 2 from each team.
So as long as their delay did not amount to voluntarily failing to form a lineout,you would allow them to make the opposition wait if it suited them?

I agree the inference is reasonable, but it is still no more than an inference. The Mike Philips try against Ireland in 2011 might be used as a counter argument, though it is not entirely clear if that was the decision.

Dickie E
07-03-16, 01:03
So as long as their delay did not amount to voluntarily failing to form a lineout,you would allow them to make the opposition wait if it suited them?



Yes, I'll hold up the throw until there are 2 + 2 noting that my tolerance to delay will be comensurate with the throwing team's desire to get on with it.

Broadly speaking, once the thrower is in psoition I would expect both lines to be formed within about 5 seconds.

Interestingly I reffed a game last weekend where the throwing team all walked in together with the throw coming as they arrived. I won't say it was a disaster but it certainly seemed to not work to their advantage. The throw alighted while they were still dicking around.

didds
07-03-16, 07:03
At the time you ping it, because you've waited long enough, they've failed to join...


And you would similarly ping throwing teams that huddle and delay their approach to the lineout? If so, why doesn't everybody else? If you don't why not?

Didds

crossref
07-03-16, 09:03
I'd like to consider how we referee normal, regular lineouts.

Isn't it the case that for lineouts you pro-actively, preventatively, work to make sure the set up is correct -- especially the first two or three as you lay out your stall :
"hold on #2"
"both teams - straight lines please"
"red that's your mark - blue give a little"
"fly-half? take a step please .... thank you"
"oppo hooker? 2m back please ... yes, thank you"

etc etc --

setting out your stall...

get the first two or three lineouts right, set out what you want from players, and they will be good for rest of the afternoon. Same as you do for first two/three scrums.


So, then an hour later you will completely abandon your standards, ignore all of that and let a hooker throw unexpectedly into an untidy huddle of players who don't even realise a 'lineout' is supposedly taking place? I don't see it.

OB..
07-03-16, 11:03
Interestingly I reffed a game last weekend where the throwing team all walked in together with the throw coming as they arrived. I won't say it was a disaster but it certainly seemed to not work to their advantage. The throw alighted while they were still dicking around.I have seen this, and referees generally tell teams they have to pause after arriving at the lineout. Otherwise things get chaotic

RobLev
07-03-16, 14:03
And you would similarly ping throwing teams that huddle and delay their approach to the lineout?

If they take too long, yes.


If so, why doesn't everybody else?

You'd have to ask them.


If you don't why not?

...

'Cos I'm not a referee... :pepper::biggrin: