PDA

View Full Version : [Line out] Help with this law ?



rugbyslave
30-03-18, 15:03
37333734

rugbyslave
30-03-18, 15:03
Sorry just added the images, how can we have 2 different sanctions ????

thepercy
30-03-18, 16:03
18.6 is for a player from either side playing the ball before it has gone 5 meters, sanction FK.

18.23.B is for when the throw does not go 5 meters before touching the ground, sanction LO/scrum option.

Has anyone ever seen a LO throw hit the ground before reaching 5 meters?

crossref
30-03-18, 17:03
18.6 is for a player from either side playing the ball before it has gone 5 meters, sanction FK.

18.23.B is for when the throw does not go 5 meters before touching the ground, sanction LO/scrum option.


not really, as they both cover the scenario of the ball being played, and yet the sanction is different

8.6 The ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres
8.23 The ball must reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.

This has been a murky bit of Law for a long time -- it's a missed opportunity that the 2018 book didn't clarify it

OB..
30-03-18, 18:03
18.6 applies to a QTI
18.23.b applies to a formed lineout

crossref
30-03-18, 18:03
18.6 applies to a QTI
18.23.b applies to a formed lineout

Same offence , though, but different sanctions

ChrisR
30-03-18, 19:03
The laws that match up are :

4. At a quick throw, the ball is thrown in:


c. So that it reaches the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player

Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.


and

23. The ball must:


b. Reach the five metre line before it hits the ground or is played.


Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown
straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.


In these two cases the law addresses the player throwing in. Law 8.6 applies to other players, not the thrower.

crossref
30-03-18, 19:03
I don't think they quite answer this

Red throw, and red player catches it 4m out , what do you give ?

Christy
30-03-18, 20:03
I don't think they quite answer this

Red throw, and red player catches it 4m out , what do you give ?

Player reaches over & catches ball 4 meters = scrum opposition .
Player steps into channel to catch same ball = free kick opposition .

didds
30-03-18, 20:03
And between the 22s in particular the outcome is potentially the same!

crossref
30-03-18, 21:03
Player reaches over & catches ball 4 meters = scrum opposition .
Player steps into channel to catch same ball = free kick opposition .

That's the sort of clear direction that they could have put into the 2018 Law Book .. if they had done it properly

Dickie E
30-03-18, 21:03
It's about intent. A player deliberately prevents ball going 5 = FK. A player accidentally prevents ball going 5 = scrum.

crossref
30-03-18, 21:03
It's about intent. A player deliberately prevents ball going 5 = FK. A player accidentally prevents ball going 5 = scrum.

Talk me through how this can happen accidentally?

Taff
30-03-18, 22:03
Sorry just added the images, how can we have 2 different sanctions ????

Because there may be a couple of reasons why the ball didn't travel 5m.


If a player in either of the 2 lines runs forward before the ball reaches the 5m line - it's a FK offence.
If the thrower mucks it up - then there are options.

crossref
30-03-18, 22:03
This is great . .lots of different interpretations of the Law .. all of them sensible .. no one can be sure what's correct ... This was a golden opportunity missed by the 2018 Law Book

leaguerefaus
31-03-18, 06:03
This is great . .lots of different interpretations of the Law .. all of them sensible .. no one can be sure what's correct ... This was a golden opportunity missed by the 2018 Law Book
Even if they did clarify it in the 2018 law book, you would find some referees would treat that as just another interpretation, equally as valid as the 2017 law book.

Am I flogging a dead horse? Likely.
Am I going to stop? Unlikely.

Marc Wakeham
31-03-18, 09:03
Because there may be a couple of reasons why the ball didn't travel 5m.


If a player in either of the 2 lines runs forward before the ball reaches the 5m line - it's a FK offence.
If the thrower mucks it up - then there are options.



That can't be the answer because these are laws in relation to different aspects of Touch: The QTI and the line out.



Quick Throw

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.

We also have the following law relation to a QTI
4.
b. Parallel to or towards the thrower’s own goal line;
and
c. So that it reaches the five-metre line before it touches the ground or hits a player;
and

Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.

6 seems to refer to the actions of "Other players" at a QTI where as 4 seems to refer to the thrower in.

Whereas:




Throwing into a line out
23. The ball must:
a. Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
b. Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.

Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.


Here the actions of both the thrower (a) and the "other players" (b) have the same sanction.

For both the ball must travel the required distance (thrower-in's issue) and must not be played before it reaches the required distance. (other players' issue).

So why treat a QTI and a full line out differently in repect of the actions of "other players"?

With a QTI the ball need not be straight (it can go backward as long as it crosses the 5m line). Why? Not material I hear some say. BUT surely the same would apply to QTI caught before it gets to the 5? No? Also rarely would a QTI be intercepted by the opposition before reaching the 5.

I like to ask the question "what is a law try to achieve?" it helps interprets it at times. That is not helping here.

didds
31-03-18, 10:03
Player reaches over & catches ball 4 meters = scrum opposition .
Player steps into channel to catch same ball = free kick opposition .

I really don't see the differenc tbh!

OB..
31-03-18, 11:03
Same offence , though, but different sanctionsDifferent circumstances, therefore different tactical situations.

ChrisR
31-03-18, 11:03
I think we're making this harder than it needs to be. Ignore the actual wording for a minute for both QTI and lineout and consider this:

Throwing team mucks it up. Ie. ball thrown short or teammate of thrower prevents ball going 5m. Sanction: Turnover with choice of scrum or lineout.

Opponent stops ball going 5m. Sanction FK.

ChuckieB
31-03-18, 12:03
Anything not reaching five metres for all reasons other than the exception of the qti prevented by the opposition ( because the law says it) is for, me an incorrect throw in.

a qti throwing to himself and short 5m is an incorrect throw in.
a ball being played by any player in a lineout before it reaches 5 metres is an incorrect throw in. If it is thrown in short and played by the opposition dliebrate or not, it is an incorrect throw in. It means the team throwing should have worked harder to throw the ball in 5 metres, likely that they were going for the short one and left themselves open to getting it wrong.

So different to Chris R but, rightly or wrongly, more technically in tune with what is actually written in the laws imo. When formulated I don't ever suppose they much thought about the throw short to the front man, preferring a text book jump and compete for the ball in the air.

like a text book rucking situation, where the law no longer reflects what actually happens in the real world

crossref
31-03-18, 12:03
I think we're making this harder than it needs to be. Ignore the actual wording for a minute for both QTI and lineout and consider this:

Throwing team mucks it up. Ie. ball thrown short or teammate of thrower prevents ball going 5m. Sanction: Turnover with choice of scrum or lineout.

Opponent stops ball going 5m. Sanction FK.

that's another interpretation -- and one that I have heard before.
it seems unfair on the non-throwing team.

red throw in -
- if blue #1 oversteps the 5m line he gives away a FK (which can be taken as a lineout or a scrum)
- if red #1 oversteps the 5m line he gives away a scrum/lineout option

I don't see why we would be harsher on blue than on red -- for the same offence

crossref
31-03-18, 12:03
Different circumstances, therefore different tactical situations.

so this drove me back to the Law Book to check what exactly it says for a QTI, compared to a lineout.

and it exposes [yet another] difference between the 2017 and 2018 Law Books (groan)

Scenario - ball is thrown in, and a player catches it 4m out

2017 The Laws for QTI and Lineout are the same - ie ambiguous in both cases

QTI --
19.2(e) says it's an incorrect throw, and scrum awarded the non-throwing team
19.2(h) says it's blocking the throw, and FK to awarded to the non-blocking team

Lineout
19.6 & 19.7 together say it's an incorrect throw, and scrum/lineout option awarded to the non-throwing team
19.10(h) says it's blocking a throw and a FK to awarded to the non-blocking team

2018 The Laws for QTI and Lineout are different (sigh) the ambiguity remains for a QTI, but in lineout its different

QTI --
18.4 says it's an incorrect throw, and scrum awarded the non-throwing team
18.6 says it's blocking the throw, and FK to awarded to the non-blocking team

Lineout
18.23(b) says it's an incorrect throw, and scrum/lineout option awarded the non-throwing team
There is no longer an offence of blocking the throw



So where does that leave us?
I imagine the omission is accidental.
I am leaning to the view that the new Law Book really is a pile of pants!

Christy
31-03-18, 13:03
Anything not reaching five metres for all reasons other than the exception of the qti prevented by the opposition ( because the law says it) is for, me an incorrect throw in

dont entirely agree chuck ..its not the throwers incorrect throw in ,,if an opposition player in line out or team mate player in line out , reaches into channel or steps into channel to play the ball.
you cant say the thrower threw in ball incorrectly for either of these scenarios .


a qti throwing to himself and short 5m is an incorrect throw in.
..yes agree ,,scrum or line out opposition

a ball being played by any player in a lineout before it reaches 5 metres is an incorrect throw in .....dont agree ,,its not the throwers fault ,,its actually the catchers fault for not letting ball travel full distance

. If it is thrown in short and played by the opposition dliebrate or not, it is an incorrect throw in
the only time we are likely to see a ball not reaching 5 meters i agree would be from a quick throw wherethe thrower might throw 10 meters towards his own try line , but unfortunately its not gone infield the required 5 meters ( unless thrower has some kind of muscle spasm in his arms , we will never have a situation where thrower wont get the ball to travel 5 meters in a normal line out )

It means the team throwing should have worked harder to throw the ball in 5 metres, likely that they were going for the short one and left themselves open to getting it wrong
for me , its usually his line out team mate reaching into channel to soon who makes a mess of this in a full line out situation ..

So different to Chris R but, rightly or wrongly, more technically in tune with what is actually written in the laws imo. When formulated I don't ever suppose they much thought about the throw short to the front man, preferring a text book jump and compete for the ball in the air.
for me , this is where law sanction is a fair sanction .
Player reaches in & catches ball , before ball travels 5 is scrum turn over only ( or line out )
...but if opposition player or team mate players steps into channel or started in channel ,,they now have a massive advantage of being able to meet ball sooner ,,,,there for the sanction is harsher as in free kick .


like a text book rucking situation, where the law no longer reflects what actually happens in the real world.................

ChrisR
31-03-18, 15:03
a ball being played by any player in a lineout before it reaches 5 metres is an incorrect throw in. If it is thrown in short and played by the opposition dliebrate or not, it is an incorrect throw in. It means the team throwing should have worked harder to throw the ball in 5 metres, likely that they were going for the short one and left themselves open to getting it wrong.


This does't make any sense. You're saying that an attempt to throw to the first lineout player gets blocked short by an opponent who jumps in front is the throwers fault coz he should have tried harder?

I don't think so.

Blackberry
31-03-18, 16:03
For me, change the word "and" in #6 to "so"... then it seems to make sense. If it doesn't go 5 because of a cock up, its a scrum, if it doesn't go 5 because someone played it, its a free kick.

crossref
31-03-18, 17:03
For me if someone plays the ball inside the 5m line I give a FK

didds
31-03-18, 18:03
Reminds me of the day at ivel barbarians when we, throwing, were FKd for the ball not travelling 5m .. because the oppo #1 caught it before it reached the 5m line.

Yes. You read that correctly.

Didds

Marc Wakeham
31-03-18, 23:03
a qti throwing to himself and short 5m is an incorrect throw in.
a ball being played by any player in a lineout before it reaches 5 metres is an incorrect throw in. If it is thrown in short and played by the opposition dliebrate or not, it is an incorrect throw in. It means the team throwing should have worked harder to throw the ball in 5 metres, likely that they were going for the short one and left themselves open to getting it wrong.




Total nonsense. How can you be penslised because of what the other side does? Sorry can't put it more politely.

didds
01-04-18, 09:04
That's exactly what happened to us Marc! (See above)

Taff
01-04-18, 11:04
That's exactly what happened to us Marc! (See above)
Sounds like a brain-fart to me. I reckon the Ref boobed.

Marc Wakeham
01-04-18, 12:04
That's exactly what happened to us Marc! (See above)

A clear law error. Unless he saw it differently to you. Mind youone ref here thinks he was right. So perhaps we have that ref on board.

THe idea that the other teams actions can default yours is tosh. There is even an example to "disprove" it in the KO law. If the ball does not go 10 the non offending side can accept the kick and play on. - NOT advantage. They play the ball and thr offence "goes away". If the logic of The call that an opponent can catch a ball a centimetre too soon at a line out makes it a n offence by the thrower, surely the same logic would see receivers attempting to touch kick offs before they travel 10 to create offences by the kick. Total nonsense!

ChuckieB
01-04-18, 12:04
A clear law error. Unless he saw it differently to you. Mind youone ref here thinks he was right. So perhaps we have that ref on board.

THe idea that the other teams actions can default yours is tosh. There is even an example to "disprove" it in the KO law. If the ball does not go 10 the non offending side can accept the kick and play on. - NOT advantage. They play the ball and thr offence "goes away". If the logic of The call that an opponent can catch a ball a centimetre too soon at a line out makes it a n offence by the thrower, surely the same logic would see receivers attempting to touch kick offs before they travel 10 to create offences by the kick. Total nonsense!

No. I actually said incorrect throw in, not fk.




The ball must:

Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw
in the ball.



No differentiation as to which team plays it before it reaches 5m.


In hindsight a fk is possibly an option that it would better to write into the laws. Your own side doing it, t/o ball as would be the case for an incorrect throw in but under the sanction of a free kick. The other side does it, it's also free kick to you and you don't lose possession as would seem equitable. But a free kick in both cases and the right outcome perhaps and proportional to the actual infringement, i.e don't prevent the ball from going 5m.

And consistent with the sanction applicable under the 2017 laws for blocking a qti.

So yes the current law book is the nonsense don't you think?

Taff
01-04-18, 13:04
... So yes the current law book is the nonsense don't you think?
I don't think it is Chuckie.

The different sanctions refer to different players.


The FK sanction refers to players in the LO - regardless of which team.
The LO / Scrum option is in the " THROWING INTO A LINEOUT" section which applies to the thrower - usually the Hooker.

This isn't difficult gents. :biggrin:

crossref
01-04-18, 16:04
I don't think it is Chuckie.

The different sanctions refer to different players.


The FK sanction refers to players in the LO - regardless of which team.
The LO / Scrum option is in the " THROWING INTO A LINEOUT" section which applies to the thrower - usually the Hooker.

This isn't difficult gents. :biggrin:

No .. this is not correct . .see post #23

didds
01-04-18, 17:04
FTR I had "a chat" with said ref at half time.

He saw the error of his ways.

FTR he had said that he had penalised us for the oppositions actions, as WE had not get the ball 5m!


This is an example of a set of howlers I've experienced/seen, or read here, where I have to question how anybody that had been involved with the game can ever believe.

Marc Wakeham
01-04-18, 19:04
No. I actually said incorrect throw in, not fk.




The ball must:

Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw
in the ball.




No differentiation as to which team plays it before it reaches 5m.


In hindsight a fk is possibly an option that it would better to write into the laws. Your own side doing it, t/o ball as would be the case for an incorrect throw in but under the sanction of a free kick. The other side does it, it's also free kick to you and you don't lose possession as would seem equitable. But a free kick in both cases and the right outcome perhaps and proportional to the actual infringement, i.e don't prevent the ball from going 5m.

And consistent with the sanction applicable under the 2017 laws for blocking a qti.

So yes the current law book is the nonsense don't you think?

Oh dear me. We are having a problem here. Please use common sense.

Taff
02-04-18, 09:04
.... Scenario - ball is thrown in, and a player catches it 4m out
QTI --
19.2(e) says it's an incorrect throw, and scrum awarded the non-throwing team
How can it be an "incorrect throw" if a player in the LO goes into the 5m channel to intercept it?

Imagine the best LO throw to the front of the line in history (one Bobby Windsor himself would be proud of) and imagine an opponent steps into the 5m channel before the ball has gone beyond him and grabs the ball at 4m. Are you seriously saying that is an "incorrect throw" and the sanction is the option of a LO / Scrum?

crossref
02-04-18, 09:04
How can it be an "incorrect throw" if a player in the LO goes into the 5m channel to intercept it?

Imagine the best LO throw to the front of the line in history (one Bobby Windsor himself would be proud of) and imagine an opponent steps into the 5m channel before the ball has gone beyond him and grabs the ball at 4m. Are you seriously saying that is an "incorrect throw" and the sanction is the option of a LO / Scrum?

No - see post 27 - I would always give a FK, for blocking the throw.

The only problem I now have is that the offence of blocking the throw at a lineout has been removed from the 2018 Law Book.
Surely an error!