• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

January 2025 changes on the way

SimonSmith said:
We abbreviated the guidance to: "If you want your FK, someone's got to go up"

if the throw is to 2 and the jumper is at 4 or 6, I don't care. Someone went up, so there's your FK.

but if it so wildly not straight that it's gone to the outside shoulder of 1, I'm just FKing that and competition be damned
Click to expand...
FK?
 
chbg said:
FK?
Click to expand...
I came to say this and then saw chbg’s post on the next page.
It’s worth pointing out that it isn’t actually a FK. This matters because other team can take a scrum when the throw isn’t straight.
 
But what constitutes competing ? We might be planning to lift at the back of the line out and they chuck it at chest height to number 1.
So we abandon the lift and chase the prop who is now running down the wing.

Does it have to be a lift or just a jump (how high) or waving a hand in the air.
 
Harry said:
But what constitutes competing ? We might be planning to lift at the back of the line out and they chuck it at chest height to number 1.
So we abandon the lift and chase the prop who is now running down the wing.

Does it have to be a lift or just a jump (how high) or waving a hand in the air.
Click to expand...
exactly. Ive opined this in threads previously.
Does a 1" hop by #6 count to a #2 thrown ball?

spot on. Its a classic example of the 12 year old coming up with a wizard wheeze without any thought process as to what it exactly means in reality, or why in "non opposed2 circumstances the thrower cant now just throw it at the receiver and miss out the middle man. its almost as if the law makers have never played the game

Clearly there will need to be so many confirmations and explanations as to make those way larger in size than the "simple" law
 
Why are we saying: ""If you want your FK, someone's got to go up"? The options are scrum or lineout with the "non- offending" side throwing. Or has that changed too?
 
Marc Wakeham said:
Why are we saying: ""If you want your FK, someone's got to go up"? The options are scrum or lineout with the "non- offending" side throwing. Or has that changed too?
Click to expand...
That hasn’t changed. I think referring to it as a FK was just a simple mislabeling. It feels like a FK offense, but technically it isn’t.
 
Harry said:
But what constitutes competing ? We might be planning to lift at the back of the line out and they chuck it at chest height to number 1.
So we abandon the lift and chase the prop who is now running down the wing.

Does it have to be a lift or just a jump (how high) or waving a hand in the air.
Click to expand...
Clearly it does need some clarification and guidance, but your example would happen today right?

If the defensive team throws their back jumper up (why would the defense plan this?)

I suspect it will be another case whereby the ref has to decide whether it was realistically competitive. I understand that is another subjective determination, but thats the game isn't it.

Personally I would be Ok with that, i've seen a few lineouts before.
 
Mipper said:
Clearly it does need some clarification and guidance, but your example would happen today right?
Click to expand...
except before, the throw to #1 would HAVE to be straight.
under the new approach it could be straight at #1#s belly ... and therefore Ok... DEPENDING on whether the lift at the rear is counted as competing. THAT is the entire premise of the querying. And in this regard is a perfect example to highlight the lack of clarity thus far.
though as you correctly identify it needs "clarification and guidance," - but id suggest it needs more than "some". WR will have to make ti quite clear what "competing" means in reality.
 
didds said:
except before, the throw to #1 would HAVE to be straight.
under the new approach it could be straight at #1#s belly ... and therefore Ok... DEPENDING on whether the lift at the rear is counted as competing. THAT is the entire premise of the querying. And in this regard is a perfect example to highlight the lack of clarity thus far.
though as you correctly identify it needs "clarification and guidance," - but id suggest it needs more than "some". WR will have to make ti quite clear what "competing" means in reality.
Click to expand...
yes, correct.
 
didds said:
except before, the throw to #1 would HAVE to be straight.
under the new approach it could be straight at #1#s belly ... and therefore Ok... DEPENDING on whether the lift at the rear is counted as competing. THAT is the entire premise of the querying. And in this regard is a perfect example to highlight the lack of clarity thus far.
though as you correctly identify it needs "clarification and guidance," - but id suggest it needs more than "some". WR will have to make ti quite clear what "competing" means in reality.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting Showbiz rugby Didds where it is already legal to throw it straight to No1 in the line . Goes unpunished every week.
 
To mee it seems clear that if they're sending someone up, they're competing. There's no stipulation they have to be effectively competing or have more than a 30% chance of winning the ball.

If they sit around waiting to react to what the throwing-in team do once they win the ball, they're not competing.
 
Rich_NL said:
To mee it seems clear that if they're sending someone up, they're competing. There's no stipulation they have to be effectively competing or have more than a 30% chance of winning the ball.

If they sit around waiting to react to what the throwing-in team do once they win the ball, they're not competing.
Click to expand...
Id agree with that first sentence. Whether every ref every week will agree is what the issue is. Of course the debate is still what constitutes "sending someone up" - does it have to be a pod? can it be the rear player hopping 6 inches off the ground and waving an arm above his/her head?

Don't agree with the second sentence (which is why i don't agree with this law change) - its a valid defence strategy particularly given the difficulty in defending a well created maul, and now the law makers have made creating that maul even easier as the closed skill of throwing has been demoted. And also doesn't prevent the thrower just throwing it straight to the receiver - there's nothing in the law that says they cannot do so.
 
didds said:
Don't agree with the second sentence (which is why i don't agree with this law change) - its a valid defence strategy particularly given the difficulty in defending a well created maul, and now the law makers have made creating that maul even easier as the closed skill of throwing has been demoted. And also doesn't prevent the thrower just throwing it straight to the receiver - there's nothing in the law that says they cannot do so.
Click to expand...
I understand your perspective on this point, didds. Isn't the issue here that the thrower doesn't know whether the opp will compete or not? So if he/she throws it straight to the receiver then he is gambling. I mean no defensice team is going to tell the oppo that they won't compete.
 
Yes... and no.

I think its a fair bet that if the oppo have never put anybody up at the last five defensive lineouts on their own 5m line, they wont on the 6th.
The point being made however is a somewhat faceitious one, and not in reality likely to happen - I am illustrating however the point that given a gamble as described (and you are right - it is) - why coudnt that action occur ? - bottom line - no reason at all

Is that ludicrous ? Obviously.
Would it NEVER happen? Never say never - and if there is one thing this wonderful forum has shown me over the years/decades, weird and wonderful scenarios nobody ever envisaged DO happen. I even pre-empted the Italian lineout defence non engagement tactic years before they bamboozled England with it, and was roundly told here it would never happen and nobody would be that daft to try it. Guess what ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top