Not competing and then sacking

[RobLev]

First a disclaimer. As a coach I agree with Ian that, in principal, a team should be free to apply any/all legal tactics to minimize an opponents strengths, including not forming the maul at a lineout. So the tactic described in the OP is a simple question of legality. Except, with a lineout, it's never simple.

Much of the problem stems from the lack of singular definitions. "Lineout" is both the event that restarts the match after the ball goes into touch and the lines of players each side of the line-of-touch. However, "Player participating in the lineout" include receivers, the thrower and his opposite.

But "Line-out player" is also defined - as "the players who form the two lines that make a lineout." So the line-out, collective noun, is the two lines of players waiting to receive the ball. The line-out, event, is what the participants in the line-out participate in, without necessarily being line-out players.

The fact that Law 19.8(a) requires that "At least two players from each team must form a lineout" is consistent with that interpretation - indeed enforces it (or else there would be no requirement to have anybody in the line itself),

With that in mind I'd say that the lineout area extends from 5m to 15m and 10m each side of the line-of-touch. Unfortunately the Laws don't reference "lineout area" so "leaving the lineout" is always going to be in debate.

I'd agree that the area within which the line-out (event) takes place is so bounded - but that is independent of what the line-out (collective noun) means.

Law 19.14(e) states that "No player ... participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended." Clearly, "lineout" here means the lineout area, not the line-of-touch or the original positions of the players. Therefore, stepping away from the LOT to avoid forming a maul does NOT constitute "leaving the lineout".

It doesn't constitute leaving the line-out (event); but it must constitute leaving the line-out (collective noun) - otherwise you run into problems with the definition of "peeling:

[LAWS]A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]

since by that interpretation the player isn't peeling unless he gets back at least 10m from the LoT - but 18.12(b) requires him to stay within 10m from the LoT:

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

OTOH, by the same token, a ball handed back to a player who is behind the line-out (collective noun)(peeling) must have itself left the lineout so as to end the line-out (event).

 

[Taff]

I don't think Dixie is saying that; he's saying that if the ball is handed to a teammate who is behind the lineout (hence his reference to a peeling player) then the ball has left the lineout and the lineout is over.

With respect, Dixie specifically mentioned a "static" teammate eg where the catcher comes back to ground and hands the ball back to teammate in the expectation that a maul is about to be formed.

... Law 19.14(e) states that "No player ... participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended." Clearly, "lineout" here means the lineout area, not the line-of-touch or the original positions of the players. Therefore, stepping away from the LOT to avoid forming a maul does NOT constitute "leaving the lineout".

Except that most referees would say that stepping away DOES constitute leaving the LO.

 

[FlipFlop]

And I don't think that a player who gets the ball handed back in a "normal" situation for a maul formed is defined as a peeler.

Otherwise - all players who move to bind on must be peelers - and there is no way you can say they are all leaving the lineout to received the ball being knocked or passed back from a team mate.

Also we allow "dancing" when players change position - they are not peelers, but step slightly out of the channel.

So I argue those forming the "maul" are not peelers, and the ball has not left the lineout.

I think this view means all situations are treated consistently.

 

[The Fat]

And I don't think that a player who gets the ball handed back in a "normal" situation for a maul formed is defined as a peeler.

Otherwise - all players who move to bind on must be peelers - and there is no way you can say they are all leaving the lineout to received the ball being knocked or passed back from a team mate.

Also we allow "dancing" when players change position - they are not peelers, but step slightly out of the channel.

So I argue those forming the "maul" are not peelers, and the ball has not left the lineout.

I think this view means all situations are treated consistently.

If the catcher comes down, turns and hands the ball to his receiver who has moved forward after the ball was thrown, and no opposition players engaged the catcher, then the ball has left the lineout and the lineout is over.

If the catcher comes down, turns and hands the ball to a peeler who has moved round after the ball was thrown, and no opposition players engaged the catcher, then the ball has left the lineout and the lineout is over.
•When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
It says nothing about having to wait and see if a maul is going to form and doesn't say that the ball must be "passed a clear distance" from the catcher or LoT.

Quite simply, when that catcher hands or passes the ball to someone behind him (nearer his own DBL), the lineout is over.

 

[FlipFlop]

The Fat - so let me ask you.

Normal lineout. The ball is caught, and a maul forms. Do you play on, or do you penalise the players who have left the lineout? All those players who have moved out of the lineout to come in and form the maul must have left the lineout. They are not peelers, as they have not met the definition:

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.

As they were not leaving to catch the ball (or have it passed back to them).

And they have clearly left the lineout, as they have gone further away than the ball will have (which you are deeming to have left the lineout).

And having played in the lineout, I am very aware that often when the ball is ripped, it doesn't actually move position, often having both players hands on it for a fair while.

One of the principals of rugby is contesting possession. I dislike any tactics that rely solely on the action of the referee to gain possession. This is one of them (there are not many).

 

[RobLev]

With respect, Dixie specifically mentioned a "static" teammate eg where the catcher comes back to ground and hands the ball back to teammate in the expectation that a maul is about to be formed.

To repeat Dixie's question, why is handing a ball to an illegally (since 19.12(b) requires him to "keep moving until the lineout has ended") static player to be treated differently to handing it to a legally moving player?

Except that most referees would say that stepping away DOES constitute leaving the LO.

How do you get behind the catcher to receive the ball from him without leaving the lineout, then? And if the receiver of the ball has left the lineout, how can the ball still be in the lineout?

 

[RobLev]

And I don't think that a player who gets the ball handed back in a "normal" situation for a maul formed is defined as a peeler.

Otherwise - all players who move to bind on must be peelers - and there is no way you can say they are all leaving the lineout to received the ball being knocked or passed back from a team mate.

....

There's actually a simple answer to that - the ball leaves the lineout when it gets handed back, which permits the other players to leave the LoT to form the prospective maul. If they come off the line before the ball is handed back, they're acting illegally...

You can't have it both ways; you can't claim that the defenders are acting illegally if they step so much as a centimetre off the line before the line-out ends, while giving the attacking side liberty to take almost the entire pack off the line to form the prospective maul. Either the lineout has ended, so they can form the maul (and the defenders can step aside without worrying about how far off the line they are) or it hasn't, in which case the attackers stay on the LoT and give up forming the prospective maul.

 

[Browner]

Except that most referees would say that stepping away DOES constitute leaving the LO.

I agree, but to be fair to the opposite viewists, We've seen players leave a lineout and not get penalised...example

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uSFTvDsC8bY
Beginning of the clip

 

[Taff]

.... How do you get behind the catcher to receive the ball from him without leaving the lineout, then?

The exact same way participating players are allowed to swap places before the LO starts. We don't penalise players for swapping places in the LO.

Why is a participating player allowed to swap places before the LO starts without being deemed to have left the LO (otherwise practically every LO would end up in a PK) but a player moving next to the catcher to receive a ball from an imminent maul has (by your definition) left the LO?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Normal lineout. The ball is caught, and a maul forms. Do you play on, or do you penalise the players who have left the lineout? All those players who have moved out of the lineout to come in and form the maul must have left the lineout. They are not peelers, as they have not met the definition:

As they were not leaving to catch the ball (or have it passed back to them).

And they have clearly left the lineout, as they have gone further away than the ball will have (which you are deeming to have left the lineout).

The Law has an effective exception for that

[LAWS]19.9 (b) continued...
When 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.
[/LAWS]

And having played in the lineout, I am very aware that often when the ball is ripped, it doesn't actually move position, often having both players hands on it for a fair while.

One of the principals of rugby is contesting possession. I dislike any tactics that rely solely on the action of the referee to gain possession. This is one of them (there are not many).

I agree, and I dislike any tactics that allow one side to effectively prevent a contest for possession. The way line-out mauls are allowed to form these days does just that. The team backing away aren't so much avoiding a contest, as changing the place of contest to one that suits them better, i.e. tackling the ball carrier.

If I am coaching a team, and I see the referee allowing the opposition to form line-out mauls in such a way that my players have no opportunity to tackle the ball carrier (in direct contravention to the The IRB Law Application Guidelines (Maul Working Group outcomes), which state... 'The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation;) then I am not going to simply allow them to get away with it all day, and the no-contesting of the maul at a line-out looks as good a way as any for preventing it. This is no different in principle to an outnumbered defender on the wing showing their opponent the sideline, or holding off tackling an opponent to see what they are going to do.

I guess we could always resurrect the "99" call :biggrin:

 

[thepercy]

didds - it is when the ball (or ball carrier) leaves the Lineout.

Ian is arguing that merely handing the ball to someone else fulfils this criteria. I am saying that the act of handing the ball to someone else doesn't mean it has left the lineout. Ian is therefore arguing that when you hand the ball to someone else, the lineout is over, I am disagreeing.

I have yet to see a law reference from Ian showing that the act of handing off the ball to someone means the ball is out. Even if that person is still in the lineout.

What Ian and I agree on: There is no maul (so last foot etc is not relevant). The ball is the offside line, and is the only relevant thing to the lineout being over. We just disagree on when it has "left the lineout".

Law Reference

Definitions.
PASS:A player throws a ball to another player; if a player hands the ball to another player without throwing it, this is also a pass.

 

[RobLev]

The exact same way participating players are allowed to swap places before the LO starts. We don't penalise players for swapping places in the LO.

Why is a participating player allowed to swap places before the LO starts without being deemed to have left the LO (otherwise practically every LO would end up in a PK) but a player moving next to the catcher to receive a ball from an imminent maul has (by your definition) left the LO?

Because Law 19.8(k), specifically permits them to do so - but of course participating players aren't necessarily lineout players - the term includes the receivers, thrower and the thrower's opposite numbe. By 19.12(c), part of the peeling law, lineout players are specifically permitted to swap places. After the ball is thrown, however, lineout players are not permitted to leave the line-out, otherwise than by peeling off to receive a ball, until the lineout is over.

By the way; we are not talking about a player moving next to, but behind, the catcher.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its this type of thread that makes me realise what a poorly written piece of work Law 19 is. The same term "line-out" is used to describe...

1. The phase of play
2. the two lines of players
3. the area half a metre either side of the LoT between the 5m line and the 15m line
4. the area between the 5m line, the 15m line and the two 10m offside lines


We cannot even agree what the line-out is, let alone what it means to leave it!

 

[FlipFlop]

Law Reference

Definitions.
PASS:A player throws a ball to another player; if a player hands the ball to another player without throwing it, this is also a pass.

Not disputing the ball is passed. Just passing it to another player means it is out of the lineout. If you pass it to someone still in the lineout, the lineout isn't over.

 

[RobLev]

Not disputing the ball is passed. Just passing it to another player means it is out of the lineout. If you pass it to someone still in the lineout, the lineout isn't over.

If a member of the defending line moves off the line, you will penalise him, because he's left the line-out - your comment #9 in this thread:

Normally I see the defence give away one of 2 possible infringements first:

Either they back away from the line of touch (leaving the lineout - 19.8 (d) - FK)

Or...

Why do you refuse to apply the same standard (ie if you move off the line, you're out of the lineout) to the attacking team?

 

[Dixie]

Law Reference

Definitions.
PASS:A player throws a ball to another player; if a player hands the ball to another player without throwing it, this is also a pass.

Thanks thepercy. You've successfully defined a pass, but in the context of a thread trying to figure out when a lineout is over. WHich bit of Law 19.9(b) does your definition of a pass refer to?

[LAWS]19.9(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.
This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When 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.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

The Fat - so let me ask you.

Normal lineout. The ball is caught, and a maul forms. Do you play on, or do you penalise the players who have left the lineout? All those players who have moved out of the lineout to come in and form the maul must have left the lineout. They are not peelers, as they have not met the definition:

As they were not leaving to catch the ball (or have it passed back to them).

And they have clearly left the lineout, as they have gone further away than the ball will have (which you are deeming to have left the lineout).

And having played in the lineout, I am very aware that often when the ball is ripped, it doesn't actually move position, often having both players hands on it for a fair while.

One of the principals of rugby is contesting possession. I dislike any tactics that rely solely on the action of the referee to gain possession. This is one of them (there are not many).

You seem to have a distance in mind? How far from the lineout players (that is the two lines of players that make a lineout) towards each of their DBLs do you consider to be out of the lineout. Does the catcher have to pass/throw/knock the ball 2 metres, 1 metre, half a metre towards his own DBL to meet your criteria?

If the catcher reaches for the ball but only manages to get a finger to it and it drops to the ground 10cm on his team's side of the lineout, is it out and if not how far from the line of players are you saying the ball must travel before it is out and the lineout is over?

Please take these questions as they are intended (as normal debate) not as attacking your view.

The two lines of players make the lineout. The receivers and the thrower and opposite player, take part in the lineout but do not define the extent of the lineout.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You seem to have a distance in mind? How far from the lineout players (that is the two lines of players that make a lineout) towards each of their DBLs do you consider to be out of the lineout. Does the catcher have to pass/throw/knock the ball 2 metres, 1 metre, half a metre towards his own DBL to meet your criteria?

If the catcher reaches for the ball but only manages to get a finger to it and it drops to the ground 10cm on his team's side of the lineout, is it out and if not how far from the line of players are you saying the ball must travel before it is out and the lineout is over?

Please take these questions as they are intended (as normal debate) not as attacking your view.

The two lines of players make the lineout. The receivers and the thrower and opposite player, take part in the lineout but do not define the extent of the lineout.

100%.

Scenario 1
If a referee rules that any non-ball winning players in the line of players at the lineout have left the line-out if they take a step away from the LoT then the referee MUST apply that same criteria to any ball winning players in the line of players at the lineout who take a step away from the LoT to receive a a ball handed back or to form a maul.

Scenario 2
If a referee decides that its OK for any ball winning players in the line of players at the lineout to step away from the LoT to receive a ball or to form a maul, then the referee must also apply that same criteria to the non-ball winning players in the line of players at the lineout, and allow them to also step away to subvert their opponent's attempt to form a maul.

What a referee must not do is to cherry pick from both scenarios above in order to satisfy their dislike of a particular tactic. If he does so, then he is not applying the Laws fairly and equitably.

So long as the maul from the line-out is formed by the catcher coming to ground and moving/backing towards the line of touch still holding the ball, followed by two or more team-mates who were in the line-of players binding onto to him, the I would be happy enough for a referee to penalise the opposition if they back away, because this type of maul formation allows the opposition to sack the maul by tackling the ball carrier, and is therefore compliant with the IRB Law Application Guidelines with regard to maul formation.

Unfortunately, this is not how mauls are currently being formed at the line-out. What is happening is that the catcher is passing the ball back (often before his feet have touched the ground) to team-mates who have left the line of players at the line-out. In many cases, the ball is handed to a third player who is behind the two who bind on, making it impossible to contest the formation of the maul.

Here is an example of what I am talking about..

IMO, this was an illegally formed maul (despite Craig Joubert's insistance that it was OK when I asked him about it on SA Referees. There is zero opportunity for White to contest its formation.

Blue 6 (A) has already (illegally) left the line of players before the ball has even been thrown

The two lifters (B) and (C) closed up next the the catcher while he was still in the air.
The catcher then hands the ball back to Blue 6, who left the line-out earlier, and is blocked from
being tackled by the two lifters.
Then the Blue player playing at No 3 in the line-out (D) and Blue 7 (E) join in front of Blue 6

We end up with Blue 6 (F) at the back behind five Blue players with no opportunity for White to
ever tackle either of the two the ball carriers in this play, either the jumper (because they
cannot tackle him in the air) or Blue 6 (because they were obstructed from doing to at every stage of the formation.

This type of formation of maul at the line-out is commonplace (and illegal IMO) and there is simply no way to combat it other than by backing away and not allowing the maul to be formed, and instead, going straight for Blue 6

 

[Taff]

Blue 6 (A) has already (illegally) left the line of players before the ball has even been thrown

Was Blue 6 ever part of the LO - ie the original parallel lines?

He looks like a Reciever (but not 2m from the LO) to me. But what possible advantage he gains from not standing 2m (ie where he's meant to) from the LO is beyond me.

 

[RobLev]

Was Blue 6 ever part of the LO - ie the original parallel lines?

He looks like a Reciever (but not 2m from the LO) to me. But what possible advantage he gains from not standing 2m (ie where he's meant to) from the LO is beyond me.

Blue already had a receiver - he is in shot at the start of the clip (after the try celebrations) but steps back out of shot - so if 6 was meant to be a receiver, that makes two...