Line Out Query

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
law reference?

In my query above if the OC slips as the IC passes and ends up kneeling on the ground, OC catches the ball and passes it on to the winger... what do you do?

didds

that's different, players slipping over, and players going to ground to collect a loose ball are every day occurences. Play on.

But once a player is on the ground, I don't think he can play a ball, or a ball carrier, that comes in his direction. He should get up first.

(we have discussed this before: player is on the ground and a loose ball happens to come in his direction, can he play it? IIRC opinions differed ans some one asked SAREFS who said no. I guess it's the same thing)
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think that

- if you receive a poor pass, clearly it's acceptable to go off your feet to gather it (and then immediately get up/pass/place etc)

- but you can't throw a pass to someone who is already on the floor. The game is to be played by players on their feet.

And I would apply the same in the line out.
It's hard to imagine a poor throw that necessitated a player to go off his feet to catch, but if it happens that's OK.

But this was a planned move and they planned to throw to a player who was not on his feet, so NM was right. peep.

If going to one knee was planned: I have to say that if the throwing team plan a move that might possibly be seen as not entirely legal but that puts them at a disadvantage by virtue of that very putative illegality, I'd be very tempted to take the view that they'd made their bed, and so should lie on it.

In this case the throwing team gain no possible advantage from throwing to a player who takes it on one knee. There was no-one in the area who could have contested the throw, we are told, so they don't get any advantage there. He has to get to his feet before making a run forward, so by going to one knee he has to that extent wasted the advantage of time and space that the rush to the back of the lineout has created.

Play on, I still say.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
from the OP, my emphasis-

Hooker throws ball to stationary player who has dropped to one knee and catches the ball eighteen inches or so off the ground.

I take NM to mean that the player dropped to one knee in advance of the throw -- ie it was planned.

(i do agree, it does seem an odd plan, being stationary I assume he then immediatley passed the ball to the 9, back to the 2 or someone peeling)
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I take NM to mean that the player dropped to one knee in advance of the throw -- ie it was planned.

(i do agree, it does seem an odd plan, being stationary I assume he then immediatley passed the ball to the 9, back to the 2 or someone peeling)


Agree that it seems an odd thing to do. However, there are things we don't know ...

Was the throw intended to be that low? Or was it intended to be level with his shorts? My choice would be at the shorts.

What was the follow up action? We won't know because the whistle blew.

Does it really matter? I don't think so. Play on.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
well I guess that's the crux of it - intention.

I think there is widespread agreement that if the #1 is forced to drop to one knee to collect an unxepectedly low throw, then this is fine, play on.

The query is whether its OK to have a planned move that involves deliberatly dropping to one knee, so that the throw can be extremely low, too low for the oppo to catch.

I think we pretty much agree that this one can be argued either way ...
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
(we have discussed this before: player is on the ground and a loose ball happens to come in his direction, can he play it? IIRC opinions differed ans some one asked SAREFS who said no. I guess it's the same thing)


And then the question is asked can a player prone on the floor reach out and touchdown a ball in goal?

We don;t know from NM's OP whether the catcher

1) slipped
2) the poor throw meant he ended up on a knee in order to catch it
3) did it deliberately as a planned manouver

Given the entire oppo lineout has been dummied away from the 5m line in NM's OP, why would 3) be the case - 1 or 2 are far more likely surely? And if 3 IS true - where is the materiality? If anything the catcher has shot himself in the foot really, as he now gets pounced on by the defending 5m channel player, rather than being on his feet to run past him or attract that defender to slip the ball away to the thriower now unopposed in the channel. If the knee is a deliberate ploy its a pretty rubbish one!

didds




didds
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Browner was ignoring my comment:

Ooooops , sorry, I didnt realise i was compelled to answer all the comments you make, it wasn't C&O to me, promise to do so from now on ( fingers crossed)

:booty:

To aid clarity, a player who slips or falls forward when trying to catch a low pass at the front of lineout=ok, play on, but a player who drops to a knee or two/sits/or lies prone awaiting a ball to arrive ? No thanks , not for me.

If others want to see the game evolve with a new set of plays to players on/near the ground, then that's their choice.

Law doesn't prevent a hooker taking a 20m run up, but I wouldn't allow that either.

Anyway, as I said, never seen it, & doubt I might. ( anyway when we do, the Federação Portuguesa de Rugby are sure to table a clarification request !!! LoL)
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Law doesn't prevent a hooker taking a 20m run up, but I wouldn't allow that either.

When I was living in the USA my son played peewee soccer. One team had an acrobat who would throw in by doing a handspring off the ball to increase distance. Impressive and effective.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Ooooops , sorry, I didnt realise i was compelled to answer all the comments you make, it wasn't C&O to me, promise to do so from now on ( fingers crossed)

...

It's not compulsory to answer all comments, of course; but it's polite (hence my apology to Marauder upthread) to answer the whole of a comment rather than omitting a part which forms part of the argument being made.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
When I was living in the USA my son played peewee soccer. One team had an acrobat who would throw in by doing a handspring off the ball to increase distance. Impressive and effective.

 

FlipFlop


Referees in Switzerland
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,227
Post Likes
226
I have no problem with the move. But the player on the ground must do one of those things that is required of a player off their feet in possession of the ball (not in tackle).

WE used to have this move at college, except all of us would drop to knees - we called it Snow White. Called quickly it confused to oppo, and got us clean ball to the backs.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It's not compulsory to answer all comments, of course; but it's polite (hence my apology to Marauder upthread) to answer the whole of a comment rather than omitting a part which forms part of the argument being made.

First Didds blames marauder for one of my highly controversial and offensive comments, now he gets my rare but deserved apology too! Oh well, karma I guess. :shrug: Maybe marauder and menace are the same person? I didn't know I had a split personality?
What's that?
Shut up Smeagol, they're all just fats hobitses!
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
First Didds blames marauder for one of my highly controversial and offensive comments, now he gets my rare but deserved apology too! Oh well, karma I guess. :shrug: Maybe marauder and menace are the same person? I didn't know I had a split personality?
What's that?
Shut up Smeagol, they're all just fats hobitses!

Ooops - sorry.
 
Top