[Line out] Another Line Out Question..

[tewdric]

Lineout to blue. 6 blue players form their line and are matched by 6 red forwards. The defending hooker is standing correctly in the tramlines and the blue hooker is holding the ball ready to throw in. Neither team have a player in the receiver position. Just before the ball is thrown the red scrum half darts forward from the backline and stands 2m from the lineout and, seconds later, the ball is thrown in. Blue catch the ball and form a maul which all red partcipating players, including the receiver, bind on to to oppose. The line of touch bisects the maul so there are bound players either side of it.

Decision:

Free kick to blue for numbers?
Penalty to blue for red 9 joining the lineout?
Play on?
Something else?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

play on for me

 

[Camquin]

I would play on - it is not totally clear - the law drafter had obvously been on the gin.

18.14 ... the non-throwing team may not have more players (but may have fewer players) in the lineout than the throwing team.
18.16 If a team elects to have a receiver, .... Each team may have only one receiver.

So I think they matched numbers, blue elected not to have a receiver - but I am not sure that binds red.
I am sure you can read it both ways.

 

[Flish]

Play on, probably. Blue have chosen not to have a receiver, their choice, for whatever reason. As long as the red receiver was clearly in place before the ball was thrown then I would play on

 

[Phil E]

Manage it.

Peep, guys are you having a receiver or not? Make your mind up and set early.

Right lets go again.

 

[crossref]

Manage it.

Peep, guys are you having a receiver or not? Make your mind up and set early.

Right lets go again.

I like this answer

I gave a similar answer on the QTLO thread ... Lineouts have to be set properly , else peep, re set . I got roundly told off.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21488-Quick-Line-out-(not-quick-throw-in)

 

[ChrisR]

Play on. 'Matching numbers' only applies to the players in the lineout, not 'participating players'.

What 'unfair advantage' have Red concocted by the receiver joining just before the ball is thrown in? None. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

 

[Phil E]

Play on. 'Matching numbers' only applies to the players in the lineout, not 'participating players'.

What 'unfair advantage' have Red concocted by the receiver joining just before the ball is thrown in? None. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Just nip it in the bud.
Otherwise the other team will try the same thing, then you will have players darting in and out of the lineout.
Just stop it early doors and then give yourself some peace for the rest of the game.

 

[Rich_NL]

What 'unfair advantage' have Red concocted by the receiver joining just before the ball is thrown in? None. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

An extra player in the maul, for one.

 

[Pinky]

Manage it.

Peep, guys are you having a receiver or not? Make your mind up and set early.

Right lets go again.

But Phil, you have just peeped when you didn't need to! Play on for me - there is nothing to limit numbers in a maul. But they might be in a bit of difficulty if the maul does not get moved off the line of touch and the ref says "use it"

 

[Camquin]

Blue set the line out and for some reason unbeknown to us decided not to have a receiver.
Red initially think we have to match - but finally twig and then take advantage.
Blue trying to be too clever and get caught out.

 

[didds]

Play on. 'Matching numbers' only applies to the players in the lineout, not 'participating players'.

What 'unfair advantage' have Red concocted by the receiver joining just before the ball is thrown in? None. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

well... ref the other recent thread when he arrives as the ball is thrown in and takes the ball on the move with momentum.

Though personally Im still "unsure" about that being "wrong" nonetheless i'm not rock solid on it not being illegal either.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Play on for me. Can't see any reason to blow the whistle.

Ref: "Blue, do you want to put in a receiver?"

Blue: "Are your eyes painted on, ref? If we wanted a receiver we would have put one in"

 

[tewdric]

I'm just trying to navigate myself through the fog of the revised lineout law here. I used to think I understood it as a player!

As far as the receiver binding on to the maul goes - can he or she do this given the lineout is not yet over? I think there's got to be a distinction between the lineout when it's a line and when the lineouty bit has finished but before it's "over" for offside line purposes, but the law doesn't make this clear.

 

[Phil E]

But Phil, you have just peeped when you didn't need to! Play on for me - there is nothing to limit numbers in a maul. But they might be in a bit of difficulty if the maul does not get moved off the line of touch and the ref says "use it"

Better one quick whistle early on if it saves several later in the game.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm just trying to navigate myself through the fog of the revised lineout law here. I used to think I understood it as a player!

As far as the receiver binding on to the maul goes - can he or she do this given the lineout is not yet over? I think there's got to be a distinction between the lineout when it's a line and when the lineouty bit has finished but before it's "over" for offside line purposes, but the law doesn't make this clear.

once the ball is thrown the receiver is free to join the lineout without swapping positions with a team mate. Ergo, he/she is free to join the ensuing maul even if it hasn't crossed line of touch.

 

[Arabcheif]

Yeah, I see nothing wrong here. No need to peep anything. It's Blue's choice not to have a receiver. And once the ball is thrown, he can join the LO when the ball is thrown.

 

[Dickie E]

And once the ball is thrown, he can join the LO when the ball is thrown.

Yes, Red receiver can. All Blue non-lineout players have to stay 10 metres - even the bloke with #9 on his back.

 

[Arabcheif]

Yes, Red receiver can. All Blue non-lineout players have to stay 10 metres - even the bloke with #9 on his back.

Ok, so based on the information that we've been given that there hasn't been any fundamental Law changes from the 2017 Laws ( as has been mentioned by numerous people previously). These state that all participating players (and it defines that throwers and receivers are participating player) can compete for the ball. Therefore both receivers can enter the line. Seems a bit daft to allow one and not the other.

 

[crossref]

Ok, so based on the information that we've been given that there hasn't been any fundamental Law changes from the 2017 Laws ( as has been mentioned by numerous people previously). These state that all participating players (and it defines that throwers and receivers are participating player) can compete for the ball. Therefore both receivers can enter the line. Seems a bit daft to allow one and not the other.

If he is not in the receiver position he is not a participating player

Of course he might well have stood in the receiving ver position had he realised red had a receiver.