Defensive offside line at a 5m lineout

[Taffy]

I made a bit of a Horlicks of a previous question, so shall pose it again. When there is a 5 metre lineout, where is the defensive line for the backs? On the try line, or 5metres further back?

 

[The umpire]

The goal line.

 

[Pegleg]

What is this "try line" of which you speak?

 

[Rawling]

Here you go Pegleg

 

[pwhaling]

Here you go Pegleg

I believe this is what he referring to:
[video]http://www.irblaws.com/images/laws/the-plan-may2013-en.jpg[/video]

 

[Pegleg]

Indeed no such line as the "try line" whatever "wiki" etc may say.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I made a bit of a Horlicks of a previous question, so shall pose it again. When there is a 5 metre lineout, where is the defensive line for the backs? On the try line, or 5metres further back?

Taffy - with all due respect to you but as you are one who has expectations of promotion and aspirations to get up to L6 quoted in another thread, read the Law book 19.13 (c) before asking such simple law questions. Clearly tells you the offside line is 10m behind the line of touch or their goal line, if that is nearer.

This level of basic law knowledge should be at your fingertips, and not even require looking at the good book.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Taff,

good question, I understand your query,

Is is one foot over or past the line, or both feet must be behind the line?

I'm sorry this one is not at my fingertips, as a player with one foot in in-goal is considered to be in goal, but in the case you mentioned of the 5m lineout he has thus overstepped the offside line. Maybe someone who has this at their fingertips can help you and can also the exact law that covers this scenario.

I hope the helpful Simon was full of wine when he answered so helpfully.

 

[Pegleg]

I'm with Simon on this. The question is clearly answered by reading the laws. Kurt, you raise an interesting secondary about foot positions and there is some value in that debate about them. But the goal line and its proximity to the line out and the effect that has on the offside line is a clear as we need. The law book has its many and well documented exampke of unclear wording. This is not one of them.

 

[The Fat]

Taff,

good question, I understand your query,

Is is one foot over or past the line, or both feet must be behind the line?

I'm sorry this one is not at my fingertips, as a player with one foot in in-goal is considered to be in goal, but in the case you mentioned of the 5m lineout he has thus overstepped the offside line. Maybe someone who has this at their fingertips can help you and can also the exact law that covers this scenario.

I hope the helpful Simon was full of wine when he answered so helpfully.

You have nailed any grey area regarding cases where the offside line is the goal line with the part I have highlighted in bold from your post.
We have had previous discussions here where some claim that as long as a defender has one foot on or behind the goal line, he is considered to be in in-goal and therefore must be onside. We know that is not the case when using the goal line as an offside line.

Offside line: An imaginary line across the ground, from one touchline to the other, parallel to the goal-lines; the position of this line varies according to the Law.


Oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line).

 

[Ian_Cook]

Indeed no such line as the "try line" whatever "wiki" etc may say.

We try not to belittle new referees here about their terminology. He knows what he meant, you know what he meant, and so did everyone else, and besides, "try line" is commonly used in some parts of the world, including here, by players, fans, commentators and referees.

Perhaps you could find the following terms in the Law book for me

Halfback
Tackle Gate
Whip Wheel
Tackle Assist
Jackler
knock forward
truck & trailer
blindside
openside
striker
counter-ruck
turnover

 

[The Fat]

We try not to belittle new referees here about their terminology. He knows what he meant, you know what he meant, and so did everyone else, and besides, "try line" is commonly used in some parts of the world, including here, by players, fans, commentators and referees.

Perhaps you could find the following terms in the Law book for me

Halfback
Tackle Gate
Whip Wheel
Tackle Assist
Jackler
knock forward
truck & trailer
blindside
openside
striker
counter-ruck
turnover

I'll take the challenge and claim a 70%-30% wording inference in my favour.

(f) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

The wording excludes the word "on" following "knock" and therefore infers the law relates to an intentional knock forward or throw forward. An intentional knock that does anything other than going forward (except for intentionally into touch) is not an offence.

Do I get the chocolates?

 

[Stuartg]

Taffy - with all due respect to you but as you are one who has expectations of promotion and aspirations to get up to L6 quoted in another thread, read the Law book 19.13 (c) before asking such simple law questions. Clearly tells you the offside line is 10m behind the line of touch or their goal line, if that is nearer.

This level of basic law knowledge should be at your fingertips, and not even require looking at the good book.

Taffy - I have to agree with Simon in this case. I think you need to read the lawbook, read the lawbook, read the lawbook. As ST says, if you want to get beyond L11 you'll need a much, much better grasp and knowledge of the laws.

How have you been refereeing the defensive offside line at 5m lineouts to date? If you had insisted on 10m what would have happened if the in goal area was only 3m deep? Would they have had to stand behind it outside the pitch?

 

[Pegleg]

We try not to belittle new referees here about their terminology. He knows what he meant, you know what he meant, and so did everyone else, and besides, "try line" is commonly used in some parts of the world, including here, by players, fans, commentators and referees.

Perhaps you could find the following terms in the Law book for me

Halfback
Tackle Gate
Whip Wheel
Tackle Assist
Jackler
knock forward
truck & trailer
blindside
openside
striker
counter-ruck
turnover

I expect referees not to refer to lines / touch judges etc ( where they are defined in law) incorrectly. The terms you list are descriptive / expanations of principles to clarify. They do not form part of the law book for very clear and obvious reasons. In Law the difference between a Blind and open flanker is not relevant as there is no need, therefore, t oenshrine them in law. The Laws define the front row specifically because there are "legal" issues. A counter is a daft term (since all players in a ruck are "rucking"). The term "gate" help to clarify the intention of the law as do many of the other term to which you refer. Then again I'm sure you knew that full well.

Several posters bemoan commentators for the use of "double movement". what chance o we have of educating commentators spectators etc, if we can't be bothered to use the correct terminology, where it does exist?

 

[Pegleg]

Taffy - I have to agree with Simon in this case. I think you need to read the lawbook, read the lawbook, read the lawbook. As ST says, if you want to get beyond L11 you'll need a much, much better grasp and knowledge of the laws.

How have you been refereeing the defensive offside line at 5m lineouts to date? If you had insisted on 10m what would have happened if the in goal area was only 3m deep? Would they have had to stand behind it outside the pitch?

Indeed.

 

[Browner]

I expect referees not to refer to lines / touch judges etc ( where they are defined in law) incorrectly. The terms you list are descriptive / expanations of principles to clarify. They do not form part of the law book for very clear and obvious reasons. In Law the difference between a Blind and open flanker is not relevant as there is no need, therefore, to enshrine them in law. The Laws define the front row specifically because there are "legal" issues. A counter is a daft term (since all players in a ruck are "rucking"). The term "gate" help to clarify the intention of the law as do many of the other term to which you refer. Then again I'm sure you knew that full well.

Several posters bemoan commentators for the use of "double movement". what chance o we have of educating commentators spectators etc, if we can't be bothered to use the correct terminology, where it does exist?

I've bought a ticket ..... :bday:


Ps...... The IRB used the phrase "double movement" in one of their training documents a couple of years ago !
No, i CBA to look for it.

 

[Pegleg]

Indeed they did. That is even more infuriating.

I guess my point is, that it is part of the "presentation" of a referee to appear professional. The right kit, the right dress code arriving a departing from a game etc. Using correct terminology sends out the right message. That's not to look pedantic but to be correct and "professional" in our approach.

 

[Browner]

Indeed they did. That is even more infuriating.

I guess my point is, that it is part of the "presentation" of a referee to appear professional. The right kit, the right dress code arriving a departing from a game etc. Using correct terminology sends out the right message. That's not to look pedantic but to be correct and "professional" in our approach.

I take your point, it aids understanding, but there are times when that approach is Ill advised...

Ie.... I'd shout "jackal's good" as a refereeing 'shorthand' to speedily communicate 'a lawful possession after a ruck is formed, despite "Jackal" not being in the LoTG.

Using more accurate terminology of ...... " the Tackler has gotten to his feet and exercised his right to play the ball from that direction and he had his hands on the ball prior to the formation of the ruck, so his possession is legal " ?? ...... longer to communicate albeit it's more accurate 'longhand'

:biggrin:

 

[Nigib]

I think the 'advice' was read and interpreted by some as more harsh and critical than was intended. For the most part we attempt to support each other on this forum, and encourage new referees into and up through the game to match their ambition and capabilities (and dare I say, age constraints).

Taff's constant questioning sparks some interesting debate (some not), and all credit to him for asking if he's not aware. But there is a balance, and I would also recommend constant reading/re-reading of the Laws. Then perhaps search this forum/site for previous debates before starting a new thread. And we do all have a choice on here - we don't have to respond to a post if we don't want to.

Agree with the professionalism aspect, even though most of us are unpaid, and a consistency in referring to defined terms (I'd prefer that phrase to 'pedantic about the laws' or similar) - it's useful to know that 'try line' and 'goal line' are considered interchangeable in places, but it still annoys me when BBC (in particular) commentators refer to the try line - another indication to me of their lack of knowledge of the 'rules' (joke) that referees are trying to enforce. Probably the first thing we are all told when we start is that they are 'Laws' not 'rules' - is that being pedantic?

my 2p

 

[Pegleg]

I take your point, it aids understanding, but there are times when that approach is Ill advised...

Ie.... I'd shout "jackal's good" as a refereeing 'shorthand' to speedily communicate 'a lawful possession after a ruck is formed, despite "Jackal" not being in the LoTG.

Using more accurate terminology of ...... " the Tackler has gotten to his feet and exercised his right to play the ball from that direction and he had his hands on the ball prior to the formation of the ruck, so his possession is legal " ?? ...... longer to communicate albeit it's more accurate 'longhand'

:biggrin:

My point! The list given by Ian HELP to explain the law. The term Jackal give us an image of the role of the player. Of course the Jackal might not be and indeed often is not the tackler but an "arriving player" who attempts to win the ball at a tackle befor a ruck is formed.

to amend your "more accurate terminology": The player is /was legally exercising his right to play the ball and got his hands on the ball prior to the formation of the ruck".

Use of such adjectives to describe a player or his role is different to using the wrong term for something. We hear "being in the scrum half position" to describe a player being at the back of a ruck or maul or even the reciever at a line out. That is different from saying the player in that position IS the scrum half.