Defensive offside line at a 5m lineout

[SimonSmith]

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?

1.2.c

 

[Browner]

1.2.c

preferably

 

[OB..]

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.

Decrying "double movement" is valid because it is an inaccurate summary of the offence described in the law book. It misleads people.

Decrying the term "try line" is pointless because it is an accepted synonym, and in common use. By all means stick to the term "goal line" yourself if you wish, but if you try to "correct" others you will be seen as a pedant.

Terminological materiality anybody?

 

[Pegleg]

Well I am happy for you to consider me a pedant then. We all know what a "double movement" is, and judging from TV, the "Experts",the IRB 9As Browner points out) and a number of Elite refs use the term so it too can be considered "an accepted synonym, and in common use." I guess I depends on an individual's view as to which, if either, is acceptable.

 

[OB..]

We all know what a "double movement" is, and judging from TV, the "Experts",the IRB 9As Browner points out) and a number of Elite refs use the term so it too can be considered "an accepted synonym, and in common use." I guess I depends on an individual's view as to which, if either, is acceptable.

I have frequently questioned Stuart Barnes's use of the term since he uses it when it is inappropriate. TV commentators in my experience often do not use the term "properly", and so the ordinary punter gets misled. I have come across many players who do not understand the law on this. "But it was only a single movement!"

My experience is definitely that "try line" causes no problems at all, whereas as "double movement" certainly does.

 

[Pegleg]

I suggest you speak to the elite boys and the IRB then. Both terms are wrong and shoulkd both be treated as such.

 

[OB..]

I suggest you speak to the elite boys and the IRB then. Both terms are wrong and shoulkd both be treated as such.

They are "wrong" in radically different ways. I view your argument re "try line" as unhelpfully pedantic. There is no possible confusion as to what it means: it refers to a specific white line

 

[didds]

"double movement" is wrong because a second movement such as reaching out and placing the ball to score wold be a legitimate secondary movement to the initial tackle. As such as a term it is at best misleading.

I cannot come up with any other interpretation for "try line" other than the line over which (or on which!) tries are scored.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

So why do elite guys use "DM" and why has the IRB also done so? They seem happy that people understand. Indeed it is understood by the supporter as not part of the initial movement in going to ground so it is a subsequent (second "double") movement.

Very easy to understand really. Still wrong mind as is try line.

 

[crossref]

So why do elite guys use "DM" and why has the IRB also done so? They seem happy that people understand. Indeed it is understood by the supporter as not part of the initial movement in going to ground so it is a subsequent (second "double") movement.

Very easy to understand really. Still wrong mind as is try line.

but you are allowed a subsequent movement..

 

[OB..]

but you are allowed a subsequent movement..

After being tackled, you are allowed to reach out with your arms to place the ball. You are not allowed to move your body forward. They are both single movements after the tackle; the former is legal, the latter is illegal.

 

[Dickie E]

but you are allowed a subsequent movement..

which is the first movement. It is the one after that that is the second or "double movement"

 

[Taffy]

In answer to the question about how I had refereed it previously, the honest answer is I can't really remember........which will probably send me even further down the ladder on respect.

I only noticed it when I saw a team standing on the dead ball line,almost in the car park last week. Yes, of course I should have searched the law book, unfortunately it was lost beneath a young child's bed at the time.....

I am fascinated as to how much there is to learn and probably getting this one down and out and into a discussion thread will never allow me to forget it.

Humbled. But still learning.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I only noticed it when I saw a team standing on the dead ball line,almost in the car park last week.

Sounds like this team was expecting to win ball and FH was at dead ball line waiting to kick, his teammates were remaining at DBL to advance downfield immed after kick thus onside in general play.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Sounds like this team was expecting to win ball and FH was at dead ball line waiting to kick, his teammates were remaining at DBL to advance downfield immed after kick thus onside in general play.

Sounds the most likely explanation NKW.

Usual practice is to have only kicker (usually 10 or 15 on DBL) plus the wing (who chases to put everyone's else onside). Rest of defenders on Goal Line (or Try Line is just as good for me) in case of tap off top, overthrow, general cock up by line out forwards etc, or of oppo steal the throw, ready for immediate defence.

 

[Pegleg]

After being tackled, you are allowed to reach out with your arms to place the ball. You are not allowed to move your body forward. They are both single movements after the tackle; the former is legal, the latter is illegal.

But everyone knows what is meant so where's the problem? They all know you can reach out immediately. We are all "pedantic" about things that matter to us. Of course when "we" do it it is not pedantry that is reserved for our judgement of others. "Double standards"?

My original comment was a throw away joke which some of you took offence to. Strange old world.

 

[Dickie E]

I have frequently questioned Stuart Barnes's use of the term since he uses it when it is inappropriate. TV commentators in my experience often do not use the term "properly", and so the ordinary punter gets misled. I have come across many players who do not understand the law on this. "But it was only a single movement!"

Those with a reasonable vocabulary will understand the term 'white elephant'. Should we stop using it because it is describing something that is neither an elephant nor white?

 

[OB..]

But everyone knows what is meant so where's the problem? They all know you can reach out immediately. We are all "pedantic" about things that matter to us. Of course when "we" do it it is not pedantry that is reserved for our judgement of others. "Double standards"?

My original comment was a throw away joke which some of you took offence to. Strange old world.

Those with a reasonable vocabulary will understand the term 'white elephant'. Should we stop using it because it is describing something that is neither an elephant nor white?

I can only repeat that I know people who do not understand what the law actually says because the term "double movement" is what they "know" - and it does not properly summarise the law. It is misleading. People get the law wrong as a consequence. That matters.

 

[Pegleg]

I've not had much of an issue with people who refere to double movement not understanding the basic principle that in represents. But it is wrong in terms of terminology. We hould not as officials use incorrect terminology. I feel we should discourage the incorrect use of any terminology. The lazy use of these terms by senior refs and indeed the games governing body is slipshod and gives an unprofessional impression. However, we have more important issues to worry about.

However, as we, clearly, are not going to agree, I see no point in prolonging the discussion.

 

[ChrisR]

The term "double movement" is not in the book. To the best of my knowledge, neither is "jackler", "high tackle", "kill the ball", "fend" or perhaps other terms in common use. If the term has a singular interpretation then add it to "Definitions".

BTW, don't you like that "making the ball dead" is OK but "killing the ball" is not.