early lifting

[crossref]

red line out
- blue lift before the ball comes in
- the ball therefore doesn't come in
- blue lifters lower the jumper back down again
- ball now comes in smartly, caught easily by red, uncontested, and passed down to the red scrum half

would you play a FK advantage to red for the early lift -- or was it not material.
or does it depend.

 

[The umpire]

It depends...
Usually it's a quick whistle and a brief "you get it in quicker" to the thrower, "you don't go up early" to the jumper and "now get on with game and stop prattling about" to them both.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

red line out
- blue lift before the ball comes in
- the ball therefore doesn't come in
- blue lifters lower the jumper back down again
- ball now comes in smartly, caught easily by red, uncontested, and passed down to the red scrum half

would you play a FK advantage to red for the early lift -- or was it not material.
or does it depend.

No and yes in the case as described.

 

[pwhaling]

Ball goes out cleanly play on (fk advantage already gained).
Quick word at next line out

 

[OB..]

red line out
- blue lift before the ball comes in
- the ball therefore doesn't come in
- blue lifters lower the jumper back down again
- ball now comes in smartly, caught easily by red, uncontested, and passed down to the red scrum half

would you play a FK advantage to red for the early lift -- or was it not material.
or does it depend.

Again I argue that materiality is not relevant, since advantage applies. Either/or, but not both. Why have two seperate criteria covering the same infringement?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Get on with the game as the ball is cleanly won, and get your line out management in place in downtime ready for the next line out.

I would not even bother indicating any advantage, it was an uncontested line out. Get on with the anticipating and proactively managing the next contact.

 

[winchesterref]

As per ST and others. Play on this time and manage it for next time - hold the jump, get it in quicker.

 

[didds]

It depends...
Usually it's a quick whistle and a brief "you get it in quicker" to the thrower, "you don't go up early" to the jumper and "now get on with game and stop prattling about" to them both.

surely that depends on whether the thrower had been in a position to throw initially? And even if he had... the ref may still be speaking to the wrong person(s). Why doesn't the ref say to the lifting pods - "you get the jumper in position" earlier?

didds

 

[didds]

Get on with the game as the ball is cleanly won, and get your line out management in place in downtime ready for the next line out.

I would not even bother indicating any advantage, it was an uncontested line out. Get on with the anticipating and proactively managing the next contact.

I've said this before, but it clearly didn't sink in so I'll say it again.

Just because the ball was won does not mean there was no materiality or its the result the throwers side wanted... -

eg 5m lineout, and the tactic is a front peel from OTT ball having ID'd that the channel defenders are weak.

Just as peeling player starts to move oppo go up early and by the time the jumper has come down and the ball won, the peeler has over run or lost momentum. The early jump has been hugely material in what has happened - its has prevented the attackers doing what they wanted to do. CF lazy runners at a ruck... the ball was won and can be passed one way... but maybe the best result was the direction that has just been cut off.

It IS important that early ups ARE considered a deliberate ploy CF killing the ball illegally at a 5m ruck with an overlap. It is MORE than a way to get the ball in and won. Failure to understand this is a failure in game understanding.

didds

 

[ddjamo]

Get on with the game as the ball is cleanly won, and get your line out management in place in downtime ready for the next line out.

I would not even bother indicating any advantage, it was an uncontested line out. Get on with the anticipating and proactively managing the next contact.

this x2

 

[Blackberry]

Didds i don't quite get your claim about the peeler being disadvantaged by an early lift.....he will time his run by the action of the thrower throwing the ball.....sorry he HAS to time his run off the action of the thrower under the laws of the game. Unless i am showing a basic misunderstanding of the game the action of the opposition in a lineout has no effect on the action of the thrower. Unless you require your peelers to break the laws.

 

[Dickie E]

Get on with the game as the ball is cleanly won, and get your line out management in place in downtime ready for the next line out.

I would not even bother indicating any advantage, it was an uncontested line out. Get on with the anticipating and proactively managing the next contact.

So if Red SH then knocks on at base of lineout, Blue scrum?

 

[didds]

Didds i don't quite get your claim about the peeler being disadvantaged by an early lift.....he will time his run by the action of the thrower throwing the ball.....

In boring traditional 7 man jump at 2 and 4 ... 1,2,3 and 4 will not be peeling (4 staying to protect an overthrow). The closest peeler will be 5. 5 could take his cue from the thrower - just. But he'd better be quick!

But lineouts are more dynamic than that - with chinese fire drills the peeler will be taking his cue from some other action in the lineout movement, and the thrower also... so chances are the peeler is already on his way when the early goes off....

So I'll accept that sometimes the peeler may take his cue from the thrower. But I'll still maintain he'll usually take some other action as his cue to peel.

Now I'll agree that he SHOULD be waiting for the throw before moving as per the laws... but then #2 shouldn't be jumping until his hooker has thrown it either... and I'll bet not a single ref here ever pings a throwing #2 jumper for jumper prior to the ball leaving the thrower's hands. So lets not pretend there are laws that are never ignored.

didds

 

[RobLev]

In boring traditional 7 man jump at 2 and 4 ... 1,2,3 and 4 will not be peeling (4 staying to protect an overthrow). The closest peeler will be 5. 5 could take his cue from the thrower - just. But he'd better be quick!

But lineouts are more dynamic than that - with chinese fire drills the peeler will be taking his cue from some other action in the lineout movement, and the thrower also... so chances are the peeler is already on his way when the early goes off....

So I'll accept that sometimes the peeler may take his cue from the thrower. But I'll still maintain he'll usually take some other action as his cue to peel.

Now I'll agree that he SHOULD be waiting for the throw before moving as per the laws... but then #2 shouldn't be jumping until his hooker has thrown it either... and I'll bet not a single ref here ever pings a throwing #2 jumper for jumper prior to the ball leaving the thrower's hands. So lets not pretend there are laws that are never ignored.

didds

I don't know whether Blackberry's satisfied now, but I'm still confused. If both thrower and peeler are cueing off some other action in the lineout, what difference does it make if the oppo lift early? Or are you saying that if the oppo lift early, the thrower will delay the throw, and that throws the timing out because the peeler is already on his way?

 

[didds]

Or are you saying that if the oppo lift early, the thrower will delay the throw, and that throws the timing out because the peeler is already on his way?

You got it!!!!

Now if the throwing team wait for the early jumper to come down and THEN the jumper goes up... the peeler has either had to slow massively and has lost momentum, or is totally out of position. (In a kasquesque scenario I can now see the peeler pinged for being a second receiver if he has to hang around long enough

So tritely saying "oh they won the ball cleanly eventually so advantage over" is not necessarily reflecting reality and equirty. The lineout is not just a method of getting the ball in - its a hugely tactical scenario. And lifting early can totally stuff a tactical ploy.

The thrower could just not throw with the move being compromised so badly... and eventually I guess the ref will blow and say start again... but now the tactical choice is blown as well, with the hand being shown so to speak.

didds

 

[Blackberry]

So the peeler does go before the ball is thrown in this scenario......

 

[RobLev]

You got it!!!!

Now if the throwing team wait for the early jumper to come down and THEN the jumper goes up... the peeler has either had to slow massively and has lost momentum, or is totally out of position. (In a kasquesque scenario I can now see the peeler pinged for being a second receiver if he has to hang around long enough

Why bother; since the peeler is peeling early, why not just ping him for that? FK every time.

So tritely saying "oh they won the ball cleanly eventually so advantage over" is not necessarily reflecting reality and equirty. The lineout is not just a method of getting the ball in - its a hugely tactical scenario. And lifting early can totally stuff a tactical ploy.

...that relies on the throwing team going early in breach of Law 19.12(a)...

The thrower could just not throw with the move being compromised so badly... and eventually I guess the ref will blow and say start again... but now the tactical choice is blown as well, with the hand being shown so to speak.

didds

Wouldn't it be more sensible to devise tactics that don't involve illegality on your own team's part?

What you seem to be saying is that the tactic we're discussing is going to be affected by early lifting if (but only if) the peeler has peeled before the oppo's lift - so he's committed but the thrower isn't. So the first offence is always going to be the early peel; we don't need to consider the early lift and its materiality.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I've said this before, but it clearly didn't sink in so I'll say it again.

Just because the ball was won does not mean there was no materiality or its the result the throwers side wanted... -

eg 5m lineout, and the tactic is a front peel from OTT ball having ID'd that the channel defenders are weak.

Just as peeling player starts to move oppo go up early and by the time the jumper has come down and the ball won, the peeler has over run or lost momentum. The early jump has been hugely material in what has happened - its has prevented the attackers doing what they wanted to do. CF lazy runners at a ruck... the ball was won and can be passed one way... but maybe the best result was the direction that has just been cut off.

It IS important that early ups ARE considered a deliberate ploy CF killing the ball illegally at a 5m ruck with an overlap. It is MORE than a way to get the ball in and won. Failure to understand this is a failure in game understanding.

didds

didds - no idea what you are referring to that hasn't sunk in - previous post ? Link ?
The OP makes no reference to peeling players, so I stand by my original comments. Clean ball back to receiver with all options available.
You introduce new scenarios that of course change the line out dynamics and triggers, which may require different and appropriate management not needed in the simple OP incident.
Bottom line for the referee is to get the thrower to get it in without delay or dummies, prevent early jumps or false triggers to "encourage" early jumps, and a fair contest once the ball is thrown.
Well coached teams may have other tactical objectives pre-, during and post line-out to create gaps, indicate a line of attack as a false impression to shift defenders, etc and of course the referee needs to deal with any opposition illegal non-compliance that negates those legal tactics.
On the other hand over-coached teams who are illegal themselves (e.g. early peel being a classic example) deserve to be pinged too.

 

[didds]

Why bother; since the peeler is peeling early, why not just ping him for that? FK every time.



...that relies on the throwing team going early in breach of Law 19.12(a)...

Its standard practice. i agree that it is contrary to the laws. But its a law that NEVER gets enforced (in almost 40 years of involvement).

I 100% agree with you - but lets not get hung up on stuff that for whatever reason gets ignored all the time.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

didds - no idea what you are referring to that hasn't sunk in - previous post ? Link ?.

several times before Simon I am sure if you search hard enough it can be found


didds

 

[didds]

The OP makes no reference to peeling players, so I stand by my original comments. Clean ball back to receiver with all options available..

No he doesn't indeed. I was responding to the suggestion that "it was uncontested and won cleanly, so advantage over and play on" approach. I was trying to illustrate that an early up may be destroying planned options in the same way a lazy runner may destroy options. that is all.

If between you guys with the whistle you cannot see that then I'll leave you to your (small "i") ignorance. I have tried


didds