early lifting

[didds]

On the other hand over-coached teams who are illegal themselves (e.g. early peel being a classic example) deserve to be pinged too.

I have yet to see an "early" peel pinged in any level of the game. if its illegal why isn't ever penalised? That is - a peeling runner that begins his approach before the ball leaves the throwers hands. in the same vein I have nver seen a #2 jumper penalised for jumping before the ball leaves a thrower's hands... and that is pretty normal. Typically throwers time themselves from the #2 jumper's jump, not the other way around.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

As a general observation, I think there's value in listening to Didds POV.

We can occasionally get isolated in a referee bubble and look at events through our lens. Getting a different - and crucial - viewpoint into what is happening is on the field should be something that we welcome and listen to with open minds. I think he makes a fair point.

 

[Browner]

I have yet to see an "early" peel pinged in any level of the game. if its illegal why isn't ever penalised? That is - a peeling runner that begins his approach before the ball leaves the throwers hands. in the same vein I have nver seen a #2 jumper penalised for jumping before the ball leaves a thrower's hands... and that is pretty normal. Typically throwers time themselves from the #2 jumper's jump, not the other way around.

didds

I disregard early peelers ( mainly because all the positional shifting makes it too damn difficult to keep a track of) ,

but I have FK'd an early lift, if the 'non throwing' lifting team are firing up their 2 jumper early & keeping him held there , but I admit I don't wait to see if there is any advantage because I'm trying to discourage the early lift at subsequent Lineouts, waiting to assess a possible advantage doesnt do that. rid this asap IMO.

 

[menace]

I have yet to see an "early" peel pinged in any level of the game. if its illegal why isn't ever penalised? That is - a peeling runner that begins his approach before the ball leaves the throwers hands. in the same vein I have nver seen a #2 jumper penalised for jumping before the ball leaves a thrower's hands... and that is pretty normal. Typically throwers time themselves from the #2 jumper's jump, not the other way around.

didds

The problem with pinging these is that they have to be so very clearly and obviously early...and seeing the ball leave the hands at the same time as spotting the jumper or peeler 'just out in front' when they're 7 - 10m apart means you need exceptional perifereal vision or eye balls that can look in 2 separate directions at once (depending on your lineout positioning) all the while possibly keeping an eye on the jumpers actions, or the backs, or the receivers...etc.
Teams are very atuned to having their early man go within a fraction of a second early from the hookers throw, and you're just not going to ping those.
But when they are clear and obvious early then they usually stick out like dogs proverbials, then I've seen most refs ping them without hesitation.

What I sense from didds, in respect to the op, is that if the early jump was so early that meant the hooker held back their throw then rather than reset it with a warning and have the throw it's better to just FK and move on. I see the point that to reset the lineout throw has taken away any tactical advantage the throwing team might of had. Frankly I can wear that. It's at the next lineout you manage it further. "Jumpers, watch your timing so we avoid another FK".

 

[ddjamo]

As a general observation, I think there's value in listening to Didds POV.

We can occasionally get isolated in a referee bubble and look at events through our lens. Getting a different - and crucial - viewpoint into what is happening is on the field should be something that we welcome and listen to with open minds. I think he makes a fair point.

agree. I have noticed that often these debates break the point down to the absolute where it becomes referee experience and skill and not entirely law. a skilled referee would know when an early lift would throw off timing and/or a play. once again we cannot put absolutes into the 50/50's or the uncommon. the referee needs to learn when and how to apply law. applying law just because it's law is not rugby - that's basketball, gridiron, etc.

 

[Simon Thomas]

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

didds

Not really got much time to spend searching through the hundreds of past threads - if it your old thread useful to give a link to us.

 

[Simon Thomas]

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

We are not telepathic and it does help to highlight if you are introducing a totally new scenario to the OP.

 

[didds]

The problem with pinging these is that they have to be so very clearly and obviously early

And I totally accept that and understand in reality that's the reason why the microsecond early #2 jumper and the fractionally early peeler run don't get pinged - there is so much else to look for. And in time the mindset becomes that these are not even considered so when they are more obvious the brain isn't there to consider the illegality. (in the same way _maybe_ that Walsh wasn't even in the mindset to PK a lineout ATTACKER's backline encroachment).

But equally no-one can then raise law based arguments when in reality its an ignored law.

What I sense from didds, in respect to the op, is that if the early jump was so early that meant the hooker held back their throw then rather than reset it with a warning and have the throw it's better to just FK and move on. I see the point that to reset the lineout throw has taken away any tactical advantage the throwing team might of had. Frankly I can wear that. It's at the next lineout you manage it further. "Jumpers, watch your timing so we avoid another FK".

Seems reasonable to me. Now - as a philosophical point - the FK is maybe toothless if its not in one or other 22m area. TBH for many teams I suspect another lineout is still preferable notwithstanding their tactical approach may well have now been compromised anyway. A scrummage _may_ be a suitable alternative... At least a chat from a ref about no more early lifting at least sets the requirement and the potential of higher penalties if it continues.(ie repeated infringements)

My point however was not necessarily to suggest that it HAS to be a FK, but more to sell the idea that "uncontested lineout, ball won, that is good enough, play on" is not the full story. Certainly I do feel that FK advantage should be played because the early lift possibly was material and advantage does NOT constitute mere possession (and indeed the advantage law makes this clear).

Thanks for all bearing with me, and acknowledging the point i was trying to make. You all educate me almost daily and I'd like to try and help you all try to understand what we as players and coaches are trying to achieve.

cheers!

didds

 

[didds]

We are not telepathic and it does help to highlight if you are introducing a totally new scenario to the OP.

???

It was you I think Simon that said "ball won cleanly, play on, advantage over" ?

The peeling example was entirely ONLY that - an example. if that wasn't clear, I apologise, but it was only meant to illustrate HOW an early up WAS material and advantage cannot just be possession - as indeed the advantage law indicates.

didds

 

[crossref]

didds, I certainly have found your posts on this interesting...
and if pressed, I would concede that I am not refereeing the lineout as cleverly as you would like/expect.. I have added another layer to my thinking.

 

[didds]

Glad to help CR

I did a quick search... came up with the following in a couple of minutes of my previous discussion of this point of early lift destroying tactical use etc



http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?15824-Early-lifting&highlight=early+jump post #13

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?1145-Early-jump-in-the-line-out&highlight=early+jump post #3

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?579-Early-Jumping&highlight=early+jump posts #2 & #23

And in

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?8336-Dummy-jump&highlight=early+jump post #10, ST indicates there is materiality to be considered with early lifting.

didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

Didds - sorry I am being rather picky on rugby matters this week, due to a weekend full of crap from coaches and so-called organisers, and a general frustration with RFU currently.

You are quite right to raise the issue of peelers.

My advice to all referees up to L5 is get the management control from the first line out.

 

[didds]

Its OPK Simon... I guessed you must be a prickly over something, its not your usual M.O

Hope your week gets better... and them coaches... terrible people doncha know ;-) If I added to your angst I sincerely apologise and can assure you it was never personal I have nothing but respect for you.



cheers

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Considering just the OP "play on" would be my call.

But, in light if didds posts let me add this:

1. Did the thrower dummy and get the ops up early? Not sure? Blow it dead, warn both sides, re-throw.

2. With players switching places in the LO it's hard to tell who may be a peeler. But most peels are to back so the early jump at the front won't be a negative.

3. If the planned peel is to the front (not usual) then the thrower would likely hold up rather than throw to the back. So if the thrower held up, would you FK or admonish him? Not me, rather just re-set.

So, if there's a lot of shifting by the throwers team and the ops go up early then I'd say go with option 1.

In the OP I'd be thinking "not material" rather than "advantage" so if the SH knocks on, tough titty.

 

[RobLev]

And I totally accept that and understand in reality that's the reason why the microsecond early #2 jumper and the fractionally early peeler run don't get pinged - there is so much else to look for. And in time the mindset becomes that these are not even considered so when they are more obvious the brain isn't there to consider the illegality. (in the same way _maybe_ that Walsh wasn't even in the mindset to PK a lineout ATTACKER's backline encroachment).

But equally no-one can then raise law based arguments when in reality its an ignored law.

...

didds

I'm sorry for being the only one out of step here; maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or maybe it's because I'm not a referee.

I chipped in earlier because I understood you, didds, to be saying that referees should be strictly enforcing illegally early jumping by the non-throwing team, because that early jump puts out the timing of a peeling move. You clarified that the reason it puts out the timing of the move is that that move starts even more earlier.

I take the point that early peeling is not often pinged, but nor, you say, is early jumping. If your view is that the other side's early jumping should be strictly enforced, but that your side's even earlier peel should be left alone, how consistent is that view, and why should others agree with it.?

 

[didds]

Considering just the OP "play on" would be my call.


2. With players switching places in the LO it's hard to tell who may be a peeler. But most peels are to back so the early jump at the front won't NECESSARILY be a negative.
.

FTFY...

 

[didds]

I chipped in earlier because I understood you, didds, to be saying that referees should be strictly enforcing illegally early jumping by the non-throwing team, because that early jump puts out the timing of a peeling move.

No... My point was to counter that previously proposed that a early jump, come down, then throwing jump and ball win was advantage ovwer/no issue, because the ball had been won. My point is that is it is not just about winning the ball, but the loss of tactical approach. The example I gave was merely that, and I compared it to lazy runners reducing options from breakdown ball.

I am not syaying refs should ALWAYS enforce an early jump, but to be aware that subsequent winning the ball is not in itself "enough" - it is not advantage over. So play advantage and be prepared to penalise if advantage doesn't accrue.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

didds, as a fellow coach I understand your point. However the referee has a limited set of options to select from based on what is in front of him.

In the OP, as the early jumper has been brought down and the throw completed, I see only two: "Play on, immaterial" or "FK, advantage" to the throwers side. My preference is "Play on" tho I see reason for advantage.

If, instead of throwing, the thrower just pulled the ball down the referee has two different choices: "FK, early jump" or re-set and a word. My preference is re-set.

If, as in the OP, the thrower immediately throws to the back and they get a lift and clean take I suspect that the peel to the front wasn't the plan.

- - - Updated - - -

didds, as a fellow coach I understand your point. However the referee has a limited set of options to select from based on what is in front of him.

In the OP, as the early jumper has been brought down and the throw completed, I see only two: "Play on, immaterial" or "FK, advantage" to the throwers side. My preference is "Play on" tho I see reason for advantage.

If, instead of throwing, the thrower just pulled the ball down the referee has two different choices: "FK, early jump" or re-set and a word. My preference is re-set.

If, as in the OP, the thrower immediately throws to the back and they get a lift and clean take I suspect that the peel to the front wasn't the plan.

 

[didds]

All understood. All I was trying to do was to overcome a possible mindset amongst some that "if its caught then there's no problem".

didds

 

[RobLev]

No... My point was to counter that previously proposed that a early jump, come down, then throwing jump and ball win was advantage ovwer/no issue, because the ball had been won. My point is that is it is not just about winning the ball, but the loss of tactical approach. The example I gave was merely that, and I compared it to lazy runners reducing options from breakdown ball.

I am not syaying refs should ALWAYS enforce an early jump, but to be aware that subsequent winning the ball is not in itself "enough" - it is not advantage over. So play advantage and be prepared to penalise if advantage doesn't accrue.

didds

I entirely agree with the principle, and have espoused it myself in other threads.

My quibble was that the situation you posed was one where the material offence you wanted penalised was the second material offence; the first one being the early peel. If therefore the early lifters were penalised, they would be entitled to feel aggrieved. If we can agree that if anyone were to be penalised in that situation, it should be the early peeler (not least because his move may have triggered the early lift) then we're all good.