Is refereeing around the lineout becoming too pedantic?

[jdeagro]

I've seen the question around not engaging the almost-maul at the lineout, and regarding players leaving the lineout early, come up a multitude of times recently. A buddy of mine just sent me this Instagram video for an instance of it. I'll preface this by saying I think the commentator on the video is wrong. Curious if you agree or disagree based on the following:

Since this is not a maul, the lineout ends when the ball or a player in possession of the ball (in this case) leaves the lineout, as per 18.37.a.i.

The lineout is only about a meter wide in the opposition's half of the mark of touch. Once that ball carrier advanced past the line of where the opposition players were previously standing, the ball carrier has left the lineout, and the lineout is over in my eyes.

But lets play devil's advocate and pretend it's not over, as the ball carrier has not traveled far enough to leave the lineout. The opposition players that are perhaps no more than a foot away are still in the area of where the lineout is then too. They have not left the lineout just because they are retreating, since the ball carrier advanced multiple feet, and we are saying he's still in the lineout / the lineout hasn't ended yet. So it's only fair it goes both ways.

Furthermore, in order for the defending players to remain onside while the lineout is still on, they have to retreat to not let the ball pass them, as per 18.32:

Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

If you want to go the extra mile, a hill I'm willing to die on is that law 18.29.d even further complicates things by going against some of these other laws, and makes this all a moot point anyway:

Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may:

Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.

World Rugby really needs to establish clarity around all of this, IMO.

So, given my long-winded prelude above, are we complicating things for ourselves and what's expected in the game by being pedantic and penalizing the team not in possession of the ball at the lineout just because they step backwards out of the way instead of to the side? We've already established that it's legal to begin to form a maul from set pieces (not a flying wedge) so long as the ball carrier remains in the front (no obstruction). So there's nothing to be gained by a team who steps backwards away from the advancing ball carrier and his players anyway. Why penalize?

Additionally, if you believe ball carrier hasn't advanced enough to carry ball out of the lineout in the Instagram video I linked above, then please let me know how far from the mark of touch is considered outside the lineout. As we normally agree ball has left the lineout as soon as it's tapped from the top or pulled out from the receiver, which is a much shorter distance traveled than the ball carrier in the Instagram video.

 

[jdeagro]

That was odd. The Instagram link was pointing to the wrong place. Just updated it.

 

[Balones]

It’s the ‘keep moving’ bit that is the issue. Stepping out does not usually result in players continuing to move so it is this that is penalised.

 

[jdeagro]

It’s the ‘keep moving’ bit that is the issue. Stepping out does not usually result in players continuing to move so it is this that is penalised.

So in the example I linked, is your take that the defending players left the lineout? If so, why hasn't the ball carrier also left the lineout (thus ending the lineout) when he's advanced the ball 10 or so steps forward at the same time?...and how far does he need to advance to end the lineout, would you say?

(For what it's worth, in the example I linked, I'd say the defending players do keep moving once they started stepping backwards. So I don't see that issue here either, to be honest.)

 

[Volun-selected]

I see it as the defenders chose not to engage rather than left the lineout, and if the attackers kept the ball with the front player then its a try - maybe that’s how the ref saw it.

 

[jdeagro]

I see it as the defenders chose not to engage rather than left the lineout, and if the attackers kept the ball with the front player then its a try - maybe that’s how the ref saw it.

Agreed.

I think for "leaving the lineout" illegally to occur, it has to be a lot more blatant and perhaps cause an unfair advantage for the defending team. Such as if the defenders completely ran backwards 10m before the ball carrier started advancing. Or even before the ball was brought down and the almost-maul started to form.

But to try to penalize them for starting to back pedal at the same time and pace as the ball carrier is advancing, while remaining near him, in my opinion is "looking for something to penalize" as a ref as opposed to letting the game play on, in the spirit of how we're taught to ref.

 

[Phil E]

Ball is in possession of the front player at all times and he can be tackled.
Try.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

There are a few things going on here.
For me , first offence defenders leave the line and do not retire 10 M so they are offside (in this instance they could have just retired to try line)
2nd offence attempted maul is legally set up but moves off the line of touch therefore we have flying wedge.
By the way the ball is transferred late from the catcher as the ball is grounded so we have a truck and trailer. (technically in goal so all bets are off)
No try, Penalty attack.

 

[Balones]

Strictly speaking the ‘maul’ was not set up correctly. There was a long lay back by the catcher. Therefore supporters were in front and we have obstruction. It is not as strictly refereed nowadays as it was when the guidance on such matters was issued a few years ago but it is still penalised. This was the most obvious thing for me from the viewpoint of the video. The catcher may have kept hold of it but No5 attached in front of the ball and the supporters were clearly blocking at the sides.
Yes there probably was stepping out by the defending side as well. So which side do you penalise? A case of not treating the offensive and defensive sides equally?
A ’fair’ outcome for me would have been a scrum - for no other reason than ‘attacking side’. Both sides involved in illegal activity.

 

[jdeagro]

For me , first offence defenders leave the line and do not retire 10 M so they are offside (in this instance they could have just retired to try line)

So I take it you don't follow law 18.29.d?

Also, had the defenders stayed put, wouldn't they have also been offsides once the ball carrier advanced past them, in violation with law 18.32?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

So I take it you don't follow law 18.29.d?

players may Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over."
Interesting and I stand corrected,. I guess using that law I could stretch a point and say they could all step back and say they are in a position to receive the ball! The law doesn't specify only one player so we have another anomaly

Also, had the defenders stayed put, wouldn't they have also been offsides once the ball carrier advanced past them, in violation with law 18.32?

Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball
Possibly but the line out is over once the ball moves off the line of touch so its open play provided they have complied with the initial law and they can come in and tackle from anywhere.

Interesting debate

 

[jdeagro]

Interesting and I stand corrected,. I guess using that law I could stretch a point and say they could all step back and say they are in a position to receive the ball! The law doesn't specify only one player so we have another anomaly

Yea, this law is one of the most dicey and overlooked ones I've noticed. It certainly doesn't make refereeing this scenario any easier lol.

Possibly but the line out is over once the ball moves off the line of touch so its open play provided they have complied with the initial law and they can come in and tackle from anywhere.

And from what I can see, the ball / ball carrier moves past the mark of touch rather quickly, and the defenders step back simultaneously to that. So I think the lineout is over before it's possible to penalize the defenders for leaving the lineout.

Interesting debate

Indeed, cheers!

I can certainly see the thought process on why to rule one way or the other. But I think it's not so cut and dry given the complexity of the lineout laws that counter each other. I also think this is one of those places where we shouldn't be looking for something to penalize, rather just let the game flow, especially considering the defenders aren't gaining anything by stepping backwards here. In fact they've just allowed a try against themselves by doing so.

 

[jdeagro]

Anyone else have thoughts?

 

[Harry]

As the defenders did not engage, it is not a maul. So the ball must remain at the front. It seems to me the grounding was done by someone other than the foremost player. So for me no try.

 

[didds]

well for one the ball carrier while being the catcher is not at the front - he has at least one of his lifters - if not both - in front of him.

#7 scores by taking the ball off the catcher before the try line it seems - albeit the defenders haven't anyone in a position to tackle/play the catcher anyway so whether the #7 take is deemed material is open to conjecture.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that not competing the maul and stepping back a step means a PK to the catchers, as that seems to effectively say defenders can only act in one manner at a "catch and move forward". Seems a bit of a double whammy.

I've no idea why nobody tries to sack the catcher (not)at the front at all.

 

[jdeagro]

well for one the ball carrier while being the catcher is not at the front - he has at least one of his lifters - if not both - in front of him.

#7 scores by taking the ball off the catcher before the try line it seems...

Out of curiosity, if you were to ping the attacking team on these, would you call for obstruction or for accidental offsides? I've heard both, but I feel this is not exactly accidental, so I'd probably call obstruction.

 

[didds]

well the defenders made no attempt to force the issue so - and i am not a referee - Id be content with an accidental offside ...

BUT...
it needs to be called WAY before the try;line. (lifters) or as soon as the #7 grabs it

 

[jdeagro]

well the defenders made no attempt to force the issue so

Fair enough actually. No one's actually being obstructed. Different story if the defense made any attempt to contest.

So the commentator in the video seems pretty off the mark lol.

 

[SimonSmith]

Not being pedantic enough is what caused the current shitshow with scrums.

 

[jdeagro]

Not being pedantic enough is what caused the current shitshow with scrums.

Maybe we can meet in the middle?