Is reffing around line outs becoming too lax?

[BikingBud]

Contrary to an earlier post it seem line outs are becoming like scrums just let everything go:

ON the basis that the ball is not yet thrown then at least 4 Sale players are offside.

It was the same for Quins catch and drive to score.

 

[Balones]

In answer to your title question, yes.
Unfortunately I don’t think we can do anything about it until (yet again) TV rugby sorts itself out.

 

[didds]

Unfortunately I don’t think we can do anything about it until (yet again) TV rugby sorts itself out.

They won't.
its obviously one of these "agreed things" that refs, coaches, TV, uncle tom cobbley etc have all agreed to let go, at the start of each season.
allegedly.

 

[Decorily]

Contrary to an earlier post it seem line outs are becoming like scrums just let everything go:
View attachment 4802
ON the basis that the ball is not yet thrown then at least 4 Sale players are offside.

It was the same for Quins catch and drive to score.

Why not show video to back up your claim?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This tactic is a bugbear within our society.

 

[didds]

while I am a favour of chinese fire drill to crate space for a jumper/throw, its clearly now at a stage where not only does the firedrill place a pod where there are no defenders (fair enough IMO - YMMV) it is now used to pre-empt players into place for the maul for driving - which is exactly what I see in the OP.

this genie is out fo the bottle though - unless WR have one of its famous clampdowns (CF squint scrum feeds) that will last about 3 weeks.

 

[Mipper]

This tactic is a bugbear within our society.

Does your society have a consistent approach to sanctioning it?

 

[Mipper]

Contrary to an earlier post it seem line outs are becoming like scrums just let everything go:
View attachment 4802
ON the basis that the ball is not yet thrown then at least 4 Sale players are offside.

It was the same for Quins catch and drive to score.

I 'think' i'm right in saying that this is not offside but instead leaving lineout before the ball is thrown, which is a free-kick. Happy to be corrected here...

7 and 3 might argue that they are simply changing positions in the LO, which would be a stretch based on this still photo, but the white scrumcap fella has definitely left the lineout.

On a slighly tangential note, given than games are not a better spectacle for the whole scrum>penalty>kick>lineout>drive>try procedure, I find it odd that the yop level should be so lax on this approach to the lineouts.

 

[Volun-selected]

WR will sort it out with a clear and unambiguous clarification - just after they ask elite refs to enforce the ball thrower keeps both feet outside the field of play, and the ball is fed straight in the subsequent scrum if that option is taken.

 

[Shelflife]

Agree 100% that it has and as usual it has filtered down to the amateur level where they pinged rightly for it and then moan that will I saw it on the TV and it was fine.

The other bugbear of mine it that the hooker is allowed to move off the LOT mark so that he's almost standing in front of his own team.

 

[BikingBud]

I 'think' i'm right in saying that this is not offside but instead leaving lineout before the ball is thrown, which is a free-kick. Happy to be corrected here...

7 and 3 might argue that they are simply changing positions in the LO, which would be a stretch based on this still photo, but the white scrumcap fella has definitely left the lineout.

On a slighly tangential note, given than games are not a better spectacle for the whole scrum>penalty>kick>lineout>drive>try procedure, I find it odd that the yop level should be so lax on this approach to the lineouts.

Can see it either way but clearly the action is occurring before the ball is thrown.

18.10 - Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines. The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free-kick.

Does that therefore mean opening the gap is an offence?

Some will argue:

18.17 - Once the lineout is formed, players:
a. From the team throwing in may not leave the lineout other than to change positions with other participating players.
b. From the non-throwing team may leave the lineout only to ensure that they do not have more players than the opposition. Sanction: Free-kick.

Changing positions? Fine margins!

Or does it come under:

Offside at a lineout

18-35. Players not participating in the lineout must remain at least 10 metres from the mark of touch on their own team’s side or behind the goal line if this is nearer. If the ball is thrown in before a player is onside, the player will not be liable to sanction if the player immediately retires to the onside position. The player cannot be put onside by the action of any other player.

On the Sale example to my mind, they have left the line out as they are not changing positions but setting themselves up for the driving maul. If they stepped out and then loitered without retiring then 18.35. Also Blue 8 is in the 5m channel so is not in the lineout, therefore should retire to 10m without further participation.

For the Quins try:


Again, changing positions? Fine margins!

If only they had spent time and effort over the summer getting a world class kicker

 

[jdeagro]

For the Quins try:View attachment 4803

View attachment 4804
Again, changing positions? Fine margins!

This one looks like changing positions and legal to me. As long as you stay between the mark of touch and that half-meter (or so, we don't have to count inches) on your side of the lineout while you make your movement, then I'm good with it.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Does your society have a consistent approach to sanctioning it?

We are instructed to sanction. Subject to the usual caveats about advantage / material effect etc.

 

[Mipper]

We are instructed to sanction. Subject to the usual caveats about advantage / material effect etc.

Free kick or penalty. Do you make the determination on the thrower. That is; has he thrown the ball yet, or not?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Depends on what offence I see first. I I give the appropriate sanction as per the law book.

 

[Mipper]

Depends on what offence I see first. I I give the appropriate sanction as per the law book.

Marc, I am not trying to catch you out. I was genuinely interested.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well if I see it as leaving early a FK but if I think they are pre-forming a maul then a PK. I'd need to see it unfold. The point is we do not allow them to do what the still shows. The offence you chose, there are more offences than one there, depends on reading the picture in front of you.

 

[Dickie E]

Unless 18.29.d:

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.

 

[jdeagro]

Unless 18.29.d:

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.

Ah you seemed to have picked up on my favorite law. Unfortunately I don't think it really applies to OP's scenarios though because 18.29.d is only applicable once the "lineout has commenced" which is defined as "once the ball leaves the hands of the thrower". In the posted pictures it looks like the thrower hasn't released the ball yet.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Unless 18.29.d:

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.

That is why I used the wording "Well if I see it as..." and "...I give the appropriate sanction as per the law book." It depends what the referee sees. However, it is clear that at pro levelthe officials , with a total of SIX eyes are not "seeing" a lot of stuff.

Now if it is "policy" fine. But, why is that not communicated to the paying punters?