Line out move
- Thread starter crossref
- Start date
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,098
- Post Likes
- 1,813
and if so we are back to the McCaw lineout rry disussion really - whether the guys at the back are marterial to what happens at the front.
Yes in that _maybe_ their withdrawal kept the tail gunner defenders occupied at the rear... no in that its really unlikely that those tailgunner defenders were ever going to stop a near touchline try. To the extent that I don't even really see why they needed to move - unless of course there are variations on the move that another time may make those rear players pertinent to the play going "the other way".
didds
Yes in that _maybe_ their withdrawal kept the tail gunner defenders occupied at the rear... no in that its really unlikely that those tailgunner defenders were ever going to stop a near touchline try. To the extent that I don't even really see why they needed to move - unless of course there are variations on the move that another time may make those rear players pertinent to the play going "the other way".
didds
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,098
- Post Likes
- 1,813
OBs reponse in another thgread about defending No. 2s also got me thinking...
wrt to those tail gunners "leaving the lineout"... its a pretty close thing that they even move off the line of players until the ball has left the thrower's hands, at which time they become peelers... and ISTR a discussion regarding peelers and them having the depth of that 10m offside line to "peel" in?
didds
wrt to those tail gunners "leaving the lineout"... its a pretty close thing that they even move off the line of players until the ball has left the thrower's hands, at which time they become peelers... and ISTR a discussion regarding peelers and them having the depth of that 10m offside line to "peel" in?
didds
Last edited:
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.[/FONT][/LAWS]Does this mean the player is illegal if the ball is not knocked or passed back to him, or are you allowed to have more than one player peeling? Surely it must be the latter?
I don't see a problem with this play.
I don't see a problem with this play.
beckett50
Referees in England
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Messages
- 2,514
- Post Likes
- 224
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 6
The only real issue as far as Law goes is that the #8 - at the very rear of the line - steps beyond the 15m line when he leaves the line and as the ball does not travel beyond the 15m he is therefore off-side.
As to the other players, I believe that Law 19.12(b) covers this:
As to the other players, I believe that Law 19.12(b) covers this:
[LAWS]A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]
so #7 is fine, he peels and in due course receives the ball
but the two players at the back of the line are not peelers as they are not leaving in order to receive the ball, so surely they are straightforwardly guilty of
[LAWS]Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.[/LAWS]
I am at all sure WHY they are leaving the lineout, but they do. Presumably it was conceived as a diversion. Or perhaps they misheard/misunderstood the call
You could certainly argue it's not material.
(I wasn't worried about the back one crossing the 15m line as that really seems to be unintentional and immaterial)
so #7 is fine, he peels and in due course receives the ball
but the two players at the back of the line are not peelers as they are not leaving in order to receive the ball, so surely they are straightforwardly guilty of
[LAWS]Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.[/LAWS]
I am at all sure WHY they are leaving the lineout, but they do. Presumably it was conceived as a diversion. Or perhaps they misheard/misunderstood the call
You could certainly argue it's not material.
(I wasn't worried about the back one crossing the 15m line as that really seems to be unintentional and immaterial)
Last edited:
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,098
- Post Likes
- 1,813
I agree OB. particularly down the levels it would seem eminently sensible to have - say - two peelers ... one whose intention is to receive the ball and another to clear up if the planned move doesn't quite work correctly eg the ball gets knocked down or dropped etc.
It would seem immensely harsh to ping the non receiving peeler in this soprt of scenario... or in fact both of them if the oppo steal the ball!!
didds
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,684
- Post Likes
- 1,771
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Harsh alright, considering its not even an infringement!
[LAWS]LAW 19.12 DEFINITIONS
A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or
passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]
Nothing there or anywhere else in Law that says a peeler has to receive the ball.
[LAWS]Law 19 DEFINITIONS
Receiver. The receiver is the player in position to catch the ball when lineout
players pass or knock the ball back from the lineout.[/LAWS]
So, does this mean the receiver HAS to receive the ball?
Other parts of the Law do actually specify that when players do something in anticipation of something happening, and that thing doesn't happen then they have committed an infringement, e.g. the long throw scenarios... "If a player runs forward/infield to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised."
LAW 19.12 contains no such restriction, so IMO, "decoy peeling" as a deception tactic is legal and acceptable in the same way that a dummy, a scissors move or using decoy runners (provided obstruction laws are not infringed) are also acceptable.
I think that is exactly what it was. The tactic makes it look as if Red intend to run the ball right, putting just enough doubt in the minds of the Green forwards that they don't defend the touchline. Even if it initially doesn't work (if Green 2 is not fooled and tackles Red 2) the additional doubt has kept the Green tail-gunners infield for a second or two longer.
There's a lot to like about this simple move
Last edited:
That's what I thought. As long as they stay within the 10m x 10m LO area and keep moving, I can't see the problem.
I don't see why they have to receive the ball. There is no restriction on the number of peelers and obviously only 1 can receive it anyway, ie if there is more than 1 peeler, only 1 of them can receive the ball.
Last edited:
Useful clarification for me here thank you. Admission of error to follow.....
I have always been not keen to see peelers get a long way from the line of touch and then come charging back towards it to receive the ball at full tilt.
To try to avoid that I would insist that they "peeled parallel" to the line of touch. However
"A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player's line of touch to 10m from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended"
reminds me that there is no reason in law they can't peel deep. BUT they should not leave the line out early so in practice can't get very deep. I suspect that instead of asking players to peel parallel I should just enforce not leaving the line out early which should solve the problem without me making up the law!
Note: this post follows my reading of RB's post about site behaviour. I had been drifting away from the site as it seemed to me to get more and more confrontational and therefore less enjoyable to participate in or to follow threads. I hope there is a change.....
I have always been not keen to see peelers get a long way from the line of touch and then come charging back towards it to receive the ball at full tilt.
To try to avoid that I would insist that they "peeled parallel" to the line of touch. However
"A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player's line of touch to 10m from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended"
reminds me that there is no reason in law they can't peel deep. BUT they should not leave the line out early so in practice can't get very deep. I suspect that instead of asking players to peel parallel I should just enforce not leaving the line out early which should solve the problem without me making up the law!
Note: this post follows my reading of RB's post about site behaviour. I had been drifting away from the site as it seemed to me to get more and more confrontational and therefore less enjoyable to participate in or to follow threads. I hope there is a change.....
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,166
- Post Likes
- 2,169
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Sprinting from the lineout towards your own goal line with no eyes for the ball is not, IMHO, peeling off. Try should not have been awarded.
I was with you on this but now I can't see why it would be illegal......
because
[LAWS]
A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or
passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]
and they weren't doing that, they were moving away from the ball, and simply leaving the lineout