Line out move

[Ian_Cook]

I think we want to create that separation. We don't want people in the 10m channel.

Why?

Surely, as long as they remain in that channel and within the 15m line, there is neither advantage or disadvantage to either team

I like crossref's idea, change this Law...

[LAWS]LAW 19.8 (d) When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended begins.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

...then you can completely do away with the peeling law with all its attendant ambiguity and confusion.

 

[ChrisR]

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.

Peelers can receive the ball fro the receiver who gets it from the jumper. So peeling deep behind the receiver then turning out & up seems legit to me. This was discussed some time ago.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.

Peelers can receive the ball fro the receiver who gets it from the jumper. So peeling deep behind the receiver then turning out & up seems legit to me. This was discussed some time ago.

Yes.

In fact it is a legit move for the tail gunners to drop back and be ready to head infield when the ball leaves the lineout in anticipation of one of them getting a pass from the receiver (so long as they don't cross the 15m line before the ball leaves the lineout).

 

[Dickie E]

He can at any time before crossing the 10 line run back again - and coud be in a position rto receive the ball.

Can he? Since we're playing Minutiae Feud, at the point that he reverses his direction he has a velocity of zero so doesn't meet the "keeps moving" requirement. If his reversal was an arc, that would be OK

 

[Ian_Cook]

Can he? Since we're playing Minutiae Feud, at the point that he reverses his direction he has a velocity of zero so doesn't meet the "keeps moving" requirement. If his reversal was an arc, that would be OK

Dickie, you're the only one fighting a minutiae feud as you look for reasons to disallow the try in the OP..

The rest of us are taking a wider management view and are happy to play on.

 

[Dickie E]

The rest of us are taking a wider management view and are happy to play on.

I don't consider referees allowing poorly worded laws to deflect them from law intent as a 'wider management view'

 

[crossref]

SAREFS have addressed this question -- here's what Stuart Berry has to say

Question: Law 19.12 DEFINITIONS A line-out player ‘peels off’ when leaving the line-out to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate. So, are the two Welsh players at the back of the line-out here legally peeling? (They are running away from the ball) Or are they leaving the line-out as in 19.8 (d) - players of either team must not leave the line-out once they have taken up a position in the line-out until the line-out has ended. The game is the recent Wales v Ireland RWC warm up https://youtu.be/bsQM2afSb0E?t=308

Stuart Berry: Hi Steve – good technical question. These players are not peelers as they don’t leave to take the ball from the top of the lineout. They are part of the lineout, so all they need to do is stay between the 5m and 15m lines, and not go back 10m, and they are all fine.

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-501--stuart-berry/2829633/

the implication of Berry's view is that the concept of a peeler is redundant and could be removed from the Law Book, as he is saying that all the lineout players are free to move about ( in the zone between 5m and 15m in, and up to 10m back...) there is nothing special about being a 'peeler'

 

[OB..]

SAREFS have addressed this question -- here's what Stuart Berry has to say

"[...]They are part of the lineout, so all they need to do is stay between the 5m and 15m lines, and not go back 10m, and they are all fine."
the implication of Berry's view is that the concept of a peeler is redundant and could be removed from the Law Book, as he is saying that all the lineout players are free to move about ( in the zone between 5m and 15m in, and up to 10m back...) there is nothing special about being a 'peeler'

It also means there is no such thing as "leaving the lineout" when stepping back a pace to avoid being drawn into a maul. Yet WR has said that does constitute leaving the lineout.

 

[didds]

Can he? Since we're playing Minutiae Feud, at the point that he reverses his direction he has a velocity of zero so doesn't meet the "keeps moving" requirement. If his reversal was an arc, that would be OK

I was in my minds eye thinking of an arc rather than a stop, turn around, return ...

that arc's apex could be quite tight of course.

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

SAREFS have addressed this question -- here's what Stuart Berry has to say



http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-501--stuart-berry/2829633/

the implication of Berry's view is that the concept of a peeler is redundant and could be removed from the Law Book, as he is saying that all the lineout players are free to move about ( in the zone between 5m and 15m in, and up to 10m back...) there is nothing special about being a 'peeler'

It also means there is no such thing as "leaving the lineout" when stepping back a pace to avoid being drawn into a maul. Yet WR has said that does constitute leaving the lineout.

That clears that up then!

 

[didds]

It also means there is no such thing as "leaving the lineout" when stepping back a pace to avoid being drawn into a maul. Yet WR has said that does constitute leaving the lineout.

Yes indeed.

TBH I don;t have much faith in either orgainsation mentioned to REALLY understand and deal with the laws. We see WR clarifications that don't even deal with the real question asked, and we see SArefs coming up with very odd interpretations at times.

This forum does a damned site better job frankly.

didds

 

[crossref]

I would love to know whether the 'ask the ref' questions like that are really answered wholly by the individual alone, or if they are the considered view of the SARFU refs department, just being delivered by the ref as a spokesman.

 

[ChrisR]

Stuart Berry: Hi Steve – good technical question. These players are not peelers as they don’t leave to take the ball from the top of the lineout. They are part of the lineout, so all they need to do is stay between the 5m and 15m lines, and not go back 10m, and they are all fine.

Yesssss!

 

[didds]

Stuart Berry then needs to answer as a supplementary question how the situation OB outlines above works wrt defenders "leaving the lineout".

I'm happy enough with his approach above, but it doesn;t work with the defenders situation as understood.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Stuart Berry then needs to answer as a supplementary question how the situation OB outlines above works wrt defenders "leaving the lineout".

I'm happy enough with his approach above, but it doesn;t work with the defenders situation as understood.

didds

Agreed. I don't like the WR 'step aside' solution to non-engagement at the lineout.

 

[OB..]

Agreed. I don't like the WR 'step aside' solution to non-engagement at the lineout.

Neither do I, but I would be happy to accept that moving back a pace did not constitute leaving the lineout.