Line Out numbers

[Dickie E]

If the throwing pull the above, put reduced numbers in and then throw quickly they can't 'gotcha' their opponent on numbers.

Well, there is a 'gotcha'. They now have 2 extra players in their backline.

 

[Dickie E]

But the Law did change.

Some of us think otherwise and even use big font to prove it.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think the 2018 laws removes a couple of 'gotchas'.

The throwing side can have a huddle 5m from the LoT and then have players retreat without penalty so long as the retreating players haven't actually joined the lineout. So, no 'gotcha' from the ref.

If the throwing pull the above, put reduced numbers in and then throw quickly they can't 'gotcha' their opponent on numbers.

And, as crossref surmised, since they don't have to wait for the ops to retreat they can chuck it in quicker so speeding up lineouts.

has anyone noticed any change in the real world? Probably not.

Not according to Richard Every. He has asked referees to stop the "Huddle -> Approach" ploy.

 

[ChrisR]

Well, there is a 'gotcha'. They now have 2 extra players in their backline.

And the defenders have two extra players at the back of the lineout to defend them.

 

[ChrisR]

Not according to Richard Every. He has asked referees to stop the "Huddle -> Approach" ploy.

The only problem I'd have with the huddle inside 10m of the lineout is if they then have players retreat from it as a ploy to earn a FK.

The advantage of the huddle is then there's no nee for signal calling in the lineout.

 

[Dickie E]

well, I applied the new 2018 law yesterday and wasn't very comfortable with it (remember, if a team drifted 5 players in previously I would blow time off and invite opponents to match numbers). I'm also mindful that in UK you have a practice of the throwing team declaring numbers when they set up which doesn't happen here.

Yesterday the throwing team (and both teams did it) drifted 5 players in after a bit of a huddle and hooker looked ready to throw so I called "no numbers". Then the hooker didn't throw in immediately and I felt a bit of a dork calling "no numbers" when the non-throwing team had enough time to match numbers.

Maybe next week I'll go back to blowing time off under the auspice of "there have been no changes". Seems like a fairer process & outcome to me.

 

[ChrisR]

well, I applied the new 2018 law yesterday and wasn't very comfortable with it (remember, if a team drifted 5 players in previously I would blow time off and invite opponents to match numbers). I'm also mindful that in UK you have a practice of the throwing team declaring numbers when they set up which doesn't happen here.

Yesterday the throwing team (and both teams did it) drifted 5 players in after a bit of a huddle and hooker looked ready to throw so I called "no numbers". Then the hooker didn't throw in immediately and I felt a bit of a dork calling "no numbers" when the non-throwing team had enough time to match numbers.

Maybe next week I'll go back to blowing time off under the auspice of "there have been no changes". Seems like a fairer process & outcome to me.

When the throwing side send short and the ops don't match: What if, instead of calling "No numbers" (which locks you into an unbalanced lineout), you simply think 'advantage' when the throw isn't immediate?

If the throwers win clean ball and move it away it's just "Play on". Otherwise the FK is there. In the 2018 laws there is no requirement for the throwing side to allow time for the ops to match.

 

[crossref]

Now that there is no longer a requirement to give the opponents time to match numbers , I wonder if the convention of announcing numbers (which we have in England , but not in all countries) will die out?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I allowed a quick throw yesterday. Defending side complained "But Sir, we had 2 players near it, marking the lineout !!!"

 

[chbg]

I allowed a quick throw yesterday. Defending side complained "But Sir, we had 2 players near it, marking the lineout !!!"

At least they knew about "2 players", which is halfway there, just missing "from both sides".

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I wonder whether we are moving towards a world where both sides can put as many or as few players in the lineout as they choose (minimum 2, plus someone in the hooker position). I would personally have no issue with that - would make it easier to ref - and think it would actually make for some very interesting tactical decisions.

 

[didds]

Yesterday the throwing team (and both teams did it) drifted 5 players in after a bit of a huddle and hooker looked ready to throw so I called "no numbers". Then the hooker didn't throw in immediately and I felt a bit of a dork calling "no numbers" when the non-throwing team had enough time to match numbers.

* shrug *

them's the breaks. You're n ot to know that. I suppose te alternative is not call no numbers out loud, and get on with it, and apply it if it gets "requested"

didds

 

[didds]

I wonder whether we are moving towards a world where both sides can put as many or as few players in the lineout as they choose (minimum 2, plus someone in the hooker position). I would personally have no issue with that - would make it easier to ref - and think it would actually make for some very interesting tactical decisions.

This was trialled a couple ago years ago and it was dropped as an abject failure. I don;t recall the details now but ISTR OB remembers a bit more from other comments he has made subsequently.

didds

 

[OB..]

I wonder whether we are moving towards a world where both sides can put as many or as few players in the lineout as they choose (minimum 2, plus someone in the hooker position). I would personally have no issue with that - would make it easier to ref - and think it would actually make for some very interesting tactical decisions.

This was trialled a couple ago years ago and it was dropped as an abject failure. I don;t recall the details now but ISTR OB remembers a bit more from other comments he has made subsequently.

didds

It resulted in both teams putting 4 players in the lineout and removed the throwing side's option of a short lineout.

 

[Dickie E]

* shrug *

them's the breaks. You're n ot to know that. I suppose te alternative is not call no numbers out loud, and get on with it, and apply it if it gets "requested"

didds

a bit like cricket? I wouldn't be keen on setting a precedence of only applying laws if players appealed for them.

 

[didds]

sorry - by applied I meant saying "tough - you buggered about then fraffed about and expect everybody else to care Bloody get on with it".

Frankly whilst I can see WHY the law is there, nevertheless I can't ever recall an instance whereby numbers was anything than a bit of mild incompetence. its only a bloody FK anyway which is a useless sanction; The end result is likely a scrum to the throwing team so - hey ho - they win the ball anyway "as expected". Or they kick it out (if within the 22) and the "naughty team" get the throw in and likely possession (choker!). There is no throw again option

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=18&language=EN

[LAWS]18.14 Unless the throw is taken as soon as the lineout is formed, the non-throwing team may not have more players (but may have fewer players) in the lineout than the throwing team. Sanction: Free-kick.
[/LAWS]


didds

 

[ChrisR]

It's a materiality and advantage issue. If Red, the throwing side, put in 5 and Blue put in seven then both teams have options.
Red is required by law to comply with the numbers and drop two. If they don't, and Blue throw in, they may* be liable for sanction.
Blue has a choice: Throw in immediately and give up the chance for a FK or wait for Red to comply.
The referee's job is not to direct traffic but to adjudicate the outcome. If Blue get the ball away cleanly then advantage over and play on. If they don't then FK.

* 2018 law doesn't impose the FK if the throw is immediate.

 

[crossref]

A problem with removing 19.8(e) is in the impact in the outfield

If Red put a surprise short lineout, 5 people and throw immediately , so blue have no time to react
Ok so blue don't get FK for numbers (but when would we ever have done that, I wouldn't )
More importantly blue are left two short in the outfield .. with nothing anyone can do about it

 

[didds]

All moire than fair and reasonable Chris of course.

the "gotcha" of course is that if red don't compete in the air, and the blue jumper knocks on, blue still win a FK even though red did nothing in reality to compromise blue attempt to win their own ball. Or is that "not material" and red scrum for KO? Ditto blue shonky throw? In fact its ONLY material if red win the ball presumably?

didds

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's a materiality and advantage issue. If Red, the throwing side, put in 5 and Blue put in seven then both teams have options.
Red is required by law to comply with the numbers and drop two. If they don't, and Blue throw in, they may* be liable for sanction.
Blue has a choice: Throw in immediately and give up the chance for a FK or wait for Red to comply.
The referee's job is not to direct traffic but to adjudicate the outcome. If Blue get the ball away cleanly then advantage over and play on. If they don't then FK.

* 2018 law doesn't impose the FK if the throw is immediate.

2017 Law book
19.8(e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout ,
their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout
to satisfy this Law.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

So If "reasonable time" is not given you do not FK. That really is saying the same thing as

2018
Law 18 14. Unless the throw is taken as soon as the lineout is formed, the non-throwing team may
not have more players (but may have fewer players) in the lineout than the throwing
team. Sanction: Free-kick.

If the throw is taken as soon as the LO is formed the non throwing side will not havebeen given "reasonable time" to remove players especially when sides arrive at the last minute.

Same intent, for me, stopping the "GOTCHA!".