Lineout 5m from goal line

[pombok]

Red get a penalty 10m out from Blue's try line. Red 10 kicks the ball out in the full between the 5m line and the try line, setting up the attacking lineout.

Where is the mark of touch for the lineout? I've always set them with the middle of the lineout on the 5 and the defending team half a metre back (so 4.5m from their try line). I've seen some refs set it with the defending team on the 5m line.

I'm sure this was in an earlier law book but not explicit anymore.

 

[smeagol]

The middle of the tunnel should be in line with the mark.

At every lineout, I go to the mark and make sure the non-throwers give space, then let the throwing side set the tunnel as wide as they want within reason.

 

[crossref]

Red get a penalty 10m out from Blue's try line. Red 10 kicks the ball out in the full between the 5m line and the try line, setting up the attacking lineout.

Where is the mark of touch for the lineout? I've always set them with the middle of the lineout on the 5 and the defending team half a metre back (so 4.5m from their try line). I've seen some refs set it with the defending team on the 5m line.

I'm sure this was in an earlier law book but not explicit anymore.

You are right, the mark for the defending team should be 4.5m out.
It would be good if they would change the laws so that the defending team stood on the marked 5m line

 

[Dickie E]

similar to a 5 metre scrum. Centre of scrum is 5 metres out meaning defending #8 will be somewhat closer to their own goal line.

 

[didds]

You are right, the mark for the defending team should be 4.5m out.
It would be good if they would change the laws so that the defending team stood on the marked 5m line

why?
the laws expressly say the lineout is ON the 5m line ie the LoT is the 5m line. Why shoud the defenders gain 0.5m of defendable territory following a penalty against them?

 

[crossref]

It's just nice when there is a line to stand them on, like the foam the footballers use

 

[didds]

so take a can of foam out with you
Or why not stand the attackers on the 5m line ?

 

[SimonSmith]

It's just nice when there is a line to stand them on, like the foam the footballers use

No. They have a nice line to stand off. Why should the attackers give up 0.5m?

 

[crossref]

Well actually if I was going to change the Law I would be tempted to move all lineouts from PK back to 10m from the goal line .... to cut down on the tedious catch/maul/drive tries. Something which is almost undefendable, as well as being very boring to watch

 

[didds]

Well actually if I was going to change the Law I would be tempted to move all lineouts from PK back to 10m from the goal line .... to cut down on the tedious catch/maul/drive tries. Something which is almost undefendable, as well as being very boring to watch

maybe defenders shouldnt cheat to give away the PK kick to the corner in the first place.

Boring? Disagree. Things of crafted beauty frankly - they're not at all easy.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

maybe defenders shouldnt cheat to give away the PK kick to the corner in the first place.

Boring? Disagree. Things of crafted beauty frankly - they're not at all easy.

Mauls are overpowered in the modern game - they are not a contest for the ball anymore, but a permitted obstruction.

 

[Dickie E]

Well actually if I was going to change the Law I would be tempted to move all lineouts from PK back to 10m from the goal line .... to cut down on the tedious catch/maul/drive tries. Something which is almost undefendable, as well as being very boring to watch

maybe defenders shouldnt cheat to give away the PK kick to the corner in the first place.

Boring? Disagree. Things of crafted beauty frankly - they're not at all easy.

Interesting. We discussed recently the merits of entertaining rugby vs. win at all costs rugby.

We would first need to agree on what constitutes entertaining rugby.

 

[crossref]

Interesting. We discussed recently the merits of entertaining rugby vs. win at all costs rugby

Although we confused ourselves, as
when England kicked the ball out for a draw it was neither win-at-all-costs rugby, nor entertaining

It was this draw-at-all-costs decision that I criticised

 

[Jarrod Burton]

We would first need to agree on what constitutes entertaining rugby.

I love scrummaging and find it entertaining when both teams are keen for a contest - but I think >75% of rugby fans and >95% of the general public don't care for it at all! I find backs having kicking duels boring but a mate of mine (ex 10) loves that rubbish - I tell him he missed his calling in AFL.

 

[didds]

Interesting. We discussed recently the merits of entertaining rugby vs. win at all costs rugby.

We would first need to agree on what constitutes entertaining rugby.

You have falsely conflated two items.

I never said a driven maul is entertaining. I did say a well crafted driven maul is a thing of beauty.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Boring? Disagree. Things of crafted beauty frankly - they're not at all eaeasy.

This is what you actually said. You'll understand how I concluded that you find mauls entertaining

 

[didds]

i gotcha Dickie now. Apologies. Clumsy words though its difficult to reject "boring" without an implication of "entertaining" instead, within the english language.
So - not BORING in that I dont sit there and go "oh no, Im falling asleep just watching this". But not entertaining as in "oo lots of super fizzy double scissor offload back door passes kick catch grubber chase...
Just "how will they fare, that's well done there, shift, drive, roll, exposed a flank and over...."

HTH!

 

[didds]

Mauls are overpowered in the modern game - they are not a contest for the ball anymore, but a permitted obstruction.

they've always been a permitted obstruction. I can recall driven/rolled mauls use 45 years ago.

their use has become highlighted in more recent decades due to PK to lineout scenario keeping the throw in, allied to lifting almost (!) guaranteeing ball retention from the throw.
QED its the juxtaposition of three laws, two of them "modern-ish", that makes the historical maul and its permitted obstruction now so powerful (and I dont have an issue with a concern that its now become too powerful as a result of the three laws combined).

 

[crossref]

they've always been a permitted obstruction. I can recall driven/rolled mauls use 45 years ago.

their use has become highlighted in more recent decades due to PK to lineout scenario keeping the throw in, allied to lifting almost (!) guaranteeing ball retention from the throw.
QED its the juxtaposition of three laws, two of them "modern-ish", that makes the historical maul and its permitted obstruction now so powerful (and I dont have an issue with a concern that its now become too powerful as a result of the three laws combined).

agree.
and the one time I think these Laws combine to create a problem is the attacking line out, 5m out, when a try becomes a bit too easy. Hence my thought that when it's a lineout from a PK (as it usually is) you are getting two bites at the cherry (the territory/possession AND the easy try) so why not move those particular LOs back to 10m)

 

[Harry]

For me it's the change of pace in a Rugby Union match that makes it entertaining. The various set pieces combine to give tactical possibilities and change of pace compared to the open running and fast paced passing moves. A few pick and goes on the goal line keeps me on the edge of my seat. Variety is the spice of the game.
Compare that to League. Run three strides get tackled by two blokes, get up, heel the ball, pass, run three strides etc. till you run out of goes than politely give the ball to the other side who run three strides...............................

I could live without Twickenham Tennis. But I do feel that few are taking advantage of the 50-22 possibilities.
And please sort out the scrums.