Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
Under the law Amendment Trials, when a PK is awarded at a lineout there is offered the alternative of a lineout in line with the mark, as well as the normal scrum alternative. The stated objective is to avoid the waste of time involved in kicking the ball back into touch so the lineout can be taken.
Would anyone agree with me that there is no good reason to restrict this option to lineout offences? It seems sensible that if the lineout occurs 7m from the goal line and a lineout offence occurs, there is no need to waste time kicking to touch. But it does NOT seem sensible to me that if the lineout occurs 7m from touch, there's a catch'n'drive, and the maul is illegally collapsed 4m from goal, then we need to see a kick to touch followed by a lineout on the 5m line.
Personally, I'd change this LAT so that at any penalty awarded between the 15m line and the touchline, the non-offending team can elect to take a lineout in line with the PK as well as the scrum.
Views?
Would anyone agree with me that there is no good reason to restrict this option to lineout offences? It seems sensible that if the lineout occurs 7m from the goal line and a lineout offence occurs, there is no need to waste time kicking to touch. But it does NOT seem sensible to me that if the lineout occurs 7m from touch, there's a catch'n'drive, and the maul is illegally collapsed 4m from goal, then we need to see a kick to touch followed by a lineout on the 5m line.
Personally, I'd change this LAT so that at any penalty awarded between the 15m line and the touchline, the non-offending team can elect to take a lineout in line with the PK as well as the scrum.
Views?
Last edited: