Lineout - Ball not going five.

[taff426]

Right, could my learned friends here please answer a debate between me and my assessor.

Both teams line up for throw in, black thow. As throw is taken black font lifte steps back into 5m channel, taking jumper with him. Black wins lineout. I blow my whistle, award free kick on 15m line to the opposition (as I have always done). No comments or complaints from anyone.

Back to clubhouse for debrief, assessor is going through the good book looking for a law to prove I was wrong. He says that it has been brought to his attention lately that it is a Penalty offence, not a freekick.:wtf:

I have gone through the good book myself and only found the following:

Law 19.2 (h) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on 15-metre line

After consulting another learned friend we came to the conclusion that the asessor could be correct in the thinking that the 5m line is an offised line in a l/o. Therefore by stepping over the line, the lifter and the jumper are making themselves offside. :holysheep:

Has anyone else come across this? As already stated I have always FK'd for the offence, only been raised to me this once.

Help!!!!!!!! :chin:

 

[Dickie E]

FK sounds right

 

[OB..]

Previous discussions have failed to produce a consensus on this. My own view is that if it is done deliberately it is a PK because it is intentional offending. If it is a misjudgement, confusion etc then it is just a FK. Referee's judgement.

In this case it sounds like a deliberate ploy and worth a PK. Some would argue for giving a FK and a warning, but I am cynical enough to think the team will keep trying it to see if they can get away with it for minimal risk. Nobody should design an illegal tactic and expect not to be penalised.

 

[bignij]

19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN A LINEOUT(h) Blocking the throw-in. A lineout player must not stand less than 5 metres from the touchline. A lineout player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

I would have thought this was the correct one if it's not a Quick Lineout but the sanction remains the same.

 

[OB..]

Deliberately blocking a QT by standing in the 5m area usually gets a PK for intentional offending.

 

[Dixie]

Taff426, my view is that this is pretty clear. Would the ball have travelled 5m before hitting the ground, in the absence of anyone grabbing it? If yes, then the ball has been prevented from going 5m. This is a PK offence with the PK on the 15m line, whether or not it was done deliberately - and irrespective of the jersey colour worn by the person who prevented it going 5m. If, by contrast, the ball would NOT have made it to the 5m line in the air if uninterrupted, then you have a FK offence against the thrower - with the FK also on the 15m line.

Simple to me - but there are many respected contributors on here who disagree strongly.

 

[Phil E]

Taff426, my view is that this is pretty clear. Would the ball have travelled 5m before hitting the ground, in the absence of anyone grabbing it? If yes, then the ball has been prevented from going 5m. This is a PK offence with the PK on the 15m line, whether or not it was done deliberately - and irrespective of the jersey colour worn by the person who prevented it going 5m. If, by contrast, the ball would NOT have made it to the 5m line in the air if uninterrupted, then you have a FK offence against the thrower - with the FK also on the 15m line.

Simple to me - but there are many respected contributors on here who disagree strongly.

Dixie, you are making your own laws up.

If a lineout players prevents the ball going 5m it is a FK, NOT a PK.

[LAWS]19.10 (h) Blocking the throw-in. A lineout player must not stand less than 5 metres from the
touchline. A lineout player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]


If the ball fails to travel 5m its a throw again or scrum choice, NOT a FK.

[LAWS]19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step
into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it
travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches
or is touched by a player.
19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN
(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a
lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is
again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

 

[dave_clark]

unless it's deemed that the blocker was intentionally standing inside the tram lines to prevent the throw, in which situation i think most would penalise rather than FK.

 

[chopper15]

The heading refers to Ball not going five but as it's only a quickie and may be pertinent I'll chance it.

I've just been watching Treviso v Sarries and noticed that the 5m tramlines are only marked at about 5m intervals where they bisect the laterals. Difficult for refs to judge foot-overs, surely? Are these ground markings acceptable to refs?

PS Apologies, now watching Blues v Racing . . . similar broken lines. Easier for groundsman but reffing?

 

[ddjamo]

OP: turn over scrum option...nothing more.

19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN
(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a
lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is
again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.

 

[Phil E]

Are these ground markings acceptable to refs?

It doesn't really matter whether they are acceptable to us or not. Those are the new markings as laid down by law in the new 2012 law book.

There is another thread about it somewhere.

 

[OB..]

Surely it was a deliberate tactic. I don't see how it can fail to be Intentional offending.

 

[chopper15]

It doesn't really matter whether they are acceptable to us or not. Those are the new markings as laid down by law in the new 2012 law book.

There is another thread about it somewhere.

Makes reffing QTs that more difficult I would've thought? Does anyone know if the refs that were consulted agreed? And if they did shouldn't you all be told who they were and why they did?

 

[OB..]

Does anyone know if the refs that were consulted agreed?[

No.

And if they did shouldn't you all be told who they were

No.

and why they did?

No.

 

[PaulDG]

Makes reffing QTs that more difficult I would've thought? Does anyone know if the refs that were consulted agreed? And if they did shouldn't you all be told who they were and why they did?

Well, it would be nice to know the logic behind the change, but there's no reason for names to be given.

As as been said on the other thread, there will be a lot of pitches marked out incorrectly for some time to come as volunteer groundsmen around the world slowly catch on to the new layout.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Makes reffing QTs that more difficult I would've thought? NO - any experienced referee can give an accurate 10m and 5m distance estimate. The QTs I have seen recently in live and TV matches have been thrown well over 5m,

Does anyone know if the refs that were consulted agreed? NO - what makes you think any referees were consulated at all ? I suspect there was consultation with IRB Match Offciating, as there is usually is. There are Laws sub-committees at home union and IRB level that make these decisions.

And if they did shouldn't you all be told who they were - NO - why ? There are both paid and volunteer members of Match Officials Dept and Laws Committees at Home Union and IRB levels, they act under delegated powers. I am aware of most of them by name and I trust their judgement.

why they did? - NO as I don't think it makes QT decision making any more difficult, this is irrelevant.

But I am interested in why the change was made - saving cost of whitewash ? I know we have some small local clubs near me are not doing the pitch lines as often as they did (and not every week for sure) as a cost saving measure in these difficult economic times.

 

[Pinky]

I saw something about making it easier to weave the lines into artificial surfaces and reduce confusion with other lines on the same pitch. The old lines used to have a 5m line from the goal line to five metres out that was never in play as nothing could happen on that line. I think this was one that was a problem particularly for wendyball where it could be confused with the 18 yard box.

So take one out cos it meant nothing on a rugby pitch, but the other changes (eg having the 10m line as 5 dashes) don't seem as obvious or reasonable.

 

[Dixie]

Dixie, you are making your own laws up.

If a lineout players prevents the ball going 5m it is a FK, NOT a PK.

It's a fair cop. You got me bang to rights, Guv'nor. I apologise to the court for wasting so much of everyone's time, but in mitigation I come from a broken home and my hamster recently died:sad:.

 

[crossref]

But I am interested in why the change was made - saving cost of whitewash ? I know we have some small local clubs near me are not doing the pitch lines as often as they did (and not every week for sure) as a cost saving measure in these difficult economic times.

perhaps because it just looks a bit tidier? I wouldn't put it past them tinkering like that.

I guess for multi-sport the less paint the better, when you're remarking from one sprot to another, but it needs all the sports to cooperate for that to mke much difference.

I'd like to see the centre circle abandoned in soccer, along with the little 10m arc in front of the penalty area.

the centre circle is especially redundant, used only on a kick off, where it would be no trouble at all to have the refereee simply judge 10m, as they do for every (much more important) free kick. The arc outside the box similarly, in most games it's never used at all.

They must be quite a pain to make as well, for an amatuer with a trolley fuill of paint.

 

[Phil E]

........but in mitigation I come from a broken home and my hamster recently died:sad:.

Does this mean we now have to give you a house, a job and a reasonable allowance to live on?