Matching Numbers?

[ddjamo]

dave - where does the IRB say we must "drop"?

also, thanks for that form mate...cheers.

 

[Davet]

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2009/4

Clarification 9 of 2009 follow link above

No probs.

 

[ddjamo]

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2009/4

Clarification 9 of 2009 follow link above

No probs.

that doesn't say that if the receiver joins prior to the throw that another player must drop

 

[Dixie]

that doesn't say that if the receiver joins prior to the throw that another player must drop

I think that rather depends on the size of your sophistry threshold. Of course, we've thrashed this out many times in the past.

Do the provisions of Law 19.8 (i) apply to Law 19.11 Exception 2?
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The provisions of Law 19.8(i) do apply to Exception 2 in Law 19.11 which means that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in.

19.8(i) says:

[LAWS](i) Where the receiver must stand. The receiver must stand at least 2 metres towards that player’s goal line from that player’s team-mates who are lineout players and between 5 and 15 metres from the touchline until the lineout begins.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Exception: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the lineout. The receiver is liable to sanction for offences in the lineout as would be other players in the lineout.[/LAWS]

So we have the primary effect of 19.8(i) saying that once the reciever takes up position, he must stay there until the lineout begins. But there is an exception, and it is clear that USA wants to use this exception to allow the receiver to move into the gap before the lineout begins. What is the effect of that exception? The iRB says in so many words that it means "that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in." To which the US response is that the iRB didn't mean what it said, because the US has a different view and they are a superpower with nuclear weapons.

Edit: for those not familiar with the 2009 laws, 19.8i dealt with where the receiver may stand, and is the same as the current primary provision of 19.8(i) - back 2m from the jumpers. 19.11 dealt with where non-particpants had to stand, and had as an exception that the receiver could run into the gap. It was the same wording as the current exception to 19.8(i). So the Ruling has been taken into law by rationalising the current 19.8(i) to make clear that the exception applies to this provision.

 

[Davet]

It implies it - since if the receiver runs into the line BEFORE the ball has left the hand of the thrower, then he must be doing so not as a receiever running into the line but rather as one participating player exchanging places with another - exchanging means "you take my place I take yours" - so if the receiver joins the line before the throw it means some one must come out and be receiver.

 

[Davet]

Dixie - my sympathy is with the US view.

The Law doesn't mention anything about when the receiver may exercise is rights under the excpetion.

Where in logic can someone simply come along and say, "Yeah, we know it doesn't say so in the Law, but what we wrote isn't what we meant, so tough!"

The USA tortured analysis is - I think - an attempt to make sense of what the iRB say without simply saying to the World Ruling Body - "Guys - yer bunch of fekkin idiots", and shows USAR up as a polite and civilised bunch.

 

[Davet]

The reason my sympathy is with USAR is that if the receiver is not allowed to run into the line before the ball is thrown then what is the exception actually allowing that would not be allowed if it simply didn't exist?

There is no Law against the receievrr joining the line after the lineout has begun, which is when his obligation to stay 2m out ends.

So - what is the POINT of the exception...?

 

[ddjamo]

I rest my case.

real classy dixie. how old are you? 14?

 

[Davet]

ddjamo - don't poke your bottom lip like that. Dixie's harmless.

And in general he is simply pointing out the USA has a tendency to throw it's political weight about.

Which to be fair is the only reason to have any political weight. If we still had any we'd send a gunboat.

 

[Dixie]

The Law doesn't mention anything about when the receiver may exercise is rights under the exception.

indeed - which is why the clarification was sought. The iRB then gave the considered views of the designated members, presumably (as is so often the way) after a good liquid lunch and leaving it to the YTS trainee to actually put the decision into words. But the clarification is crystal clear, and could not be more precise. The player who took up a position as receiver is pinned to that position until the ball is thrown in.

 

[Davet]

Oh - I agree the clarification is absilutely clear, and is the way we must ref it.

I simply sigh deeply, and repeat my question, "If that is the clarification of what the exception means, then what is the exception actually providing for that could not happen if the exception never actually existed?"

 

[Davet]

PS - I thought you might object to being described as "harmless", and insist on it being changed to "mostly harmless"

 

[Dixie]

real classy dixie. how old are you? 14?

Now, now. Forum Rules! :biggrin:

PS - I thought you might object to being described as "harmless", and insist on it being changed to "mostly harmless"

Don't panic! And remember your towel.

 

[Phil E]

To which the US response is that the iRB didn't mean what it said, because the US has a different view and they are a superpower with nuclear weapons.

:nono:

I remember when the 2m for the SH was brought in.
In the accompanying explanation it said the reason was to prevent the SH being a lifter (same for the Hooker being 2+2)
With that in mind why would the IRB allow him to join the line without being replaced?

 

[Dixie]

:nono:

I remember when the 2m for the SH was brought in.
In the accompanying explanation it said the reason was to prevent the SH being a lifter (same for the Hooker being 2+2)

I just checked a presentation that was put together by someone called R Glynn from the time (2008). ELV 7 covered the point, and the presentation's content on that ELV was:

ELV 7Law 19 – Touch and Lineout

• Receiver at the lineout must be 2 metres away from the lineout

• Receiver cannot move until the ball leaves the thrower’s hands

That presentation was not an official iRB one, but it does give a clear view of what was coming out from people who were involved.

 

[OB..]

someone called R Glynn

Richard Glynne-Jones? Used to be RFU Referee Manager or some such title.

 

[menace]

So we have the primary effect of 19.8(i) saying that once the reciever takes up position, he must stay there until the lineout begins. But there is an exception, and it is clear that USA wants to use this exception to allow the receiver to move into the gap before the lineout begins. What is the effect of that exception? The iRB says in so many words that it means "that a receiver cannot run into a gap in the lineout until the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in." To which the US response is that the iRB didn't mean what it said, because the US has a different view and they are a superpower with nuclear weapons.

Edit: for those not familiar with the 2009 laws, 19.8i dealt with where the receiver may stand, and is the same as the current primary provision of 19.8(i) - back 2m from the jumpers. 19.11 dealt with where non-particpants had to stand, and had as an exception that the receiver could run into the gap. It was the same wording as the current exception to 19.8(i). So the Ruling has been taken into law by rationalising the current 19.8(i) to make clear that the exception applies to this provision.

I get the impression that the US version of interpretation with the receiver moves neglects that the lineout must be formed without delay. To allow the receiver to join in the lineout (just) before the ball is thrown AND not swap with a player is tantamount, imo, to delaying the formation of the lineout for the throwing team to gain an unfair (numbers in lineout) advantage. And I guess that's why IRB created the clarrification they had?

 

[smeagol]

I get the impression that the US version of interpretation with the receiver moves neglects that the lineout must be formed without delay. To allow the receiver to join in the lineout (just) before the ball is thrown AND not swap with a player is tantamount, imo, to delaying the formation of the lineout for the throwing team to gain an unfair (numbers in lineout) advantage. And I guess that's why IRB created the clarrification they had?

From what I've seen when this happens, the switch occurs as the hooker makes his/her call. As you would normally see lineout participants move back and forth (or even salsa), the two players in the switch move simultaneously.

 

[Dixie]

From what I've seen when this happens, the switch occurs as the hooker makes his/her call. As you would normally see lineout participants move back and forth (or even salsa), the two players in the switch move simultaneously.

Smeagol, the switch is no problem. One in, one out, then the same lineout formation exists throughout, you've just traded places - happens all the time. The contentious bit is when you start off with 7 lineout players (jumpers and supporters), but before the throw the person who was lining up as the receiver joins the line. The iRB says that can't happen; the US guidelines say that the iRB rejection is very narrow, but whenever a US person wants to do it, what is actually happening is that a person who was NOT the receiver, but merely hanging about the receiver's location, takes up what was always intended as his position as an eight jumper. As Menace points out, this can only happen by delaying the final formation of the lineout, which is required to happen without delay.

 

[jdeagro]

Hey,

So it seems like I started up a bit of a discussion beyond my knowledge.

So I'm still wondering now, is what Team B was doing in accordance to law? It was during a D1 season match here in the USA. Essentially, it was Team A's lineout, they would have 7 players in the line and a thrower. Team B (defending the lineout) would start with all 8 of their forwards in the line, and their scrum half in the hooker channel. Throughout the whole lineout (from start to finish), Team B would have their 8 forward players in the line at the lineout (and their scrum half at the hooker channel) and never move someone to the receiver position. This resulted in Team B having 1 more player in the line of the lineout than the attacking team, Team A.