Matching Numbers?

[ddjamo]

^^^use colors vs A/B. hard to visualize teams running around with a big A or B on them - but red/black is easy. but based on your description you seem to be thinking that the hooker and defending hooker have something to do with it - they don't. so if I'm reading it right A had 7 guys in the line and B had 8. was A sending their guy standing 2m from the lineout into the line prior to the throw or not? if they were - then there's no advantage - just looks bad. if A wasn't sending him in - then the referee should have managed what B was doing. curious - who won?

 

[Robert Burns]

But the law states that if the throwing teams receiver joins the line out, the non throwing teams receiver may also join the lineout.

So it's not unfair, as both teams can so it, it just gives the coaches more chance of making good moves to take the ball forward from this set piece.

 

[Dixie]

Red lineout, they would have 7 players in the line and a thrower. Blue (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), Blue 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 Blue having 1 more player in the line of the lineout than the attacking team, Red.

And this highlights one of the problems with the US position. As they aver that the apparent Red receiver is not yet a receiver, and may just be a delayed lineout player, there can be nothing wrong with Blue putting all 8 forwards into the line, even though they are the non-throwing team and seem to have more there than the throwing team. Only a millisecond before the throw can this appreach be shown to be wrong. You then run up against law 19.8(e):

[LAWS](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[/LAWS]

So by failing to clarify their numbers before the throw, and allowing the oppo to remove their surplus player, Red concede the FK on the 15m line - same outcome as running into the gap before the throw.

 

[Davet]

Everywhere else in the world this would be a FK for "numbers". I cannot believe that in the USA it is not.

I understand the discussion about when the receiver is resolved, but if the throwers have 1+7 then the non-throwers must have 1+7 or fewer. They may claim they haven't yet resolved their 1, but my answer would be - then just put one of your 8 there to start with. That way we have a parity, which the Law requires. You cannot have more in the line than they do - so only if their guy runs into the line can yours run in.

This assumes that "players in the lineout" (the maximum number of which is set by the throwing team) equates to "Lineout Players" (who are defined as the players who form the two lines)

That then gets us beyond the can their guy join the line before the throw question, which the US may continue to follow their unique (and in my view actually logically correct) view.

 

[OB..]

The underlying question is just how much flexibility in forming the lineout is a Good Thing?

We allow line dancing, where the throwing team hope to benefit from getting a mismatch, and that can involve the receiver. The opposition is always at the disadvantage that although they can copy the moves, they will always be reacting, which may be too late.

The 2 metre law was brought in because it was common for the receiver to stand half in half out to confuse the opposition on numbers, and we often heard the referee asking "Who is the receiver?". We are almost going back to those days.

If you like maximum flexibility,you won't care. I just have the feeling that it is going too far without bringing any real benefits. Trickery for trickery's sake?

 

[crossref]

they had an ELV, didn't they, dropping the requirement to match numbers.

that seemed like a very sensible thing to trial - it seemed to promise to make life simpler.
so what happened in practice - why didn't it make it into the Laws?

 

[ChrisR]

The line-out is the one set piece where real variability occurs. Constraining this for the sake of uniformity would be a mistake.

I think the numbers ELV was dropped because it would eliminate short LOs, killing much of the variability.

Ever since lifting was endorsed the LOs have become more entertaining and more fun for the players.

Some teams overdo the complexity (USA vs Ireland, WC) and blow it but well executed LOs are a feature.

I agree with Davet that the US has it right but also think they need to join the party, go with the flow and require a player switch for the SH to join. (However for 7s they should just let them join, as used to be common tactic.)

To solve the numbers issue if teams only had to match "players participating" in the LO then who cares how a team uses it's players?

PS. I struggle in appropriate use of apostrophes. Should the last sentence be "it's" or "its"? This is a serious question.

 

[ddjamo]

that's how I view it marauder. if the participating players add up or are less we are good. I have yet to see a side gain an advantage based on timing of who is where and when. also, if the non throwing side has more in and the throwers moan I ask them why they didn't take advantage of the overload out in the backs. we can either look for ways to stop the match or focus on how to make it flow. until I see an advantage gained by this entire thing I'm not worrying about it.

 

[Dixie]

PS. I struggle in appropriate use of apostrophes. Should the last sentence be "it's" or "its"? This is a serious question.

The apostrophe indicates that a letter, a space or both has been delibeately omitted. "John Smith, his book" becomes John Smith's book by leaving out a comma, a space and two letters (hi). Using this as a guide:

The word ITS can either be "it is" where a space and the i has been omitted (hence it's); or it can be the neutral possessive ("the ball and its logo"). In the latter sense, the full word is ITS - nothing has been omitted.

So in your last sentence there should be no apostrophe.

 

[ChrisR]

Thanx, Dixie. I should have paid attention in school.

 

[OB..]

The apostrophe indicates that a letter, a space or both has been delibeately omitted. "John Smith, his book" becomes John Smith's book by leaving out a comma, a space and two letters (hi).

For singulars, the modern possessive or genitive inflection is a survival from cetain genitive inflections in Old English, and the apostrophe originally marked the loss of the old e (for example, lambes became lamb's).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

In early modern English we sometimes see people using his after a name to show possession, such as John Smith his Book. This was a pseudo-etymological explanation for the S sound at the end of a possessive, but it never really caught on. For one thing, the etymology was wrong. The S sound was not an abbreviation for his or any other word. It was also a little more awkward if the owner were a woman because her does not sound an S sound at all. People actually said, "Mary Smith's husband, "not, "Mary Smith her husband."

http://englishplus.com/news/news0799.htm

 

[crossref]

snore -- they are at it again

guys, guys, http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/grammardiscussion.html

 

[Phil E]

snore -- they are at it again

At least its more entertaining than some bloke whinging on about secret emails :wink:

 

[Davet]

I heard, I think, Patrick Campbell (Baron Glenavy) and a regular on the word game Call My Bluff, use the term: "I amn't ....", which I quite liked as an alternative to the more usual "I'm not..."

Though it may have a different erudite and civilised individual.

 

[OB..]

In Edwardian times, "I aint" was regarded as the proper English contraction of "I am not".

It is curious that we say "I am, aren't I?"

(Should we have a special icon to help crossref to skip over these posts?)

 

[ChrisR]

Hey, I appreciate the education! My Yorkshire cousin always said: "I aren't", and we'd say: "You am!"

 

[crossref]

The apostrophe indicates that a letter, a space or both has been delibeately omitted. "John Smith, his book" becomes John Smith's book by leaving out a comma, a space and two letters (hi). .

sigh - - go on then. I just don't believe that anyone ever said 'john smith, his book'

"whose book is that?"
"it's John Smith, his book"

nope. don't believe it.

 

[jdeagro]

^^^use colors vs A/B. hard to visualize teams running around with a big A or B on them - but red/black is easy. but based on your description you seem to be thinking that the hooker and defending hooker have something to do with it - they don't. so if I'm reading it right A had 7 guys in the line and B had 8. was A sending their guy standing 2m from the lineout into the line prior to the throw or not? if they were - then there's no advantage - just looks bad. if A wasn't sending him in - then the referee should have managed what B was doing. curious - who won?

I assume you are asking me if the player in the receiver position for Red (team A) moved from the receiver position into the line of the lineout? He did not. There were always the same 7 players (forwards) in the line of the lineout for the Red team. They also had 1 scrum half who stayed in the receiver position the whole time, and 1 thrower.

Was what the Blue team (who started and ended with the same 8 players (forwards) throughout the lineout) doing fair play or did it violate the law?

 

[Davet]

Blue should have been Free Kicked for Numbers.

 

[Davet]

Crossref - so do I, doubt it.

Otherwise we would have:" Jane Smith, her book", contracted to "Jane'r book".

It's just a way of remembering why we put the apostrophe in the possessive - but not a good one.

However, note - with regard the word "it" - If you can sensibly expand "it's" to "it is", then you can sensibly contract to "it's" using the apostophe.

Since e.g. the phrase "the dog and its master" cannot sensibly become "the dog and it is master" then we don't want an apostrophe - "its" is the possessive, all by itself; where as in "John's dog" the apostophe indicates the possessive.

I hope that's clear.