Non contest linout - tackling the ball carrier

[ChrisR]

I think the answer to that is 19.8(d):

[LAWS]When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.[/LAWS]

which I believe specifically refers to lineout players, not participating players.

And 19.12, dealing with peeling off, sets the conditions upon which a lineout player may leave the LoT - which would be unnecessary if there were no general prohibition.

And the sanction for offending, including 'leaving the lineout, is a FK. Not a PK. So why is the sanction in the directive for a non-maul a PK?

Don't you think that the directive should reference actual Law and their proscribed sanctions?

 

[Ian_Cook]

On another point ...

Law 19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...

Law 19 Lineout Definitions

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS

.....

Lineout players. Lineout players are the players who form the two lines that
make a lineout.

Receiver. The receiver is the player in position to catch the ball when lineout
players pass or knock the ball back from the lineout. Any player may be the
receiver but each team may have only one receiver at a lineout.

Players taking part in the lineout known as participating players. Players
taking part in the lineout are the player who throws-in and an immediate
opponent, the two players waiting to receive the ball from the lineout and the
lineout players.

All other players. All other players who are not taking part in the lineout must
be at least 10 metres behind the line of touch, on or behind their goal line if that is
nearer, until the lineout ends.

.....

[/LAWS]


What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

 

[ChrisR]

What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

This is where I'm going with this argument:

There is "leaving the lineout" and then there is "leaving the lineout".

The first reference is in 19.8(d) when the lineout is being formed. See the next box.

Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the
lineout until the lineout has ended. Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Here the "lineout" is the two lines of "lineout players". The purpose of 19.8(d) should be clear: Prevent players from getting to the LOT then leaving. The ball has not yet been thrown.

The second reference to "leaving the lineout" is 19.14(e). See the next box:

No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

Here the players are "participating" players. That includes the lineout players, thrower and opposite and receivers.
The term "lineout" cannot mean the two rows of players at the LOT. Here "lineout" must include all the area between the two opposing 10m from the LOT between touch and 15.

Therefore there should be no prohibition against a player who starts at the LOT from stepping back from the LOT as long as he stays within the lineout area as defined above.

The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

100% agree.

IMO, that whole directive is driven by a person or persons with their own private BS agenda trying to direct how the game will be played. It seems they don't want teams NOT competing at the formation of a maul from a line-out as a means of defending it, perhaps because it offends their sense of fair play, i.e. it must seem like a dirty trick to them.

On another note, this is another area where the Law 19 is a complete mess. It goes to the trouble of defining who all the line-out, participating and other players are, but nowhere does it actually define in black and white, what a line-out is.

Go figure!

 

[RobLev]

What this means is that none of the players forming the two lines, the receivers, the thrower or the thrower's opponent are allowed to leave the line-out once formed.

This is where I'm going with this argument:

There is "leaving the lineout" and then there is "leaving the lineout".

The first reference is in 19.8(d) when the lineout is being formed. See the next box.

Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the
lineout until the lineout has ended. Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

Here the "lineout" is the two lines of "lineout players". The purpose of 19.8(d) should be clear: Prevent players from getting to the LOT then leaving. The ball has not yet been thrown.

The second reference to "leaving the lineout" is 19.14(e). See the next box:

No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

Here the players are "participating" players. That includes the lineout players, thrower and opposite and receivers.
The term "lineout" cannot mean the two rows of players at the LOT. Here "lineout" must include all the area between the two opposing 10m from the LOT between touch and 15.

Therefore there should be no prohibition against a player who starts at the LOT from stepping back from the LOT as long as he stays within the lineout area as defined above.

The aforementioned directive has no foundation in law and should be withdrawn immediately.

While I don't like the "directive", your logic means that 19.12 is unnecessary, because lineout players can leave the LoT with impunity, without keeping moving, any time they like.

 

[ChrisR]

Yes, after the ball is thrown in, but they must remain between 10m from the LOT and not stray beyond the 15m.

Why not? If they step back from the LOT they are ceding ground to the opponent.

When a ruck or maul forms they must join the ruck/maul or retire to the hind foot, thus "leaving the lineout" if that is your narrow definition of a lineout.

Note the wording of 19.14(i):

A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside. Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Is a player liable for PK if he's 2 steps behind that line? Why That would be silly. One of Law 19 problems is the attempt to micro-manage players during a lineout.

 

[Browner]

Modern line outs are such a mess

 

[OB..]

Browner,

If you're offended by my post, then its either 'tough' or 'it's time you raised your barometer setting above such a low level'

I am not amused by that last sentence in your new sig block. Are you claiming carte blanche to write as you like, careless of what others think?

 

[Browner]

"I am not amused" .....

Hi OB
You had the option to PM me.
Maybe I'm not amused by your public challenge to my personal choice of Sig :sarc:

Anything rugby related happening???

 

[damo]

Modern line outs are such a mess

Lineouts from pre 1996 were a lot worse. A lot worse.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Lineouts from pre 1996 were a lot worse. A lot worse.

Amen to that.

They were an utter shambles, of pushing and shoving and elbowing. Lifting is the best thing that ever happened to the line-out

 

[OB..]

Hi OB
You had the option to PM me.

Why should I PM you? I don't mind others knowing my opinion. Your statement (and response) make it clear you are not going to change anything.

 

[Chris_j]

Hi OB

You had the option to PM me.
Maybe I'm not amused by your public challenge to my personal choice of Sig :sarc:

Anything rugby related happening???

Hi Browner

From what I've seen this year you are a good referee with potential to climb the ladder. However you need to understand a few important things:

As a referee you are representing the game at every fixture and need to make sure that you are both seen to be and are in practice impartial at all times.

We, the referees, are a team as well. Most people on this forum are here because we want to learn and improve our time with the whistle. Robust discussion is fine. Cheap shots such as this are not. A lot of your posts on here are positive, but you don't appear to be able to resist the odd abusive rant. Why?

If you can take this on board and cut out the daft stuff you have a future on here and with the whistle.

 

[Dickie E]

Hi Browner

From what I've seen this year you are a good referee with potential to climb the ladder. However you need to understand a few important things:

As a referee you are representing the game at every fixture and need to make sure that you are both seen to be and are in practice impartial at all times.

We, the referees, are a team as well. Most people on this forum are here because we want to learn and improve our time with the whistle. Robust discussion is fine. Cheap shots such as this are not. A lot of your posts on here are positive, but you don't appear to be able to resist the odd abusive rant. Why?

If you can take this on board and cut out the daft stuff you have a future on here and with the whistle.

IMO Browner and Ian Cook have had a number of personal spats and one is as guilty as the other. The difference is that Ian is a mod and has been able to pull out the big stick that Browner has not had access to. I can see why Browner is a bit brittle. He has been left with little recourse. Signatures are just signatures (how non-PC is mine). Let's focus of posts and their content.

 

[Chris_j]

IMO Browner and Ian Cook have had a number of personal spats and one is as guilty as the other. The difference is that Ian is a mod and has been able to pull out the big stick that Browner has not had access to. I can see why Browner is a bit brittle. He has been left with little recourse. Signatures are just signatures (how non-PC is mine). Let's focus of posts and their content.

Yours; "I'm trying to give up sexual innuendos. But it's hard ... so very hard." , crass but not personal.

Browners; a direct attempt to goad, and not just at IC who does give as good as he gets. There is a big difference.

 

[Crucial]

Some sensitive souls indeed.

I don't find Browners sig goading at all. It gives me an insight into his online 'personality' though, so in a way, it is good, as I can see what I am dealing with and the approach I would need to take in a debate (or whether to bother at all)

 

[Dickie E]

Browners; a direct attempt to goad,

use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is. Let me know your thoughts. Nobody (unless they're sociopathic) does anything without a reason.

 

[didds]

I am sure I am not alone here with personal expereince of lineouts pre-lifting.

As a prop my general lineout job was to just get in the way of the oppo on our throw to remove the challenge to our jumpers. this varied from just stepping into a gap - probably being offside as i did so - though to smashing the oppo jumper in the ribs as he set to jump or had just started (meaning his own props weren't cheating to stop me cheating!).

On the oppo ball it was just general disruption... to taking out the oppo blocker to expose the jumper/caught ball, to taking out the jumper as above.

"The gap" was observed mainly in the breach (tho some chinese firedrills these days at eleite elevel end up much the same).

Compare and contrast with lifting that requires the previously disruptive to now have a positive role that removeds the time/opportunity to disrupt.

didds

 

[OB..]

use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is.

Because he resents the attempt to stop him trolling?

Let's leave it for a while, shall we?

 

[Marchioly]

use your people-management skills and see if you can understand why that is. Let me know your thoughts. Nobody (unless they're sociopathic) does anything without a reason.

Sociopaths have their reasons too, just different to most people. Sociopaths are people too:hap: