Non-throwing hooker

[crossref]

one assumes its advantage played anyway.

The real question is at what juncture does that call get made i.e. "playing advantage - no tramline player" or similar.
Id suggest its once the ball has left the throwers hands as up until then in reality the lineout hasn't "started" [ cue 17 page discussion about when a lineout begins.,.. ]

well, hang on -- up above everyone is telling me that the defending team is gaining sn advantage - sn unfair advantage indeed - by having no one in the tramlines. (although of course in reality they are not)

 

[didds]

well, hang on -- up above everyone is telling me that the defending team is gaining sn advantage - sn unfair advantage indeed - by having no one in the tramlines. (although of course in reality they are not)

see muy update to my post above. in some cuircumstances it may not be an advantage if the thriower's lineout is pants!

 

[jdeagro]

well, hang on -- up above everyone is telling me that the defending team is gaining sn advantage - sn unfair advantage indeed - by having no one in the tramlines. (although of course in reality they are not)

Tbf, I agree with your perspective to some degree.

But Phil has a point that in a lineout, the thrower is bound to one specific spot of the playing enclosure, so it's only fair from an equivalent numbers perspective, to force a player from the non-throwing team to be bound in a similar area.

 

[Dickie E]

Tbf, I agree with your perspective to some degree.

But Phil has a point that in a lineout, the thrower is bound to one specific spot of the playing enclosure, so it's only fair from an equivalent numbers perspective, to force a player from the non-throwing team to be bound in a similar area.

I'm kinda leaning towards CR's POV. At a scrum, one SH has to be there to chuck the ball in. His opponent doesn't need to be next to him

 

[jdeagro]

I'm kinda leaning towards CR's POV. At a scrum, one SH has to be there to chuck the ball in. His opponent doesn't need to be next to him

Good point. There is some inconsistency in the reasoning of the laws there then. I could buy into either position, if WR made it consistent.

It also makes one wonder when did they put the law into place for the non-throwing team at the lineout, and why. What was the scenario that occurred that triggered the thought process behind it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Good point. There is some inconsistency in the reasoning of the laws there then. I could buy into either position, if WR made it consistent.

It also makes one wonder when did they put the law into place for the non-throwing team at the lineout, and why. What was the scenario that occurred that triggered the thought process behind it.

Well, um, as I remember, and I do not want to contradict others, it was put in place toward the beginning of lifting in l/o. Hookers would lift the first player in L/O whilst standing in the 5 metre gap. the 2 m away and am back was incorporated to counter this. then without proper attention and a desire to not allow players to think it became the must that we are discussing in this thread

we should have never started to lift in L/O