Not competing and then sacking

[Browner]

Thanks thepercy. You've successfully defined a pass, but in the context of a thread trying to figure out when a lineout is over. WHich bit of Law 19.9(b) does your definition of a pass refer to?

[LAWS]19.9(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.
This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.[/LAWS]

It's not an exhaustive list.

 

[RobLev]

Thanks thepercy. You've successfully defined a pass, but in the context of a thread trying to figure out when a lineout is over. WHich bit of Law 19.9(b) does your definition of a pass refer to?

[LAWS]19.9(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.
This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.[/LAWS]

If the catcher hands the ball to the receiver, which part of law 19.9(b) applies? Or has the line-out not yet ended? If it hasn't, at what point thereafter does it end?

 

[Dixie]

Thanks thepercy. You've successfully defined a pass, but in the context of a thread trying to figure out when a lineout is over. WHich bit of Law 19.9(b) does your definition of a pass refer to?

It's not an exhaustive list.

Very true. So ... White call a two man scrum. Their two jumpers stand close by the 15m line. The front player suddenly runs forward and catches the ball (thrown soft) near the 5m line. He then passes it through his legs (i.e laterally in relation to the LoT) to his fellow jumper, still near the 15m line. Has the lineout ended? For me, it has not - any more than if the ball was thrown to the front, bobbled a bit without going forward and was then caught.

 

[RobLev]

Very true. So ... White call a two man scrum. Their two jumpers stand close by the 15m line. The front player suddenly runs forward and catches the ball (thrown soft) near the 5m line. He then passes it through his legs (i.e laterally in relation to the LoT) to his fellow jumper, still near the 15m line. Has the lineout ended? For me, it has not - any more than if the ball was thrown to the front, bobbled a bit without going forward and was then caught.

I can't speak for Browner, but for me it clearly hasn't. But why are you continuing to talk about lateral passing of the ball? I certainly, and I believe both Ian and Browner, are talking about a ball handed back from the lineout.

And ITYM a two man line...

 

[Dixie]

I can't speak for Browner, but for me it clearly hasn't. But why are you continuing to talk about lateral passing of the ball? I certainly, and I believe both Ian and Browner, are talking about a ball handed back from the lineout.

And ITYM a two man line...

I did indeed mean a two man lineout. Taff indicated a belief that passing the ball ended the lineout. When this was challenged, Thepercy justified it with a definition of a pass. My point is that passing the ball per se doesn't end the lineout - the ball has to leave the lineout (which may occur as a result of a pass, a drop, a tap, a throw or a kick), and this brings us back to the difficulty that we don't know what the boundaries of the lineout are.

 

[RobLev]

I did indeed mean a two man lineout. Taff indicated a belief that passing the ball ended the lineout. When this was challenged, Thepercy justified it with a definition of a pass. My point is that passing the ball per se doesn't end the lineout - the ball has to leave the lineout (which may occur as a result of a pass, a drop, a tap, a throw or a kick)

None of which is in any way contentious.

and this brings us back to the difficulty that we don't know what the boundaries of the lineout are.

But we do. A peeling player has by definition left the lineout; by analogy, any player receiving the ball backwards from the catcher has left the lineout, and so has the ball.

 

[tim White]

Unless it is in the formation of a maul -which does not end the line-out until the whole maul moves off the line of touch. At game speed it is difficult to determine if the passing back occurred before the legitimate text-book formation of the maul; We tend to assume it does not.

 

[Browner]

There is a difference between ....

A maul (or ruck ) formed IN the lineout , which then moves over the LoT [Law 19.9(b)]
And
A ball that is handed/passed out of the lineout (to a player who has peeled/left the lineout) before a defender has engaged the BC and a teammate has bound onto him.

 

[RobLev]

Unless it is in the formation of a maul -which does not end the line-out until the whole maul moves off the line of touch.

If you mean that the formation of a maul on the LoT by a player from either side binding onto the jumper doesn't end the lineout - agreed.

At game speed it is difficult to determine if the passing back occurred before the legitimate text-book formation of the maul; We tend to assume it does not.

But we're talking here specifically about a maul not being formed, because the defending side refuse to engage. In those circumstances, if the attacking side adopt a maul formation and hand the ball back from the jumper then (i) the jumper is obstructing and (ii) the line-out is over.

 

[Browner]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2woPxHXXeqs

Ignoring VM's mini-rant, here is an example of a ' successful' non contest defend.

 

[FlipFlop]

True - that is legal (in my opinion)

But if the lineout jumper had been a bit smarter, he could have pulled the ball back to his body, got the blue player offside, then passed it back.

But if the jumper held on too long, then the lifters are in front of him, and potentially obstructing.

 

[RobLev]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2woPxHXXeqs

Ignoring VM's mini-rant, here is an example of a ' successful' non contest defend.

Anyone for a YC for VM?

 

[RobLev]

True - that is legal (in my opinion)

But if the lineout jumper had been a bit smarter, he could have pulled the ball back to his body, got the blue player offside, then passed it back.

They're beyond the 15m line (just - and the ref said so); the lineout is over, so in the absence of a maul the blue player isn't offside.

But if the jumper held on too long, then the lifters are in front of him, and potentially obstructing.[/QUOTE]

 

[FlipFlop]

Ball Carrier is inside the 15m line, as is the ball. Back lifter is marginal (but still inside (not clear and obvious outside)

If the ref said they are beyond the 15m line - he is wrong - the video is pretty clear.

 

[RobLev]

Ball Carrier is inside the 15m line, as is the ball. Back lifter is marginal (but still inside (not clear and obvious outside)

If the ref said they are beyond the 15m line - he is wrong - the video is pretty clear.
View attachment 2925View attachment 2926View attachment 2927

Unfortunately your red line obscures the white 15m line, which is perfectly visible in the original. ISTM that the ball is beyond the 15m line when Blue grabs it. Whether that be right or wrong, the Blue player is not beyond the ball at any time as it all played out. It might be a hard sell for the referee to ping him for offside if the ball carrier had pulled the ball back in to put him beyond it; and if he had hung onto the ball (i) he'd have been beyond the 15m line a split second later anyway - the pod was moving that way and (ii) (as you originally said) he'd have risked getting his lifters, who are offside, pinged for obstruction or offside - take your pick.

 

[FlipFlop]

I always said it was legal. I just said catcher could have put the blue player offside by pulling the ball back into himself.

The red line obscures the white, as I used a straight line to extend the white to show where the 15m was in relation to the players. Just extended it. Shows play is still inside the 15m line.
This means the ball is the offside line as line out not over.

 

[Browner]

They're beyond the 15m line (just - and the ref said so)

?

He said "no maul, no maul, play on , lineout is over"

which I took to mean the ball had been handed to a peeling player 'not' that it had gone beyond the 15m line ( i agree with FlipFlop, it hadn't)

 

[RobLev]

?

He said "no maul, no maul, play on , lineout is over"

which I took to mean the ball had been handed to a peeling player 'not' that it had gone beyond the 15m line ( i agree with FlipFlop, it hadn't)

Listen to this from 1:45; it's the first thing the ref says to Matfield before Matfield launches the mini-rant you referred to in your original post.

 

[Browner]

?

He said "no maul, no maul, play on , lineout is over"

which I took to mean the ball had been handed to a peeling player 'not' that it had gone beyond the 15m line ( i agree with FlipFlop, it hadn't)

Apologies Roblev, I've realised he said that when being questioned by VM ... That far on, I think CJs now showing signs of being flustered, because he'd not mentioned 15m initially.

 

[RobLev]

Apologies Roblev, I've realised he said that when being questioned by VM ... That far on, I think CJs now showing signs of being flustered, because he'd not mentioned 15m initially.

Accepted.

I disagree; if a referee were to stop play every time to give a full explanation of his rulings you'd never get a game completed.

I could equally say that he didn't mention the peeling player initially...but the first thing he said when queried was 15m. I don't think there's any merit in starting to argue about whether the referee was lying when he got to the first point where an explanation was appropriate.

And IMHO the ball was grabbed by the blue player beyond the 15m line.