Question - lineout and advantage

[Greig]

There is a line-out on the half line, Blue throw in.
Blue has 5 lineout particpants, and a receiver. Thrower standing on the LOT / sideline
Red has 4 line-out particpants and a receiver. Thrower marker standing 2m from LOT, 2m infield from sideline.

Suddenly Red realises they have one less participating player, and the thrower marker runs into the line-out. Immediately after this, the ball is thrown-in.

Ball is not thrown straight and Blue catches easily, taps to SH, who runs forward.

I call advantage Blue (against Red for for incorrect line-out numbers, thrower marker can't leave his position). Red constant complaints that throw was not straight. When no advantage is attained I signal free kick to Blue on the 15m line/LOT. More complaints from Red, and abuse from the Red coach.

Thoughts?

 

[RobLev]

There is a line-out on the half line, Blue throw in.
Blue has 5 lineout particpants, and a receiver. Thrower standing on the LOT / sideline
Red has 4 line-out particpants and a receiver. Thrower marker standing 2m from LOT, 2m infield from sideline.

Suddenly Red realises they have one less participating player, and the thrower marker runs into the line-out. Immediately after this, the ball is thrown-in.

Ball is not thrown straight and Blue catches easily, taps to SH, who runs forward.

I call advantage Blue (against Red for for incorrect line-out numbers, thrower marker can't leave his position). Red constant complaints that throw was not straight. When no advantage is attained I signal free kick to Blue on the 15m line/LOT. More complaints from Red, and abuse from the Red coach.

Thoughts?

None of the other refs are up yet/still, so here goes:

Does Law 8.5(b) answer the question?

[LAWS]If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement[/LAWS]

(The proviso doesn't apply because neither offence is one of foul play).

Doesn't this mean that Red was right that advantage shouldn't have been played in favour of Blue once they themselves infringed; but wrong to complain once you awarded the FK, since that is precisely what you should have done in the first place?

The infringement by Red BTW was against 19.8(j), rather than incorrect numbers per se; it wasn't his presence in the lineout as a lineout player that was the issue, but the absence of a player participating in the lineout as the thrower's immediate opponent.

 

[Dickie E]

There is a line-out on the half line, Blue throw in.
Blue has 5 lineout particpants, and a receiver. Thrower standing on the LOT / sideline
Red has 4 line-out particpants and a receiver. Thrower marker standing 2m from LOT, 2m infield from sideline.

Suddenly Red realises they have one less participating player, and the thrower marker runs into the line-out. Immediately after this, the ball is thrown-in.

Ball is not thrown straight and Blue catches easily, taps to SH, who runs forward.

I call advantage Blue (against Red for for incorrect line-out numbers, thrower marker can't leave his position). Red constant complaints that throw was not straight. When no advantage is attained I signal free kick to Blue on the 15m line/LOT. More complaints from Red, and abuse from the Red coach.

Thoughts?

Hi Greig,

a couple of things:

1.

I call advantage Blue (against Red for for incorrect line-out numbers

This isn't a numbers offence. Red are allowed to have fewer numbers than Blue - just not greater.

2. Yes, Red has offended by the marker not maintaining his position until the ball is thrown.

3. So Red has offended (2 above) then Blue offends by throw not straight. So you shouldn't play advantage to Blue (a bit like a knock-on following a knock-on). Quick whistle and bring it back for first offence

4. having said that and assuming the game is a lower level community game, I would likely have blown it up, explained that both teams had f***ed it up, and start the lineout again.

 

[menace]

I agree with Dickie for 1 to 3. I'm less likely to agree with 4. Just FK against red and get on with it.

As for this: "More complaints from Red, and abuse from the Red coach." Please submit the appropriate abuse report form and ensure the coach is held accountable so he doesn't abuse the next ref.

 

[woody]

Is the Red infraction even material? Depending on the situation, I may just give a word to Red and go with not straight. Dickie's #4 sounds pretty reasonable too.

 

[RobLev]

Is the Red infraction even material?

Interesting point. One answer is that breaches of the Laws as to who needs to participate in a lineout are always material, just as, for example, a knock-on is always material.

OTOH, if materiality is an issue, and it isn't material in this instance, when would it be material?

Depending on the situation, I may just give a word to Red and go with not straight. Dickie's #4 sounds pretty reasonable too.

 

[woody]

If the throw was straight, then it would likely be material.

 

[Browner]

if Red didn't ' attempt to contest' the line out then unstraight deemed immaterial for me, so fk advantage blue, advantage ' over' as soon as gain line crossed by blue SH.

If Red did ' contest', then unstraight was material and we revert to the 1st offence = FK to blue on 15

Is a poorly organised Red team a reflection of the coach????? Zzzzz

 

[RobLev]

If the throw was straight, then it would likely be material.

Why would that make a difference? Remember, we're not talking about penalising for entering the line, but for leaving his post as thrower's opponent.

And of course the throw comes after that offence.

 

[woody]

What advantage does Red gain by moving out of position and what effect does it have on the Blue throw? If the receiver is within two meters, does that negate a not straight? What if the flyhalf is within 10? Far side winger?

And all of this is in context of a low level match.

 

[Browner]

What advantage does Red gain by moving out of position and what effect does it have on the Blue throw? If the receiver is within two meters, does that negate a not straight? What if the flyhalf is within 10? Far side winger?

And all of this is in context of a low level match .

Are you advocating that Law 19.8(j) ( or the others you mention ) should all be ignored per se' , or only in Low level fixtures?

If not ignore, then a suggestion as to how ' not being in his position ' could ever be to his advantage and therefore become penalizable ?

 

[woody]

I'm advovating using judgement if it is worth stopping a lower level game for every single minor infraction. If an action does not impact the play, there may be times when a word with the offender is more appropriate.

The Red player coming into the #1 spot of a lineout has much more of an impact on a short throw as compared to a long throw. So, yes being out of position may be an advantage at times.

 

[ddjamo]

good old fashioned do over time

 

[menace]

I'm advovating using judgement if it is worth stopping a lower level game for every single minor infraction. If an action does not impact the play, there may be times when a word with the offender is more appropriate.

The Red player coming into the #1 spot of a lineout has much more of an impact on a short throw as compared to a long throw. So, yes being out of position may be an advantage at times.

Agree...must use some judgment.

Was the red hooker moving from the channel to the lineout a disruption the the blue thrower which effectively caused him to throw it crooked..so did the red moving have that material effect? :shrug:

good old fashioned do over time

*start rant*
Is that a bit of a condescending dig? I'm not sure?
If it is a dig then that's a bit disappointing. Perhaps at your lofty heights you have got it all sorted but many new and experienced refs still need help with judging material effect and which law trumps other laws when they happen almost simultaneously. I thought this forum was to help them figure out what works and what doesn't. I didn't think it was for ridiculing referees trying to learn to do their craft.
*end rant*

 

[woody]

Agree...must use some judgment.

Was the red hooker moving from the channel to the lineout a disruption the the blue thrower which effectively caused him to throw it crooked..so did the red moving have that material effect? :shrug:



*start rant*
Is that a bit of a condescending dig? I'm not sure?
If it is a dig then that's a bit disappointing. Perhaps at your lofty heights you have got it all sorted but many new and experienced refs still need help with judging material effect and which law trumps other laws when they happen almost simultaneously. I thought this forum was to help them figure out what works and what doesn't. I didn't think it was for ridiculing referees trying to learn to do their craft.
*end rant*

Agreed, maybe the movement startled the thrower or maybe not.

I take ddjamo comment as DickieE's #4 option:

4. having said that and assuming the game is a lower level community game, I would likely have blown it up, explained that both teams had f***ed it up, and start the lineout again.

 

[menace]

In that case...I've totally misinterpreted ddjamo....apologies. I retract my rant. :redface::redface: (Thought it might have been a Cody moment for him?)

 

[ddjamo]

no problem menace...not sure how it confused you - but no worries here. cody? the netball ref?

yes - same as kickie dickie. I do it probably 2-3 times a season. white goes up, then red, then hooker pump fakes and throws it crooked all the while the receiver is dancing around....just reset the dang thing.

 

[menace]

(A hard week at work and Too many glasses of red I suspect?. Oooops)

 

[Taff]

.... Suddenly Red realises they have one less participating player, and the thrower marker runs into the line-out. Immediately after this, the ball is thrown-in.

Why did Red player run into the LO? He could / should have just stayed where he was.

 

[RobLev]

What advantage does Red gain by moving out of position and what effect does it have on the Blue throw?

I would work on the rule of thumb that if a player deliberately does something, he does so because he thinks it is to his advantage; so he can hardly complain if penalised for it.

If the receiver is within two meters, does that negate a not straight? What if the flyhalf is within 10? Far side winger?

And all of this is in context of a low level match.

If they've run to that position just before the throw, I'd have thought you'd manage it differently to them just being lazy or inattentive.