[Line out] Quick Line Out vs. Quick Throw in

[talbazar]

Something struck me tonight as I was AR'ing and I'd like to run it through the eminent members of this community.

Quick Throw In:
Restriction of same ball, not being touched, etc...
Can be taken backwards
Taken anywhere between where the Line Out would take place and the try line.

That's my question
Admitting the QTI is not possible anymore (ball touched for example), is there any restriction for a player not to take a quick line out?

Example scenario:
1. Red restart direct to touch and caught by a spectator
2. Everyone jogs towards the centre while the ref is like "Blue, option? Blue Captain, what do you want?"
3. Blue scrum-half grabs the ball and goes play the line out on the middle line (where it would take place) and sends it 5m straight and all other requirement for a Throw-In.
4. Either he catches it himself and goes
4'. Or the winger comes full pace on the line of touch to catch the ball should not make any difference in the final call... But if it does, please tell.

Any issue?

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[crossref]

We have discussed this general question quite a few times, without reaching agreement.


It's not a black and white issue - obviously some lineouts are taken more quickly than others, and it follows that it's possible to take a legitimate lineout more quickly than perhaps the oppo were expecting...

But personally I don't think its possible to have a legitimate lineout taken in such a way that one team is completely unaware that a lineout is even taking place -- but opinions will differ.

But in your specific scenario: I don't think anyone would consider 4 or 4' to be a legitimate lineout. I certainly wouldn't ! I think if you allowed that you're going to be having a very difficult afternoon...

For me
- there are QTIs, which are quick, unstructured and can happen in an instance : players be alert !
- and there are lineouts, which are formal and follow many more rules.

it's a bit like a scrum : if everything works well you can have a quick scrum, but you can't have a surprise scrum.

 

[Dickie E]

Generally agree with crossref and cite these 2 pieces of law:

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS
The purpose of the lineout is to restart play, quickly, safely and fairly, after the ball has gone into touch, with a throw-in between two lines of players.


(a)
Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

NB *fairly*...

 

[Pinky]

For me, if the throwing in side have formed their lineout - however many they want in the line plus a receiver if they wish, then as long as the other team meets the minimum standar two in the line, I would probably let the throwin happen. But I'd not be inclined to offer a fk for not having a hooker or numbers if the had too many and the throwing in team did not allow time to match.

 

[talbazar]

Thanks a lot guys!
That's in line with my thoughts, so all good...

I guess I somehow got mixed up with my (very) old playing days...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Generally agree with crossref and Dickie (now there's something that needs to be recorded for posterity!)

A quickly taken line-out has to be thrown along the line of touch, straight, and there has to be at least two players from each team.

However, I would not entertain any calls from the throwing team if it goes wrong, and ostensibly offside opponents get in the way. If you want to take the lineout quickly, then that is your risk.

NOTE: I put it in the same category as teams who get cute with line-out numbers. One trick I have seen tried (and it didn't fool that ref either) was for the throwing team to line up without a receiver - which they are entitled to do; Law 19.8 (i). The opposition line up with the same numbers in the line, but they do have a receiver. Just as the ball is about to be thrown, one of the players ducks out to the receiver position and the skipper calls out "numbers ref!". No team would be getting any mileage from me if they tried that it on.

 

[RobLev]

Generally agree with crossref and Dickie (now there's something that needs to be recorded for posterity!)

A quickly taken line-out has to be thrown along the line of touch, straight, and there has to be at least two players from each team.

However, I would not entertain any calls from the throwing team if it goes wrong, and ostensibly offside opponents get in the way. If you want to take the lineout quickly, then that is your risk.

NOTE: I put it in the same category as teams who get cute with line-out numbers. One trick I have seen tried (and it didn't fool that ref either) was for the throwing team to line up without a receiver - which they are entitled to do; Law 19.8 (i). The opposition line up with the same numbers in the line, but they do have a receiver. Just as the ball is about to be thrown, one of the players ducks out to the receiver position and the skipper calls out "numbers ref!". No team would be getting any mileage from me if they tried that it on.

Can I add my agreement too?

 

[Dickie E]

I wonder what we do here:

All the requirements for a QTI are met and Red thrower is standing on LoT ready to take lineout throw. Blue lineout participants duly form their line. Red forwards hover around 5 metres from LoT for all the world looking like they're about to move into the lineout. Before they do so, Red thrower throws ball straight to his #10 who is 10 metres from LoT and 15 metres in. Play on?

 

[didds]

.... and another scenario... for any blue lineout...

blue form quickly including thrower. red have deliberately not put anybody near the LoT, except maybe a soliitary chaser to mark a QTI. Now there is never two red's to form a lineout until they are ready to make it one. So the lineout cannot be taken until they arrive ie not taken quickly.


Or at least similar non joining tactics for any ball in touch that cannot be taken as a QTI. (Its a risky tactic I'd agree!)


didds

 

[RobLev]

.... and another scenario... for any blue lineout...

blue form quickly including thrower. red have deliberately not put anybody near the LoT, except maybe a soliitary chaser to mark a QTI. Now there is never two red's to form a lineout until they are ready to make it one. So the lineout cannot be taken until they arrive ie not taken quickly.


Or at least similar non joining tactics for any ball in touch that cannot be taken as a QTI. (Its a risky tactic I'd agree!)


didds

Law 19.8(g):

[LAWS]Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout. [/LAWS]

 

[didds]

But they aren't failing to join... Just delaying join it until it tactically best for them.

Just like throwing teams' huddles - they don't get pinged it seems.

Didds

 

[OB..]

It is clear that the team throwing in must meet all its obligations. It is not laid down that they must wait for their opponents to be ready. A team must not "voluntariiy fail to form a lineout" Law 19.8 (g), but that is different from not being ready.

In practice the defending team usually arrives first, so the situation rarely arises and presumably would happen as a ploy eg didds' scenario, or unusually getting to the line of touch first.

There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

 

[RobLev]

But they aren't failing to join... Just delaying join it until it tactically best for them.

...

At the time you ping it, because you've waited long enough, they've failed to join...

 

[RobLev]

It is clear that the team throwing in must meet all its obligations. It is not laid down that they must wait for their opponents to be ready. A team must not "voluntariiy fail to form a lineout" Law 19.8 (g), but that is different from not being ready.

In practice the defending team usually arrives first, so the situation rarely arises and presumably would happen as a ploy eg didds' scenario, or unusually getting to the line of touch first.

There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

On the other hand, there's also a similarity to scrums, where there is an obligation to wait for the opponents. In fact, that similarity is closer since there are detailed rules (over and above offside) about the formation of the lineout and where the non-throwing team must stand (just as with a scrum) which are entirely absent from restart kicks.

 

[OB..]

On the other hand, there's also a similarity to scrums

You cannot form a scrum without having two sets of forwards, so I see no similarity whatsoever. It is physically impossible for one team to have a "quickly taken scrum".

 

[crossref]

There is a similarity to restart kicks, where it is not clear if the kicking team have to wait for their opponents.

I had one of those yesterday! I can't remember the last time I saw it. One player caught the miss hit conversion, raced up the field and kicked off. The oppo were almost all in their own half, but hardly any were 10m back. The kicker was still on his way back.

The restart kick went really long and the defenders let it cross the DBL

decision anyone?

 

[winchesterref]

I had one of those yesterday! I can't remember the last time I saw it. One player caught the miss hit conversion, raced up the field and kicked off. The oppo were almost all in their own half, but hardly any were 10m back. The kicker was still on his way back.

The restart kick went really long and the defenders let it cross the DBL

decision anyone?

I'd allow the kick off. Scrum back or kick off again.

 

[OB..]

I would also allow the kick-off - in this case nobody can complain!

 

[RobLev]

You cannot form a scrum without having two sets of forwards, so I see no similarity whatsoever. It is physically impossible for one team to have a "quickly taken scrum".

Since the definition of a lineout includes both sides having at least two players in the lineout, and the non-throwing team having a player 3m in 2m back from the LoT, it is impossible to have a quickly-taken lineout (where those conditions are not met) in accordance with the Laws.

It is of course possible and indeed appropriate to overlook non-compliance with the Law by the non-throwing team by applying advantage...