[Law] Quiz #6 - short lineouts

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I’ve always worked off the basis that blocking the throw is done by a player who isn’t in a legal position to receive it, so one standing between the touch and 5 metre lines. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player standing beyond the 5 metre line sanctioned for blocking it.
 

tewdric


Referees in Wales
Joined
Sep 18, 2018
Messages
179
Post Likes
47
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
And in the first example, if you took the view that it was a rehearsed move and thus an intentional infringment...
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
PK for intentional infringement are like PK for unsportsmanlike conduct : they are used frequently on message boards, but in real life (thankfully) hardly ever
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
What interesting thread
My answer was roasted by taff who thinks the correct answer is a FK in both case .. but I am much more attracted to colllybs argument that it's NOT a FK in either scenario ..

(still think my answer is right though :pepper: )
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Could you explain why you feel it's a FK and not options?
Because the wording in the lawbook I've tried my best to learn used to say

A lineout player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres. Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line.

I guess the new "simplified" lawbook doesn't say that, which is what I suspect Crossref wants to draw attention to.

I’ve always worked off the basis that blocking the throw is done by a player who isn’t in a legal position to receive it, so one standing between the touch and 5 metre lines. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player standing beyond the 5 metre line sanctioned for blocking it.
I get it quite often. The front player is standing on or behind the 5m line and as the ball is being thrown in they reach forward and catch it at say 4m.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I guess the new "simplified" lawbook doesn't say that, which is what I suspect Crossref wants to draw attention to.

18.25 is new, you are correct, but it's not part of the the rewrite : It was one of a very small number of new items introduced last month with the 2019 Law Book (yes, they are still making changes without telling anyone)


I find it hard to imagine that they said 'opponent' by mistake.
 
Last edited:

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
I've seen it happen several times, but only ever the throwing side, never the opponent.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I've seen it happen several times, but only ever the throwing side, never the opponent.

This, guess what’s gonna happen this weekend
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
I've seen it happen several times, but only ever the throwing side, never the opponent.
Exactly; it's usually a planned tactic. Rather than throw to the middle of the lineout, the plan is to throw it to No 1 coming forward (ideally at speed) into the 5m channel. It just needs careful practice to make sure No 1 doesn't touch the ball till it's travelled the minimum 5 metres.

Guess what’s gonna happen this weekend
:biggrin: And when it does, would you honestly consider a different sanction depending on which team caught the ball?
 

Treadmore

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
413
Post Likes
38
18.25 is new, you are correct, but it's not part of the the rewrite : It was one of a very small number of new items introduced last month with the 2019 Law Book (yes, they are still making changes without telling anyone)


I find it hard to imagine that they said 'opponent' by mistake.

Bizzaro changes. Rightly or wrongly I used to think the lineout/scrum options was for the case of a mistake by the thrower (it was described under "incorrect throw-in"). And any player preventing the throw reaching 5m was FK.

Now, 18.23.b covers all scenarios of not reaching 5m and it is lineout/scrum option though bizarrely the sanction implies it's a sanction against the throwing-in team. And the video example shows the referee simply awarding a FK, with no lineout/scrum option!!

And 18.25 refers to blocking only (not preventing) before the ball is thrown (as per figure).

Messy.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
I hadn't even looked at the video! What a dog's dinner.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I can see the logic for an asymmetric sanction

If the team with possession infringe , they lose possession

If the team without possession infringe .. well they don't have possession to lose .. so the sanction is a FK
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Bizzaro changes. Rightly or wrongly I used to think the lineout/scrum options was for the case of a mistake by the thrower (it was described under "incorrect throw-in"). And any player preventing the throw reaching 5m was FK.
That's exactly what I STILL believe.

.... Now, 18.23.b covers all scenarios of not reaching 5m and it is lineout/scrum option though bizarrely the sanction implies it's a sanction against the throwing-in team. And the video example shows the referee simply awarding a FK, with no lineout/scrum option!!
The Ref didn't give an option because it was the player in the LO that infringed.

I'd bet £20 that if the thrower had ballsed it up and just failed to chuck the ball 5m, then he would have given the LO / Scrum option.
 
Last edited:

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I can see the logic for an asymmetric sanction

If the team with possession infringe , they lose possession

If the team without possession infringe .. well they don't have possession to lose .. so the sanction is a FK

I see your logic - BUT I can't recall any other law that provides a different sanction based on who is in possession? Are you aware of any other?

So for me - I just can't, and won't, apply a vastly different sanction for the exact same offence. That is not equitable.(noting that if I did then I've made a error in consistency and I expect to be pulled up for it!)

So for the scenario I'm applying the FK. Pretty much based on the reasons the others cite.
I think the FK can also be backed up by the similarity of the Quick Throw law
[LAWS]18.6. The ball must reach the five-metre line before it is played and a player must not prevent the ball from travelling five metres. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]
It is the same sort of offence (and sanction).
Surely that law was derived and based on the lineout laws (being a very similar 'action') when the QT came into the game and it's based on the intent that no player can step or reach into the 5m channel? It applies equally to the throwing team as the non-throwing team.

In terms of the "Blocking" law I interpret that to mean someone has created an obstruction (which is a definition of "block") on the thrower or the ball path reaching the 5m line. Under current laws, the only person in a legal position inside the 5m channel that could possibly do that would be the player opposing the thrower ie opposing hooker. But I think the 2 x 2m position criteria on the opposing hooker has now prevented that player from being able to block - but IIRC the 2 x 2m criteria is only relatively new? (OB??? do you know?). Prior to the 2x2 Im sure opposing hooker could virtually stand on the line-of-touch so could be in a position to be able to block...but the block law prevented them from doing so?
Maybe in eras gone by, players could legally be in position to block, so the block law came in to stop them??
So under current laws there really is no one that can be in a legal position to block - and they can be sanctioned under that? The blocking law within the lineout section possibly is now redundant but left in there "just to make sure covering law"?!
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I can see all the arguments above ...


But the hard reality is that - with a year to think about it - in the Law they wrote "opponent"

That and it was already the custom of many refs to apply an asymmetric sanction here, so they very likely considered that they were simply bringing current practice into Law
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I can see all the arguments above ...


But the hard reality is that - with a year to think about it - in the Law they wrote "opponent"

That and it was already the custom of many refs to apply an asymmetric sanction here, so they very likely considered that they were simply bringing current practice into Law

Yeah...Im not buying that.

I could easily say they threw in "opponent" cause it just doesnt make sense youd block your own player so they were unable to throw it! And they would have spent 2 minutes on it and moved on.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Yeah...Im not buying that.

I could easily say they threw in "opponent" cause it just doesnt make sense youd block your own player so they were unable to throw it! And they would have spent 2 minutes on it and moved on.

It was one of just two corrections they made to the 2018 book. I think we can be confident that they thought carefully about it

Plus we need to be very cautious about claiming that a Law is clearly a mistake, so we won't apply it, as that argument means you are free to reject any law you dislike, which is chaos
 
Last edited:

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It was one of just two corrections they made to the 2018 book. I think we can be confident that they thought carefully about it

Plus we need to be very cautious about claiming that a Law is clearly a mistake, so we won't apply it, as that argument means you are free to reject any law you dislike, which is chaos

Ive never said that it was a mistake.
I simply reject your interpretation.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
? The blocking law within the lineout section possibly is now redundant but left in there "just to make sure covering law"?!

In fact it is brand new , and was added to the Law book a month ago . Does that alter your perspective on it ?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
And in the first example, if you took the view that it was a rehearsed move and thus an intentional infringment...

why wold you spend any time on learning a move that is quite easy to spot as illegal/not permissable and likely to be called up fairly often?

i just don't get that - particularly at community levels where training time is limited.

didds
 
Top