Receiver joining lineout before throw (and numbers!)

[NikneRef]

Apparently, my home country is unique in allowing the receiver (typically the scrumhalf) to join the lineout before the throw. When I count numbers, do I count the receiver? In a match today, Blue team consistently brought their receiver in. I instructed Gold team to match including the receiver, which they did not appreciate .

The situation was as follows: (1) blue lineout, blue brings 3 in the line plus the receiver ;(2) gold, without a receiver, puts 4 in the lineout, anticipating the blue receiver will join. Is there a free kick to blue regardless? A free kick if blue does not join?

What's the decision?

 

[Davet]

First of all it depends which team is throwing.

They set the max number in the line. My expectation here would be that number does not include the receiver.

Blue throw... they have 3 in line plus a receiver - opposition can put no mre than 3 in the line - they may or may not choose to have a receiver.


Blue throw... they have 3 in line and no receiver - opposition can put no more than 3 in the line - they may or may not choose to have a receiver.

 

[Phil E]

We're not allowed to discuss this without being branded anti US by Ddjamo :nono: :sarc:

There is a USA specific forum, where people can discuss their union specific guidelines, without getting confusing answers from the rest of the world.

Welcome to the forum by the way, keep the questions coming.

 

[SimonSmith]

Welcome, and not a daft question at all.

We do have to work within the GMG.

In old versions of the law book, the phrase "lineout players" had definitions; in that scenario 3+receiver from throwers and 4+0 from defence would be a free kick.
I can't find those definitions in the current book, but would apply the previous definitions and give the FK

 

[ChrisR]

NikneRef - this is a good question even if it is a USA issue. The rest of the world (doesn't include Davet), including the IRB, have chosen a different interpretation of Law 19.8(i) and its exception.

In the situation you describe my instructions to the non-throwing team, in the USA, would be:

"The throwing team determines numbers in the LO. You may have your receiver join the LO immediately prior to the throw."

The laws don't distinguish between throwing and non-throwing teams in this regard.

 

[OB..]

I can't find those definitions in the current book

p122
[LAWS]Lineout payers are the players who form the two lines that make a lineout.[/LAWS]

 

[NikneRef]

Thanks

 

[jdeagro]

I had a similar question to this not too long ago which I asked on here. The response I received was that the numbers are based on:

[LAWS]Lineout players are the players who form the two lines that make a lineout.[/LAWS]
...And if the receiver of the team throwing in, joins the lineout before the ball is thrown, the receiver of the other team may also join the lineout before the ball is thrown. (If the other team does not have a player in the receiver position, then they're stuck matching numbers based on the number of throwing team's players who initially form the line in the lineout; and are out of luck if the throwing team's receiver joins the lineout before the ball is thrown as well.)

 

[ChrisR]

jdeagro - in the USA, as per the GMG, the receiver can join the lineout before the throw.

It doesn't limit this to the throwers team. Therefore I think that the non-throwing receiver can join even if the thrower's receiver doesn't.

That, of course makes a hash of the lineout count. There is a solution that, if I remember correctly, is in practice down under. That is to allow the receiver to join but to require a lineout player to drop off at the same time. Allows for creative LO play and keeps the numbers the same.

 

[TheBFG]

am i missing something here :chin:

non throwing team dont have to match numbers they just can't have more, simples!

 

[OB..]

jdeagro - in the USA, as per the GMG, the receiver can join the lineout before the throw.

It doesn't limit this to the throwers team. Therefore I think that the non-throwing receiver can join even if the thrower's receiver doesn't.

That, of course makes a hash of the lineout count. There is a solution that, if I remember correctly, is in practice down under. That is to allow the receiver to join but to require a lineout player to drop off at the same time. Allows for creative LO play and keeps the numbers the same.

The receiver may swap places with a player in the lineout before the ball is thrown in.

If the non-throwing receiver simply joins other than in response to his opponent, he is breaking the numbers law. You cannot infer from the failure to specify this that he is allowed to break a specific law.

 

[SimonSmith]

The receiver may swap places with a player in the lineout before the ball is thrown in.

If the non-throwing receiver simply joins other than in response to his opponent, he is breaking the numbers law. You cannot infer from the failure to specify this that he is allowed to break a specific law.

This.
I would give a numbers FK if it happened

 

[didds]

but presumably if red (throwing)put in 7, and blue put in 6 and then their receiver joins the line, blue haven't exceeded numbers so there is no FK?

which is what I belive BFG was hinting at.

didds

 

[DrSTU]

This is exactly how I deal with it. As line out forms get numbers from team throwing in and then say X +1 if they have a receiver. That allows the defending team to match numbers in the physical line out and then have a receiver.

In answer to the question posed originally. No, the defending team can't have 4 versus 3 + 1 but manage it before FK them (also bear in mind that the no huddle directive makes this much easier to do).

Welcome, and not a daft question at all.

We do have to work within the GMG.

In old versions of the law book, the phrase "lineout players" had definitions; in that scenario 3+receiver from throwers and 4+0 from defence would be a free kick.
I can't find those definitions in the current book, but would apply the previous definitions and give the FK

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Had a clear example on Saturday of the confusion that the USA interpretation causes (or rather, the inconsistency I interpretation as I don't wish to cast aspersions on the interpretation itself, only the decision to be inconsistent with the rest of the world). I was refereeing Bahamas v USA South in the Caribbean championship. Approximately a month ago, prior to the Jamaica v USA South game, this issue was raised in the pre match meeting with USA South management, the IRB interpretation clarified and accepted and we moved forward to the match with no problems. USA South had a number of lineouts which involved bringing the receiver into the line, but they were very disciplined about ensuring a player swapped out into the receiver position, a full 2 metres away, before the ball was thrown. Fast forward a month to Saturday's game and the issue was not raised by USA South in the pre match meeting. I chose not to raise it as I had thought the position was clear. First USA lineout of the game, receiver comes in before ball is thrown, is lifted and catches. No clear swap out, so I free kick with following call, "receiver joining late, no swap". Next time ball is dead, USA South captain comes to me, "Sir, I thought we didn't have to have a receiver so the receiver can join late?". Bear in mind, he had been at the pre Jamaica management. So now I'm reduced to having to give the potted explanation in the middle of a televised international where I'm wired for sound so don't really want to say, "as we discussed a month ago, the USA interprets this differently from the rest of the world.". Situation was managed, and they made a clear effort to swap out a player for the rest of the game, but USA Rugby really needs to think about whether this inconsistency in their GMG is beneficial to their representative teams. As I say, I'm not going to argue the merits or demerits of the interpretation itself (old ground), but I cannot believe USA are really helping their players by holding their ground on this one.

 

[viper492]

I had a similar issue posed to the one by the OP in this thread (and please forgive me if it was already answered).

Law 19.8 i and 19.8 k make it clear that the receiver may join the lineout. 19.8 i says that the receiver may simply join and 19.8 k says that the receiver may switch with a player in the lineout.

What is not clear, and what I couldn't understand from this thread so far, was the ruling regarding numbers.
To pose the scenario that occurred:

4 Men in lineout from attacking team with no receiver. Matched by 4 from defending side + receiver. Are the defending team violating the numbers rules? I found the wording of the law around this rather confusing and hence the question. I hope I haven't missed the answer above somewhere :/

 

[didds]

Would referees allow an attacking team to throw without a receiver?

didds

 

[RobLev]

I had a similar issue posed to the one by the OP in this thread (and please forgive me if it was already answered).

Law 19.8 i and 19.8 k make it clear that the receiver may join the lineout. 19.8 i says that the receiver may simply join and 19.8 k says that the receiver may switch with a player in the lineout.

What is not clear, and what I couldn't understand from this thread so far, was the ruling regarding numbers.
To pose the scenario that occurred:

4 Men in lineout from attacking team with no receiver. Matched by 4 from defending side + receiver. Are the defending team violating the numbers rules? I found the wording of the law around this rather confusing and hence the question. I hope I haven't missed the answer above somewhere :/

My understanding is that they haven't. The definition draws a distinction between "lineout players" who are the players who form the line, and "participating players", which includes the receivers and the thrower and his immediate opponent. The limit on numbers in 19.8(e) applies not to participating players, but to lineout players. In your instance, both teams have 4 lineout players.

OTOH, I'm a mere armchair fan...

 

[The umpire]

Would referees allow an attacking team to throw without a receiver?

didds

This referee would.

 

[OB..]

Would referees allow an attacking team to throw without a receiver?

didds

Yes. The law does not require there to be a receiver. Tactically it allows the thrower to run into the receiver position.