Receiver position at LO.

[ChrisR]

Decorily: "In which case I would ask you which law?"

Start with Definitions between sections 19.7 & 19.8 of Lineout law:

Players taking part in the lineout known as participating players. Players taking part in the lineout are the player who throws-in and an immediate
opponent , the two players waiting to receive the ball from the lineout and the lineout players.


All other players. All other players who are not taking part in the lineout must be at least 10 metres behind the line of touch , on or behind their goal line if that is
nearer , until the lineout ends.

Now you have the context for the applicable law:

19.15 Offside when not taking part in a lineout.
(a) A player who is not taking part in the lineout is offside if that player oversteps the offside line before the lineout has ended.

Law 19.9(b) will define when a lineout ends.

 

[Decorily]

Lineout is not over when player moves forward .
In that case he is offside. If he starts behind the 10m offside line, how is the referee to know he is the Receiver and not just one of the "other players"?
If he starts behind the 10m offside line, he is not a Receiver.


Which law is he breaching?
19.8(i)

What is the position of a receiver?
DEFINITIONS paragraph 3 and 19.8(i)

But I know why you asked those questions so I know you have already checked the Law references.
The Laws state that the Receiver must stand a minimum of 2m back from his team mates in the lineout and "is the player in position to catch the ball when lineout players pass or knock the ball back from the lineout".
Being 10m back is not in a position to catch a ball that is passed or knocked by a jumper.

So I refer back to my question about a 5m lineout. Is it not reasonable for a receiver to stand on the goal line, in line with non participating players, given that this places him only 4m approx from the line of players forming the lineout.
Based on the preceding argument he would be offside and penalisable if he took a step forward to receive the ball. (Before the LO is over)

 

[The Fat]

So which player is your receiver and how is the referee to determine which player can step forward without sanction.

 

[Decorily]

So which player is your receiver and how is the referee to determine which player can step forward without sanction.

"Sir....I'm receiver" and stands in line with non participants.

Now can he come forward?

 

[ChrisR]

And the extension of this logic is to apply that to where a player starts beyond 10m from line-of-touch after declaring himself as the 'receiver'. And now he is clearly violating law.

I would suggest that for those lineouts within 10m of goal the declared receiver must be in the field-of-play otherwise he is not 'participating in the lineout' and can't be a receiver.

 

[The Fat]

"Sir....I'm receiver" and stands in line with non participants.

Now can he come forward?

Is he in a position to catch a ball that is passed or knocked from the lineout?
What is the advantage of having him start behind the goal line and then move forward just before the ball leaves the lineout and likewise, what is the advantage/tactics of the "receiver" in the OP of standing 10m back and moving forward just before the ball leaves the lineout. In both instances he is basically saying to the referee, "With all of the other things you are having to look at during the lineout, I'm going to make life just a little harder for you by using a strange tactic".
I know how most referees react to players they think are being smart arses.

This is a "going nowhere thread". Some will argue the receiver needs to be clearly identifiable by the referee whilst you are going to argue that because the Laws don't specifically nominate a maximum distance the receiver can stand from the lineout that technically, he could stand 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20m back.

 

[Decorily]

Is he in a position to catch a ball that is passed or knocked from the lineout?

My response.....Yes..

What is the advantage of having him start behind the goal line and then move forward just before the ball leaves the lineout and likewise, what is the advantage/tactics of the "receiver" in the OP of standing 10m back and moving forward just before the ball leaves the lineout. In both instances he is basically saying to the referee, "With all of the other things you are having to look at during the lineout, I'm going to make life just a little harder for you by using a strange tactic".

My response.......Probably no advantage whatsoever.
In the original scenario I think it was a genuine mix up. Reduced numbers in LO and the 'receiver ' only realised at the last moment that he wasn't where he was supposed to be.
This was part of my reasoning for calling play on. He had in fact put himself under undue pressure by moving late to a position which he was entitled to be in in the first place.

I know how most referees react to players they think are being smart arses.

My response. .....Idon't like smart arses myself!

Some will argue the receiver needs to be clearly identifiable by the referee whilst you are going to argue that because the Laws don't specifically nominate a maximum distance the receiver can stand from the lineout that technically, he could stand 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20m back.

.....

 

[Balones]

So I refer back to my question about a 5m lineout. Is it not reasonable for a receiver to stand on the goal line, in line with non participating players, given that this places him only 4m approx from the line of players forming the lineout.
Based on the preceding argument he would be offside and penalisable if he took a step forward to receive the ball. (Before the LO is over)

If he stepped forward before the lineout was over then yes he is offside and can be penalised. But he would not be offside if the jumper palmed, knocked the ball towards the receiver, or even passed the ball towards the try line because the lineout is then over.In such circumstances ANY player could come forward to get the ball because the lineout is over. The 10M distance makes it impossible for this to be allowed unless 'from the top' means that the ball is knocked or passed very forcibly towards the 10M line and the players behind the 10M line have time to get to the ball. So back to the original post. Where exactly did the receiver receive the ball? If it was merely tapped down from the top then it would have been impossible for the receiver to have got there in time. Even for Mr Bolt. And probably definitely impossible for him because he isn't the fastest out of the blocks at the best of times.

 

[Balones]

Had a game recently where at a LO the throwing in side had no apparent receiver ie no player standing in usual position. After the ball was won in the air a player who was standing in the back line between the 5m and 15m lines ran forward and took the ball off the top. It was immediately questioned by oppo calling for off side. I called play on.

Was I correct?

What do you mean by "won in the air"? Caught? If the lineout player is still in possession when the non-participant runs forward then he is offside.

 

[didds]

My 2p (and FTR I agree wholeheartedly with OB and Balones).

if there is no receiver when the ball leaves the throwers hands then there is unequivocally no receiver. Anybody running in before the ball has left the lineout whatever the alignment of the backline is offside.

I can't think of a genuine tactical reason to leave a receiver out on your own throw. So that leaves cock-ups of a huge magnitude.
See OB's post.

didds

 

[OB..]

So let's look at a 5m LO. The OS line is now only 5m. Is it reasonable to allow the receiver to stand in line with the non participating players?

No. As I said before, you are trying to treat the laws like Statute law, which is the wrong approach. You have to be pragmatic (which is why we allow scrum halves to pick the ball out of a ruck).
To be a receiver the player must clearly be the only player in front of the non-participating players (and 2m from the lineout).

The 2m law was brought in to make it clear who the receiver is. Before that the referee often had to ask "Are you in the line or not?" in order to check on numbers.

 

[Decorily]

No. As I said before, you are trying to treat the laws like Statute law, which is the wrong approach. You have to be pragmatic (which is why we allow scrum halves to pick the ball out of a ruck).

My response........100% agree. If I knew how I would reference where I have argued this exact point elsewhere in these forums.


To be a receiver the player must clearly be the only player in front of the non-participating players (and 2m from the lineout).


My response....."Clearly" in front in your opinion and actually the law clearly states clearly '2m minimum ' from lineout as such.

The 2m law was brought in to make it clear who the receiver is. Before that the referee often had to ask "Are you in the line or not?" in order to check on numbers.

My response.....Indeed I myself often point to a player not, in my opinion, an obvious 10m back and ask "In or out ".

 

[Decorily]

Sorry all, but my replies are appearing in a different format when I submit them , than they appear as I write them.

 

[tim White]

In an unusual situation if you want the territorial advantages of being the receiver does it not make sense to ensure the ref knows who the receiver is? Using unusual tactics may confuse the opposition but may also confuse the ref, you cannot be surprised if you get pinged. This is a reminder to all coaches that if you have a 'special tactic' it is a good idea to run it past the ref before the game to see if they agree with the legality.

 

[Pegleg]

My answer to that would be: "I'll see what it looks like on the field". I'm not going down the road of agreeing to a play which when it actually unfold gives a different impression to the words.

Eg

Coach
"Ref we are going to look to protect our ruck ball"

Ref
"That's fine by me"

Ref pings team for sealing off.

Post game

Coach
" WTF ref you "agreed" we could protect our ball".

No need to go there.

A berrer approach

Coach
"Ref we are going to look to protect our ruck ball"

Ref
"As long as it's legal!"

 

[Pegleg]

So I refer back to my question about a 5m lineout. Is it not reasonable for a receiver to stand on the goal line, in line with non participating players, given that this places him only 4m approx from the line of players forming the lineout.
Based on the preceding argument he would be offside and penalisable if he took a step forward to receive the ball. (Before the LO is over)

In such a case I'm not going to have a problem with the reciver standing 5 back. as long as only one person comes forward. I think that close to the line you have you use a bit of common sense.

 

[OB..]

Sorry all, but my replies are appearing in a different format when I submit them , than they appear as I write them.

Do you use "Preview post"?

It looks as if you are simply embedding your responses into the quote, whereas you need to split the quote into parts. Put */QUOTE* at the end of the first bit, enter you response, then re-open the quote with *QUOTE* where the asterisks are opening and closing square brackets [].

 

[Decorily]

Do you use "Preview post"?

It looks as if you are simply embedding your responses into the quote, whereas you need to split the quote into parts. Put */QUOTE* at the end of the first bit, enter you response, then re-open the quote with *QUOTE* where the asterisks are opening and closing square brackets [].

Thanks.... will try!

 

[ChrisR]

As Decorily noted, the situation in the OP sounds like it was a product of confusion rather than a planned tactic.

However, the lineout, as currently defined by law, allows for substantial degrees of variability including not having a designated receiver. Lineouts in 7s is a good example as the thrower runs into a position to take the ball from the catcher. This tactic can also be used in 15s for the same reason: having the extra player in the backline. Does it work? Yes for 7s, questionable for 15s.

I raise this point because we occasionally hear a referee say "It didn't look right so I blew it up". For that reason I'll always pass any unusual planned tactic by the referee pre-match.

 

[SimonSmith]

Ask yourself this: if a defending player did it, would your first instinct be to blow it or allow it?

I agree with OB et al, both in conclusion and reasoning.