Referee marking the lineout

[OB..]

The PMB thread nearly got side-tracked into this, and I would like to clarify the various techniques. Basically there are three:
1. Make a mark for both non-throwing and throwing teams
2. Mark the line of touch and set a gap
3. Make a mark for the non-throwing side only.

(In all cases the referee will not necessarily make the mark every time, provided teams set up properly.)

The law says:[LAWS]19.8 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Metre gap. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.[/FONT][/LAWS]

"Metre" is subjective, of course, and there are precedents for not taking the laws literally anyway, but would anyone allow a team to line up a good 1.5 metres from the line of touch?

1. Leaves no doubt, but possibly looks overly didactic and fussy, particularly if it has to be repeated.
2. Enables the referee to set the gap he requires at the first lineout. Thereafter players can take their cue from the line of touch as indicated by the TJ.
3. Allows the throwing team to set a slightly larger gap.

Although 3 seems to be quite common, I don't really see the point. In practice at my levels (6 and below) I don't see teams taking a larger gap, and wonder what the benefit might be. The ball still has to be thrown along the line of touch (19.6).

 

[crossref]

2 is the worst option, it means you have two distances to judge (are red 50cm back, are blue 50cm back) and three different opinions, and may require both teams to move

1 and 3 are fine but 3 is quicker and IMO just works better

 

[OB..]

2 is the worst option, it means you have two distances to judge (are red 50cm back, are blue 50cm back) and three different opinions, and may require both teams to move

I find that view odd (it is also the first time I have heard that justification for 3). 2 is commonplace and it works well. It is easy to set initially: the referee stands on the line of touch and puts out his arms to indicate where he expects the props to stand. If the referee is not marking it, teams have little problem and the referee can easily check if he wishes.

(3 also requires two teams to judge the distance unless the referee is marking it.)

Perhaps we should be asking props rather than referees?

 

[crossref]

It's not a big deal. If there was a directive to use one particular method I wouldn't complain

 

[chbg]

1. How I started out refereeing, and still revert to for younger age groups (c U15) and less experienced teams, as it provides clearer direction and assistance. Requires you to stay at front of line-out until both props have moved into position.
2. I don't use - you need to look at both lines to see who is closing. Tempts referees to stay in the head-on or tail-end 'zipper' positions. Danger of lines moving away from centre, as one team slightly widens the gap, and the other then closes it.
3. My preferred option - non-throwing team 99.9% of time there before throwing-in team; I line up on TJ (if happy with position) / AR on 5m line; step half pace to non-throwing side, mark on 5m line, behind which I expect them to stand; when front man has arrived I can then focus on other areas (e.g. 3Q 10m back, non-throwing hooker in tram-lines). Not really fussed if attacking line is 70-130cm away, but tell them in PMB "not to take the p***". Also finds that it focuses my mental picture on the team at which end is throwing-in.

If the props were angels we would not have to make any mark. Not yet seen an Gloucester Old Spot flying.

I have always been taught that the referee should be first 'participant' to the line of touch. Therefore always in place to mark the 5m line once the QTI option is over.

 

[Phil E]

Who is most likely to close the gap?
The defending side. So give them a mark and make them stay on it.
If the attackers want to close the gap on their own throw in, then more fool them. They can have nothing to complain about.

 

[OB..]

2. I don't use - you need to look at both lines to see who is closing. Tempts referees to stay in the head-on or tail-end 'zipper' positions. Danger of lines moving away from centre, as one team slightly widens the gap, and the other then closes it.

Interesting. That is not my experience at all. After the first few lineouts, the props just set up properly with little need for intervention. Whichever method is used. 2 certainly does not tie the referee any more that the other methods.

My observation is that it is a matter or personal taste, and the players don't really care.

 

[crossref]

2 leads to a situation where the throwing team are not happy with the gap, and want /need the non throwing team to move. The ref has to intervene
With 3 they just move themselves

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not a big fan of requiring refs and ARs do all the thinking for the players. One of the pities of the modern game is that backs complain if the AR isn't marking 5 metres for them at scrums because he's busy doing something else. FFS - if the AR can judge 5 metres so can a #10!

If your TJ can't stand on the LoT for a short time with his flag in the air - get another TJ. And that should be enough for a dozen mildly intelligent people to form two straightish lines with a metre in between.

But make sure they don't push each other cos that's a penalty offence ... saw it on telly

 

[crossref]

.. Msf..

 

[damo]

I have always done 2. So far as I am aware that is pretty universal around these parts. The only time anyone ever suggested anything different was a visiting English school team I refereed who asked me what the mark at the lineout meant.

I've never had any particular issues with players not knowing how far back to stand from the mark or closing before the ball goes in - nothing that a FK doesn't stop anyway.

 

[crossref]

Obviously there is no consensus (but we knew that anyway, that's why all three methods are observed)
Obviously it's not very important anyway, as all three methods work (but we knew that already as all three methods are observed)
But I am struck with how some people say they have tried different methods and stick with the one that seems to work beat for them, and others who say they have always used one method which works just fine thanks.

As someone said above I guess it would be mildly interesting to ask some props.

 

[OB..]

2 leads to a situation where the throwing team are not happy with the gap, and want /need the non throwing team to move. The ref has to intervene
With 3 they just move themselves

I simply do not see that happening. When the referee does not make a mark, they set the gap themselves, whichever method the referee used initially..

I'm not a big fan of requiring refs and ARs do all the thinking for the players.

Exactly. They more or less expect the referee to make clear at the first lineout what he wants, and thereafter are quite happy to manage it sensibly themselves, knowing the referee will intervene if they mess about.

I have occasionally discussed the question with referees after the match, but only once felt I had to suggest a change. A novice referee was obsessively marking every lineout. It seemed to be a sort of comfort blanket, an area where he was in complete control, which he did not feel in open play.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I moved to option 3 a couple of years ago. works well at my level.

 

[crossref]

anyone else changed from one method to another ? (I also changed from 2 to 3)

 

[OB..]

I moved to option 3 a couple of years ago. works well at my level.

What caused you to change?

 

[Pinky]

First lineout, I stand on the 5m line and make sure the props are far enough apart and know they are to keep the gap and keep their teams in line. That seems to work out fine. Only issue may be to ask the hooker to hold on if I then want to get round the back (which is very unusual for the first lo)

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I switched from#2 to#3 a couple of season's ago. I feel it works fine at my level. Throwing side only have them selves to blame if the gap is too narrow (but complies in law. I will also bring them in if they take the piss.

At PMB I will tell them (throwing in side) to set gap they want (within reason) and it usually works.