[INTERNATIONAL] Scotland vs SA - LO try

[UpandUnder]

So the receiver is a participant in the lineout but not a player in the lineout, therefore under law 18.28 he is not entitled to enter the lineout and the try is question should have been disallowed?

Simplified law book my ass!

 

[crossref]

If you are enjoying the new Law Book , check the sanction for preventing the ball going 5m at the lineout

 

[Camquin]

Of those who do not believe the receiver can join the line, when can they join a maul.
Can they do so immediately, or onlly when it has moved off the line of touch?

 

[DocY]

I immediately reached for my lawbook when I saw this try and came to the conclusion that the 2018 book is sufficiently vague about lineout players, participating players and players in the lineout (as described above) that - with this being a planned move - the Scots must have sought clarity before using it.

 

[didds]

Well, I don't think it is legal.

Reflecting , the Law Book has one Law that covers this and it's really specific

[LAWS]18.16 If a team elects to have a receiver, the receiver stands between the five-metre and the 15-metre lines, two metres away from their team-mates in the lineout. Each team may have only one receiver. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]

He has to stay 2m back.

That's it really.

So the questions we have then are...

* While the ball is in the thrower's hands is he less than, greater than or at 2m?
* does his distance from the lineout change meaningfully by the time the ball leaves the thrower's hands.

I have no way of telling what distance he is actually standing (2.134m? 1.9765m? 2.000000 m ?) but I would suggest his position has not substantially changed by the time the ball leaves the thrower's hands. He hasn't for example halved that gap when the ball is thrown. Much of his movement seems to have been dropping his shoulders and lifting one foot whilst leaning forward.

And its no where near C&O that he has thus broken a law.

If you are going to ping him for not being 2.0000000n away, then there are a lot of pings coming in every match...

didds

So he either needs pinging for not being exact6ly 2m to start with, or its a try.

 

[crossref]

I immediately reached for my lawbook when I saw this try and came to the conclusion that the 2018 book is sufficiently vague about lineout players, participating players and players in the lineout (as described above) that - with this being a planned move - the Scots must have sought clarity before using it.

Quite possibly. But from who ? From WR or from the ref?

I am really looking forward to the 2019 law book, to see whether they will make any changes to sort some of these things out.
I hope they will. I fear they won't.

When the 2019 book comes out, it's going to be significantly harder to justify referring back to the 2017.

 

[didds]

I am really looking forward to the 2019 law book, to see whether they will make any changes to sort some of these things out.
I hope they will. I fear they won't.

I've absolutely no faith that they will.

This week I've seen the IRB and NGBs described as being unworthy of organising a village fete. Here's one area that rather underlines that accusation.

When the 2019 book comes out, it's going to be significantly harder to justify referring back to the 2017.

absolutely.

We'll be back to the situation we were all in before the "simplification". Mass confusion.


didds

 

[Dickie E]

Mass confusion.

At least we still have "ref is sole judge of ...." or is that gone too?

 

[UpandUnder]

So he either needs pinging for not being exact6ly 2m to start with, or its a try.

If he's not considered a player in the lineout he can't join the lineout or compete for possesion of the ball once the lineout has commenced. I think this is a more important point to cinsider than him being 2m back

 

[didds]

If he's not considered a player in the lineout he can't join the lineout or compete for possesion of the ball once the lineout has commenced. I think this is a more important point to cinsider than him being 2m back

IF he is not to be considered able to participate in the lineout at all, and "nothing has changed" then this law has been ignored for many, many years.

The receiver stepping in to be lifted has been a standard, if not overly common, practise for "ever" now.

didds

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I am not sure if this helps or not but I had a referee coach once tell me that although the laws mention "when the ball leaves his hands", there is a fine-line division between that event and the ball actually "being thrown" which is a phrase mentioned in other clauses. I know this sounds like the splitting of the most finest of hairs, but I was told that a "throw" occurs as soon as the throwers hands move forward and so , just before the "ball leaving his hands". To be honest, I think this distinction, whilst being interesting, is unlikely to be useful to judge all the offside and player-moving in the LO. Good luck if you can detect the difference

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So the receiver is a participant in the lineout but not a player in the lineout, therefore under law 18.28 he is not entitled to enter the lineout and the try is question should have been disallowed?

Simplified law book my ass!

Which is why the WR mantra:

There are no changes in law. Is the one to follow Read 2018 in the context of 2017. If you try to read it as a completely new document. The pitfalls are everywhere.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So the receiver is a participant in the lineout but not a player in the lineout, therefore under law 18.28 he is not entitled to enter the lineout and the try is question should have been disallowed?

Simplified law book my ass!

Which is why the WR mantra:

There are no changes in law. Is the one to follow Read 2018 in the context of 2017. If you try to read it as a completely new document. The pitfalls are everywhere.

 

[Camquin]

And when do we get a stand alone law book, or are we doomed to refer to magazine articles from 1947 for ever.

 

[crossref]

And when do we get a stand alone law book, or are we doomed to refer to magazine articles from 1947 for ever.

2019 !

 

[Taff]

Further freeze framing shows he does begin his run before the ball has left the throwers hands. So - is that illegal?

As long as he stays at least 2m from the LO until the ball is thrown, I can't see the problem.

He looks more than 2m away from the LO to me, so play on.

 

[crossref]

Re reading the thread, and the Laws, I think

The Laws are ambiguous "players in the lineout" is sloppy language and could equally well mean Line Out players or Participating Players. There are examples of both

So where the 2018 Law Book is ambiguous it obviously makes sense to choose the interpretation that is aligned to the previous Law Book.

So the receiver can join the line after the ball is thrown

 

[Phil E]

Re reading the thread, and the Laws, I think

The Laws are ambiguous "players in the lineout" is sloppy language and could equally well mean Line Out players or Participating Players. There are examples of both

So where the 2018 Law Book is ambiguous it obviously makes sense to choose the interpretation that is aligned to the previous Law Book.

So the receiver can join the line after the ball is thrown

I agree with this.
Plus an international referee, two international AR's and a TMO all think it was legal.
Unless WR come out and say it was wrong to allow it I think we have our answer. Don't think I will be seeing it at Old Bogdonians and day soon though.

 

[UpandUnder]

IF he is not to be considered able to participate in the lineout at all, and "nothing has changed" then this law has been ignored for many, many years.

The receiver stepping in to be lifted has been a standard, if not overly common, practise for "ever" now.

didds

Yeah for sure, it's only the rewriting of the laws that allow to be doubted at all.

 

[chbg]

IF he is not to be considered able to participate in the lineout at all, and "nothing has changed" then this law has been ignored for many, many years.

The receiver stepping in to be lifted has been a standard, if not overly common, practise for "ever" now.

didds

Spot on, particularly in 7s.