Scotland's first try

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coOLycTzgxI

Game time 22:00 (youtube time 2:24)

I know rugby is a game of inches but the pass back to Blue 7 from Blue 5 (after the lineout) happens before Gold have created a maul so gotta be obstruction.

Change my mind.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
... or at least pre-latching...
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coOLycTzgxI

Game time 22:00 (youtube time 2:24)

I know rugby is a game of inches but the pass back to Blue 7 from Blue 5 (after the lineout) happens before Gold have created a maul so gotta be obstruction.

Change my mind.

Stan have already had it taken down. Typical Nine/Fairfax.

But based on the games I've watched recently, there is no such thing as an early pass back in the pro leagues. Lineout mauls are not contests anymore.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
On reflection i think officials concluded both 5 & 7 had hands on ball until maul formef
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Who needs friends when you can persuade yourself!
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
Under the trial laws I cannot see how it can be anything but latching. I was surprised that in all the discussions between the officials it was not considered. They just seemed to regard it as a lineout maul which it could not be because the ball had been passed. Confusion reigns yet again because of a tv decision.

Similarly, at 8mins I believe, there was a short throw in the lineout and the ball never travelled 5M, (Law 18.6) yet play continued. The player was perhaps just inside the 5M line but the ball wasn’t. Apart from at community level this seems to be a redundant law or at least needs rewording to mean that the player only needs to be inside the 5M line.
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,844
Post Likes
361
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
As soon as I saw it I thought pre-latching, clear as day.
Couldn't believe it was allowed.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Just seen it on youtube, about the minute mark on the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpF70DzO-IU

Im always a bit sceptical about FW discussions cos "I've never seen one". Well, I think I have now - becasue if that isnt what a FW is then I cant even start to think what else it could be!

didds
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
TBF I was dubious too (Scotsman here). I think that they said the ball was passed back to 7 after the contact. But there definitely seemed to be 2 players latched way before the contact. I'd have disallowed the try for that.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
TBF I was dubious too (Scotsman here). I think that they said the ball was passed back to 7 after the contact. But there definitely seemed to be 2 players latched way before the contact. I'd have disallowed the try for that.

plus 7 had left the lineout early (he didn't receive the ball from the jumper)


It was a very clever move I think. It's always good to see something novel dreamed up on the training pitch.

but I think illegal.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
plus 7 had left the lineout early (he didn't receive the ball from the jumper)

He doesn't have to receive the ball, just be in a position to do so.

[LAWS]Law18.29
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.[/LAWS]
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
He doesn't have to receive the ball, just be in a position to do so.

[LAWS]Law18.29
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.[/LAWS]

do you think he was legal, then ?
given that that the whole point of the move is that he was NOT going to receive the ball, he's there to bind on to the player who does receive it?

And if he is legal, how can we aver penalise anyone who leaves the line out and stand back 2m ? they are all in a position where they could in theory receive the ball
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
do you think he was legal, then ?
given that that the whole point of the move is that he was NOT going to receive the ball, he's there to bind on to the player who does receive it?

And if he is legal, how can we aver penalise anyone who leaves the line out and stand back 2m ? they are all in a position where they could in theory receive the ball

I am merely correcting your assertion that if he peels off he must receive the ball. That is incorrect in law.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I am merely correcting your assertion that if he peels off he must receive the ball. That is incorrect in law.

yes, so I was interested in your view
- is he legal ?
- is any player in the lineout allowed to step back 2m from the lineout and stand there?

My interpretation of the law is that the player has to have some somewhat realistic intention/possibility of receiving the ball (you are correct, he doesn't need to actually get it) but he's not allowed to leave the line out and stand behind the catcher, just so that he can arrive at speed into the ensuing maul.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
My interpretation of the law is that the player has to have some somewhat realistic intention/possibility of receiving the ball (you are correct, he doesn't need to actually get it) but he's not allowed to leave the line out and stand behind the catcher, just so that he can arrive at speed into the ensuing maul.

Show me the law that says he can't and I will believe you.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
he's not allowed to leave the line out and stand behind the catcher, just so that he can arrive at speed into the ensuing maul.


while Im not disagreeing particularly with CR's view here, we should also understand that whether its correct or not this has been the reality of lineouts for decades...

eg standing at #1, back to the thrower, my #2 would twitch his foot as the hooker began his throwing motion, so i could move to a "ripper" position on a middle ball throw to bind onto tyhat jumper/catcher and start to take posession. I had trhus always left the lineout early to arrive at pace on the catcher to create the intial drive then rip.
If the call was an off the top ball, Id still leave early but take a deeper arc to not get in the way of the ball to the receiver BUT be available if something occurred that compromised that plan. So I wasnt ever intending to be a receiver anyway ...

Again - Im not saying CR is wrong - its just that that law has been universally broken for decades and permitted to be done so....

didds
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Show me the law that says he can't and I will believe you.

[LAWS]Law18.29
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.[/LAWS]

well, it's matter of interpetation, that's why I asked your view?

and here's anohther
IRB (sic) clarification from September 2014

[LAWS]IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

• if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, PK to attacking team;

[/LAWS]

If players are allowed to step back 2m from the lineout (where they would certainly be in a position to receive the ball, if it was thrown to them), then what's the PK for ?


(didds- your scenario is covered by 18.18 Participating players may change places in the lineout before the ball is thrown.)
 
Last edited:

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
[LAWS]
If players are allowed to step back 2m from the lineout (where they would certainly be in a position to receive the ball, if it was thrown to them), then what's the PK for ?

You're not in a position to receive the ball if the other team has it. That PK is for defenders leaving the lineout, who are not allowed to peel unless they steal the lineout ball.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
You're not in a position to receive the ball if the other team has it. That PK is for defenders leaving the lineout, who are not allowed to peel unless they steal the lineout ball.

well I agree, because that's exactly what I am saying: to be legal you have to have a realistic intention / plan / opportunity of receiving the ball.

You must be leaving the line out SO AS to [..] receive the ball. (not to catch the oppo into an offence, or to push better at the maul)



So IMO #7 in the example wasn't legal as he had no intention or possibility of receiving the ball .

You are reluctant to say whether you think #7 was legal or not? whaddya think ?
 
Last edited:
Top