Scotland's first try

[OB..]

It would help if it even started with a useful definition of what is meant by the lineout. [...]

[LAWS]Law 18

• Forming a lineout
• A lineout is formed on the mark of touch.
• Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines. The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free-kick.
• A minimum of two players from each team are required to form a lineout.

[/LAWS]

HTH.

 

[Camquin]

A lineout is a set piece consisting of a line of at least two players from each team waiting to receive a throw from touch.

 

[crossref]

A lineout is a set piece consisting of a line of at least two players from each team waiting to receive a throw from touch.

That implies it's over when the ball comes in

 

[Rich_NL]

[LAWS]Law 18

• Forming a lineout
• A lineout is formed on the mark of touch.
• Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines. The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown in. Sanction: Free-kick.
• A minimum of two players from each team are required to form a lineout.

[/LAWS]

HTH.

I'm aware of the lawbook, but thank you anyway However, this is clearly not a definition that stands up to scrutiny with other laws.

A maul is formed at the mark of touch, but has not yet moved. Is the lineout over? We no longer have parallel lines of players from each team. Does the throwing team have to have players on the mark of touch to disallow a QTI? I think not by convention, yet a QTI is disallowed from when a lineout is formed. And yet, and yet... law 18.26: the lineout commences once the ball leaves the hands of the thrower. So how is a QTI ever disallowed if the lineout hasn't commenced?

Is the lineout the groups of players, is it the process of competing for the ball, is it a 1m-wide strip of pitch between 5 and 15m on the line of touch? Is it something else? My thought is that in the minds of the lawmakers it's that thing, you know, we all know what a lineout is, don't we? The tall lads jumping for the ball, and that area, and all the stuff going on that's not 10m away. It's a(nother) wave in the general direction.

 

[Phil E]

The answers to most of your questions are in the definitions.

[LAWS]Lineout: A lineout is a set piece consisting of a line of at least two players from each team waiting to receive a throw from touch.[/LAWS]

 

[Rich_NL]

I already referred to that. So, going from the definition:
The lineout stops once the players stop waiting to receive the ball?
Or as soon as a maul starts to be set up and the players are no longer in a line?
The QTI is not off until the throwing team puts at least two players into the line at the mark of touch?
Or at least has more than one player waiting to receive a QTI, regardless how many opponents are at the mark?

The first question is particularly relevant to the OP, because it defines whether the ball leaving the lineout means leaving the line of players (as in backwards to the receiver, but not straight down to another player in the line) or whether we judge "the ball has been received and played, there's no-one waiting to receive the throw" - which I've also heard argued.

It's not something that keeps me awake at night it's just sloppy writing, but it doesn't make it clearer or easier for the layman to understand or help with unusual situations like this.

 

[Phil E]

You replied to OB that you are aware of the Lawbook, but then keep asking questions that are covered in the Lawbook?

i.e.

[LAWS]ENDING a LINEOUT

37. The lineout ends when :
a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball :
i. leaves the lineout; or
ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
c. The ball becomes unplayable.
38. Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended. Sanction: Penalty.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

I already referred to that. So, going from the definition:
The lineout stops once the players stop waiting to receive the ball?
Or as soon as a maul starts to be set up and the players are no longer in a line?
The QTI is not off until the throwing team puts at least two players into the line at the mark of touch?
Or at least has more than one player waiting to receive a QTI, regardless how many opponents are at the mark?

The first question is particularly relevant to the OP, because it defines whether the ball leaving the lineout means leaving the line of players (as in backwards to the receiver, but not straight down to another player in the line) or whether we judge "the ball has been received and played, there's no-one waiting to receive the throw" - which I've also heard argued.

It's not something that keeps me awake at night it's just sloppy writing, but it doesn't make it clearer or easier for the layman to understand or help with unusual situations like this.

Do you really want the Laws written in legalese?

 

[crossref]

37.a.i - how far does a ball have to travel back for it to have left the lineout ?

is the receiver part of the lineout? if the ball has been passed to the receiver is it still in the lineout?
-

 

[Camquin]

The rugby laws are written by people who expect you have played the game for thirty years, just like them, so you know what they mean.
A good copy edit would do them the world of good. However, the IRB only listen to their graphic designer.

But

18.37 The lineout ends when:

ai: The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
ii: leaves the lineout; or
iii: enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iv: goes beyond the 15-metre line.

b: A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.

c: The ball becomes unplayable.


I think it is clear that Blue seven takes the ball from the jumper, and there are three blue players in front of him and therefore offside. He latches onto them. So I would give penalty to gold. But I am nto an international ref.

 

[Rich_NL]

You replied to OB that you are aware of the Lawbook, but then keep asking questions that are covered in the Lawbook?

OB was replying to me with a quote from the lawbook, in which I spoke of the definition. You replied with the definition. I reply and you quote the lawbook... this is going in circles.

Throwing out more quotes doesn't help in the slightest unless you already know what is meant by a lineout, which we both (roughly, I believe) do. If you can empathise with someone who doesn't and doesn't have access to more experienced advisors, you might see the problem here - we're not all in tier 1 countries with extensive referee societies, and this makes it hard on a lot of people who rely on documentation rather than word of mouth! Furthermore, fuzzy definitions don't help referees adjudicate when there are unusual cases, like this.

If the definition of lineout is unclear, then the ball leaving the lineout is unclear. If the definition of lineout is crystal clear and correct to you, then there's something wrong with the law about the QTI being off, or the way it's refereed.

Do you really want the Laws written in legalese?

Not at all. Is that the only alternative to vague gestures shared among people who already know what they're talking about?

 

[Rich_NL]

I think it is clear that Blue seven takes the ball from the jumper, and there are three blue players in front of him and therefore offside. He latches onto them. So I would give penalty to gold. But I am nto an international ref.

The jumper passes to blue 5, though. Blue 7 puts his hands on the ball in setting up the maul, but the ref on the day decided it was not C&O that he took it off 5 before the maul was formed, so the ball was still at the front.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

The jumper passes to blue 5, though. Blue 7 puts his hands on the ball in setting up the maul, but the ref on the day decided it was not C&O that he took it off 5 before the maul was formed, so the ball was still at the front.

My emphasis.

Except in this case the ball is not at the front but the ball carrier. Other blue players are between the ball and opposition and is preventing a reasonable contest. Its a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind mauls formed in open play as they normally occur following a strong tackle where the ball is in a position to be stolen if not secured by the ball carrier. In set play mauls the opposition has no realistic chance to contest for the ball and I think the interpretation should be that the ball be contestable at the start of a maul, not hidden by the player at the front and two or more team mates who lock it in and prevent a contest.

 

[belladonna]

Perhaps slightly left field (no pun intended) but couldn't the move have been penalised as misconduct under law 9.27? To me it just felt patently unfair.

[Laws]9.27 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.[/laws]

 

[Rich_NL]

Perhaps slightly left field (no pun intended) but couldn't the move have been penalised as misconduct under law 9.27? To me it just felt patently unfair.

[Laws]9.27 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.[/Laws]

No. They're playing the game, trying to score - if there's something they're doing wrong it is a technical offence that you can call under another law.

If they were doing something disrespectful, goading, taking advantage of a loophole that prevents the opponents from competing, maybe. What's unsportsmanlike about trying out an original new move? This would seem to me like the peak of referee power abuse to me... would you also penalise a team's rolling maul that is too effective against the opposition and it feels unfair that a 5m LO means a try?

 

[Rich_NL]

My emphasis.

Except in this case the ball is not at the front but the ball carrier. Other blue players are between the ball and opposition and is preventing a reasonable contest. Its a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind mauls formed in open play as they normally occur following a strong tackle where the ball is in a position to be stolen if not secured by the ball carrier. In set play mauls the opposition has no realistic chance to contest for the ball and I think the interpretation should be that the ball be contestable at the start of a maul, not hidden by the player at the front and two or more team mates who lock it in and prevent a contest.

I see your point, but your pet peeve is perfectly legal as the law stands and it's hard to see how you could make a consistently enforceable law against it.

 

[didds]

I'll confess then... I still dont see why this isnt a flying wedge - except for some bizarre law nuance that suggests its only a FW when its stems from a FK/PK.

Smacks of the typical 12 year old thinking process to me, whereby in the 13 seconds this FW law was discussed nobody considered it could be created in open play .

whatever.

 

[Phil E]

I'll confess then... I still dont see why this isnt a flying wedge - except for some bizarre law nuance that suggests its only a FW when its stems from a FK/PK.

Smacks of the typical 12 year old thinking process to me, whereby in the 13 seconds this FW law was discussed nobody considered it could be created in open play .

whatever.

It's a consequence of the GLT's that's crying out for a clarification!

 

[Jarrod Burton]

No. They're playing the game, trying to score - if there's something they're doing wrong it is a technical offence that you can call under another law.

If they were doing something disrespectful, goading, taking advantage of a loophole that prevents the opponents from competing, maybe. What's unsportsmanlike about trying out an original new move? This would seem to me like the peak of referee power abuse to me... would you also penalise a team's rolling maul that is too effective against the opposition and it feels unfair that a 5m LO means a try?

My emphasis - in this case they are exploiting a loophole which prevents the opposition from having a realistic chance at competing. Turning their back to the defence then having a team mate latch either side and the bloke at the back grab the ball obstructs any reasonable chance that a defender has at getting to the ball and competing for it. Just like a forward grabbing the back of the shirt of a teammate on pick and drive before the two slamming into the defence and the guy behind is over and off their feet or if on their feet have effectively prevented the oppo from jackling, its poorly enforced at high levels and sneaks into the weeds.

 

[Jz558]

I'll confess then... I still dont see why this isnt a flying wedge - except for some bizarre law nuance that suggests its only a FW when its stems from a FK/PK.

Smacks of the typical 12 year old thinking process to me, whereby in the 13 seconds this FW law was discussed nobody considered it could be created in open play .

It's a consequence of the GLT's that's crying out for a clarification!

whatever.

Absolutely this and this. Until there is one I would not allow a try like the one in the OP to stand