Scotland's first try

belladonna

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Thank you Jarrod, you said it for me.
 
belladonna

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
ScotlandsFirstTry.jpg

A still showing the position of blue 7 as the ball is being received by the jumper.

After re-readng law 18, I was left with a question - hasn't blue 7 illegally left the lineout?


  • He must be in the straight line of players unless swapping with another lineout player, which he clearly isn't.
  • He can peel off the lineout if he keeps moving, but he's stopped.
  • And he can't move to the receiver position because it's already occupied.

To my reading, law 18.38 implies that leaving the lineout means leaving the single line of players, otherwise it would be meaningless.

[LAWS]18.10 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.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]18.17a Once the lineout is formed, players from the team throwing in may not leave the lineout other than to change positions with other participating players.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]18.29d Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may 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]

[LAWS]18.38 Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended.[/LAWS]
 
B

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
718
Post Likes
259
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
belladonna said:
View attachment 4268

A still showing the position of blue 7 as the ball is being received by the jumper.

After re-readng law 18, I was left with a question - hasn't blue 7 illegally left the lineout?


  • He must be in the straight line of players unless swapping with another lineout player, which he clearly isn't.
  • He can peel off the lineout if he keeps moving, but he's stopped.
  • And he can't move to the receiver position because it's already occupied.

To my reading, law 18.38 implies that leaving the lineout means leaving the single line of players, otherwise it would be meaningless.

[LAWS]18.10 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.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]18.17a Once the lineout is formed, players from the team throwing in may not leave the lineout other than to change positions with other participating players.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]18.29d Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may 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]

[LAWS]18.38 Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended.[/LAWS]
Click to expand...

Does the line out commence immediately it has formed or when the ball is thrown in?

Anyway 18.38 gets my vote, penalty against blue, no try.
 
Rich_NL

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
He's in a position to receive the ball, though. Does he clearly and obviously stop moving?
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Rich_NL said:
He's in a position to receive the ball, though. Does he clearly and obviously stop moving?
Click to expand...

did he move "so as to be in a position to receive the ball" ?

No, he moved so as to be in a position to charge into the maul
 
belladonna

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I'm wondering how to resolve the seeming contradiction between 18.29d and 18.38...
Would I be right in thinking that 18.29d only applies if there is not already a receiver as per 18.38?

[LAWS]18.29d Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may 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]

[LAWS]18.38 Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended.[/LAWS]
 
Flish

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Isn’t 18.29d to allow the step out, shuffle , step back in moves? Else you’d have to ping every line out with a receiver?
 
A

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I have the same feelings about player leaving the LO to be in a position to get the ball in a Maul. But every single international team does it. So I have no issue with that part of it. Seems disingenuous to allow it if it doesn't lead to a try but to then go back and disallow a try because of it. The LO hasn't met any of the Criteria for it to be over.

I do agree that the pre-latching should've been pinged. But I believe that someone has advised that it's permitted at a line out.
 
Flish

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
For me it’s just good old fashioned obstruction / offside , ball carrier ran forward into his own players, no different to when lifters step in front of the receiver when they lower him and start to set a maul, they are in front of the ball carrier so no dice. Penalty gold
 
D

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,563
Post Likes
425
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Flish said:
For me it’s just good old fashioned obstruction / offside , ball carrier ran forward into his own players, no different to when lifters step in front of the receiver when they lower him and start to set a maul, they are in front of the ball carrier so no dice. Penalty gold
Click to expand...

Referee on the day was very clear that the ball was still at the front at the moment of contact with opposition and was only transferred back after the maul had formed.
 
didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,053
Post Likes
1,785
Its still a flying wedge - aside from the belief apparently amongst the lawmakers that it can only ever happen at a FK/PK apparently - presumably becasue only then is it dangerous for sopme bizarre reason

I appreciate I am in a minority of one here.
 
P

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Didds, I think the reason the FW is regarded as dangerous at a PK/FK is in part because the wedge can get up some momentum before the opposition can try and stop it as they ahve to beack 10m (or less if near the goal line) The situation with a driving maul is almost always a similar layout to a FW, the difference being that they are already engaged with the opposition.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
Pinky said:
Didds, I think the reason the FW is regarded as dangerous at a PK/FK is in part because the wedge can get up some momentum before the opposition can try and stop it as they ahve to beack 10m (or less if near the goal line) The situation with a driving maul is almost always a similar layout to a FW, the difference being that they are already engaged with the opposition.
Click to expand...

They are 10m back at a lineout
 
didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,053
Post Likes
1,785
Pinky said:
Didds, I think the reason the FW is regarded as dangerous at a PK/FK is in part because the wedge can get up some momentum before the opposition can try and stop it as they ahve to beack 10m (or less if near the goal line) The situation with a driving maul is almost always a similar layout to a FW, the difference being that they are already engaged with the opposition.
Click to expand...

Except that isn't the case here. The lawmakers clearly never considered anything than a catch, land and drive on the catcher. Here we have an offload "within the lineout" to an undefended space, wedge in place moving forward. There is no meaningful defence immediately available until the wedge will have started to move, circa 5m out.

sco.jpg


I remain throughly unconvinced by the alleged reasoning (though appreciate your attempt to explain the law maker's thinking, made between the soup and fish course)
 
J

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
didds said:
Its still a flying wedge - aside from the belief apparently amongst the lawmakers that it can only ever happen at a FK/PK apparently - presumably becasue only then is it dangerous for sopme bizarre reason

I appreciate I am in a minority of one here.
Click to expand...

The minority maybe but there's at least two of us
 
B

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,421
Post Likes
468
Based on experience, extensive reading of laws and WR advice and output, (plus this forum) talking to higher level refs and watching numerous replays in slow motion, I thought it illegal on the day and still do. And, unusually, on this occasion I am not open to persuasion otherwise! :)
And I don’t care what anybody else think.:)
I think that makes my position as clear as I can. No splinters in my **** from fence sitting!
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
crossref said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
The law does not say anything about intention. You are choosing to infer it .
.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,810
Post Likes
3,148
OB.. said:
The law does not say anything about intention. You are choosing to infer it .
.
Click to expand...
sigh, ob- another one for you to look up!

The law says a player may "leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball,"

what does that mean?

it means with the intention to.
(and no it's NOT legalese! it's natural english)

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/so+as+to


or - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/so-as
or https://7esl.com/so-as-to
or really, any dictionary of your choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top