Should a normal Lineout be permitted, when it's short of the LoT?

[VM75]

https://youtu.be/fYKSMK7o4M8?t=1741

In this Clip, NZAB hooker sets his throwing position some 2 - 2.5m short of the LoT, despite the AR clearly marking it otherwise.

Was it necessary for JP to use time to reposition the LO, surely if the thrower doesn't want to stand on the LoT but instead chooses to stand nearer his own Goal line then that's his choice? The BIL seem to have taken their positioning off of the thrower, so [IIC] it's not as if they've tried to steal territory.

I was thinking at the time, just get on with it referee - why waste time.

[I haven't searched for the other instances, but i seem to recall that this repositioning was repeated throughout the game]

thoughts ?

 

[didds]

Its certainly rather odd!

It's almost as if he hadn't really thought about it - he takes the ball off the ball boy and sets at that place there I think. Both BIL and the ABs set on him then

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Only issue would be where the LOT was outside the 22 so by such a tactic it would allow the players to "claim "not taken back in". As long as the ref is wise to it and does not get conned ("LOT is OUTSIDE the 22 guys no gain of ground if direct!") why make them use the full allowance of territory?

 

[ChuckieB]

The LOT is a reference point for offside lines, etc. Just like any other mark the referee would presumably ensure it is observed and bring it to where he needs to be. He would have no qualms for a penalty taken from the wrong place?

 

[Pegleg]

You can take a PK from behind the mark. If fact they often are. For example improving the angle at a kick at goal. If a team wants to lose a few yards, who is suffering? Not the other side so why make an issue

 

[ChrisR]

I would expect the AR to move the thrower to the LOT. The LO players are going to line up on the AR so if the thrower fudges it to his own side then the throw goes straight down his own team so this isn't about giving up a couple of yards of territory.

I think the AR should give him a good poke with his flag. Then we'd have a something to chat about on RR.

 

[didds]

I would expect the AR to move the thrower to the LOT. The LO players are going to line up on the AR.

I'd expect that too, but its clear both sides in the clip lined up on the thrower, who stood where the ball boy gave him the ball.

didds

 

[Camquin]

In the weeds, with a TJ who i a sub or a parent - I make a mark or three and expect the players to line up on them.

But if I was dealing with an injury and came across to find a perfectly formed line out waiting in roughly the right place - I would probably be happy just to get the game going rather than fussing about moving it to my random guess of where the mark actually was.

 

[Rich_NL]

You can take a PK from behind the mark. If fact they often are. For example improving the angle at a kick at goal. If a team wants to lose a few yards, who is suffering? Not the other side so why make an issue

It's a player's right in law to take the PK from behind the mark, if they judge that favourable. It's explicitly not their right to throw in behind the line of touch in the case of a non-QTI throw in -

19.3 http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19.3 "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]On all other occasions [besides QTI], the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.[/FONT]"
19.6 http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19.6 "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. [/FONT]"

So it's not their privilege to judge something to be in their favour (and therefore disfavourable to the other team) for whatever reason, and thereby take advantage of that.

 

[crossref]

In the weeds, with a TJ who i a sub or a parent - I make a mark or three and expect the players to line up on them.

But if I was dealing with an injury and came across to find a perfectly formed line out waiting in roughly the right place - I would probably be happy just to get the game going rather than fussing about moving it to my random guess of where the mark actually was.

Yes. This. If both teams are lined up and happy.. jouez

 

[didds]

Yes. This. If both teams are lined up and happy.. jouez

which was of course the case in the AB v BIL example...

didds

 

[Pegleg]

It's a player's right in law to take the PK from behind the mark, if they judge that favourable. It's explicitly not their right to throw in behind the line of touch in the case of a non-QTI throw in -

19.3 http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19.3 "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]On all other occasions [besides QTI], the throw-in is taken where the ball went into touch.[/FONT]"
19.6 http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19.6 "[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. [/FONT]"

So it's not their privilege to judge something to be in their favour (and therefore disfavourable to the other team) for whatever reason, and thereby take advantage of that.

I'm not saying they should gain. I was answering a specific point. I actualy said if they were "happy" to lose ground I'm not going t obe too worried. However, IF the LOT was outside the 22 I will judge that they have taken the ball back in and not allow gain of ground. So they will not benefit from it! Please read what I posted in context (see posts 2 / 4 & 5).

 

[Rich_NL]

I'm not sure why you think I've misunderstood you. I'm saying it's explicitly not their right to decide to lose ground for whatever reason.

 

[crossref]

clearly when the LoT is very close to the 22m, that's a scenario where the you have to be careful -- both teams would be willing to concede a metre or two of ground in order to pull have the line out on their side of the 22m... especially on a defending team's throw in.

but we are all used to that scenario - I am sure I am not the only ref who makes sure to make it completely clear to the players whether the LoT is outside or inside the 22m -- indeed if the TJ marks the 22m exactly (as, infuriatingly, they often do) I will routinely move the LoT myself, so that one team stands on the 22m line, and the other is a metre from the 22m, leaving the gap. Then there is a no confusion.

 

[ChrisR]

"I will routinely move the LoT myself" . . . . . and by what criteria do you decide the direction?

 

[ChrisR]

duplicate

 

[Rich_NL]

but we are all used to that scenario - I am sure I am not the only ref who makes sure to make it completely clear to the players whether the LoT is outside or inside the 22m -- indeed if the TJ marks the 22m exactly (as, infuriatingly, they often do) I will routinely move the LoT myself, so that one team stands on the 22m line, and the other is a metre from the 22m, leaving the gap. Then there is a no confusion.

On the 22 line is in the 22, surely?

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not sure why you think I've misunderstood you. I'm saying it's explicitly not their right to decide to lose ground for whatever reason.

Really?

So it's not their privilege to judge something to be in their favour (and therefore disfavourable to the other team) for whatever reason, and thereby take advantage of that.

How is losing ground "Favourable"? How is gaining ground "Disfavourable" (sic). As long as any kick to touch is treated as no gain in groiund (if the LO is moved bck into the 22) The only side possibly be "dissadvantaged" i the side chosing to move the line-out back. You want to lose ground? Be my guest!

 

[Pegleg]

clearly when the LoT is very close to the 22m, that's a scenario where the you have to be careful -- both teams would be willing to concede a metre or two of ground in order to pull have the line out on their side of the 22m... especially on a defending team's throw in.

but we are all used to that scenario - I am sure I am not the only ref who makes sure to make it completely clear to the players whether the LoT is outside or inside the 22m -- indeed if the TJ marks the 22m exactly (as, infuriatingly, they often do) I will routinely move the LoT myself, so that one team stands on the 22m line, and the other is a metre from the 22m, leaving the gap. Then there is a no confusion.

Exactly. A simple call: "LOT is OUTSIDE the 22 guys etc" to let them knowe you are not going to allow a direct kick to touch with gain of ground.

The LOT is where it is With an AR I'll take their positioning. With a Club TJ I may make the call based on my ( unbiased) judgement.

 

[Rich_NL]

Really?

Yes. I quoted the laws in my earlier post.

How is losing ground "Favourable"? How is gaining ground "Disfavourable" (sic). As long as any kick to touch is treated as no gain in groiund (if the LO is moved bck into the 22) The only side possibly be "dissadvantaged" i the side chosing to move the line-out back. You want to lose ground? Be my guest!

I don't know. How is continually conceding penalties and inviting the ref to send your own players off "favourable"? This also seems ridiculous as an initial suggestion, until France play Wales in the 6 Nations and suddenly it's obvious Coaches adapt to the rules, and to how the rules are applied.

At a 5m lineout, the defenders' offside line is at the goalline, only 5m away; a particular tactic or strength of the attacking team might lead to them preferring the extra time/space afforded by a 10m offside line. Maybe one team specialises in chip and chase and wants more space behind the line than a 5m lineout affords them. Maybe something about the angle for a drop goal and shortening the pass distance for the scrum half. Maybe it's a psychological ploy.

The point is, it's explicitly disallowed, and not their place to choose. What's the benefit to ignoring the laws?

(Also, not sure about that "sic"? Disfavourable is a word)