Stepping out of the Lineout.

[ChrisR]

To get a handle on this subject I have to start with law 19.14(e):

(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

"Participating" seems to have been a word ignored by WR when then wrote their directive.

"Participating players" includes the thrower (and opposite number) and receivers. Thus, the definition of "lineout" in law 19.14(e) cannot mean the players on the line-of-touch. It must be the area bounded by the two 10m from the LOT. Therefore, "leave the lineout" must mean retiring more than 10m from the LOT or going beyond the 15m from touch.

Therefore, players at the LOT may step back from the LOT without penalty. Ignore the directives requirement for defending players to step to the side as it is based on an incorrect reading of law.

Now to the attacking (catching) side. I think that we all (???) agree that players binding to the catcher as he lands will be off-side and obstructing if the ball is passed back before the opponents engage and a maul forms. This is common practice and the opponents generally will engage immediately so it really isn't a huge issue for me (tho others will disagree).

It is an issue if the opponents elect to not engage and step back from the LOT. At this point one of several scenarios can occur.

1. The catching 'pack' doesn't move forward and the ball is immediately played away. Fine with me. The defenders successfully prevented the maul and the attackers used their possession. Play on!

2. The catching 'pack' drive forward with the ball at the back. This is deliberate obstruction by the players in front of the ball and should be penalized.

3. The catcher keeps the ball, lifters bind, and the pack moves forward. The player with the ball is in front of his support and liable to be tackled. RobLev questions this a "Flying Wedge". I'm sympathetic to that as I think pre-binding of support players should be illegal. However, I think WR needs to clarify their position on pre-binding and I'd have a hard time applying Law 10.4(p) to this.

4. The catcher keeps the ball and advances and support players delay their bind until contact by the ops. Play on!

 

[crossref]

To get a handle on this subject I have to start with law 19.14(e):

(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

"Participating" seems to have been a word ignored by WR when then wrote their directive.

"Participating players" includes the thrower (and opposite number) and receivers. Thus, the definition of "lineout" in law 19.14(e) cannot mean the players on the line-of-touch. It must be the area bounded by the two 10m from the LOT. Therefore, "leave the lineout" must mean retiring more than 10m from the LOT or going beyond the 15m from touch.

this is logical -- but means that the Law allowing peelers is pointless, as by your logic obviously they are legal

 

[ChrisR]

this is logical -- but means that the Law allowing peelers is pointless, as by your logic obviously they are legal

Not entirely, but it does support the notion that "leaving the lineout" isn't stepping away from the LOT. See:

"must stay within the area from that player’s line of touch to 10 metres from the line of touch"

 

[Pinky]

For me the key issue as to obstruction PK was who was being obstructed. If the defenders choose not to engage and create a maul, then by passing the ball back they are not obstructed, but the current WR guidance is to call use it and get the ball played away or the consequence is accidental offside, ball carrier running into a player in front of him, and scrum to defenders.

If attackers want to advance in absence of a maul forming, they need to keep the ball with the player in front so that defenders can tackle without being obstructed. Tackling by grasping below the waist does not create a maul, so it is not a collapsing PK to the attackers.

I think the plan was to encourage the defenders to engage and to take away the attempt to manufacture an offside penalty to the defence if they did not engage which occasioned the view about who was being obstructed and the guidance (effectively) if the attackers moved it back to use it or lose it.