They almost convinced me!

[AlanT]

Did my highest level mens match of the season on Saturday and so many of them had the same opinion that they got me wondering if I was right.

Two examples from linouts.

1. One team had two players chasing up their touch kicks who on arrival at the LOT would call "Marked", apparently to draw my attention to the fact that because two of them were there the opposition could not take a quick throw. They kindly explained this to me at the first few lineouts. I said it made no difference because there weren't two opponents in the line.

2. Last try of the game was a 70m run in from a lineout with defending side put in from the LOT with most of their forwards in the line, but none of the opposition in the line. Put in was straight, ball caught, followed by that player and me running up the pitch on our own for the try. Opposition said the throw couldn't be taken unless two of their players were also in the line.

Have I missed something?

 

[ianh5979]

In a word NO, you made the right decision in both cases

 

[Ian_Cook]

In a word NO, you made the right decision in both cases

Yes, I agree

19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

In Example 2

► if they had no players in the line-out, the could have been FK under 19.8 (a) above, or under 19.8 (g)

(g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

► the lineout was not formed, so the throw did not even have to be straight.

 

[Robert Burns]

Unless it was a different ball, or had been touched by someone else.

 

[David J.]

The second case sounds like a management question, not a law question.

Was there an option for a quick? Did the non-throwing team have time to set a line? Why didn't they?

 

[Davet]

The second one worries me a little.

No line out formed.

A quick throw is possible, if same ball, not touched, and taken at or behind LoT - was this the case?

If not - ie it wasn't a Quick throw, then I would suggest a management issue.

Ask them to come up and form line out - if not FK against.

Case 1 is simpler, so long as the QT was taken quickly - if they delayed, ie failed to form a line-out, then they could have been the offenders.

I suspect case 2 was a response to your allowing the QT and pointing out that the lineout wasn't formed. Implying they are very poorly coached on line-outs.

 

[FlipFlop]

Davet,

where does it say in Law that there has to be 2 from either side before 1 side can throw the ball in? Where does it say a LO needs to be formed before the ball is thrown in (and I'm not talking quick throws)?

It says that 2-2 is the requirement for a LO to be formed, and hence no quick throw option. It doesn't stop a normal LO being taken quickly though (from the mark, straight, travelling 5m etc).

Agree it could be a FK for delaying the LO, but why not play advantage ? If 1 team can get there, get set up etc, then throw the ball in, the chances are the other side has delayed, so let the throw go, and play advantage - if it is straight, and they win it, then possibly advantage over?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Davet,

where does it say in Law that there has to be 2 from either side before 1 side can throw the ball in? Where does it say a LO needs to be formed before the ball is thrown in (and I'm not talking quick throws)?

It says that 2-2 is the requirement for a LO to be formed, and hence no quick throw option. It doesn't stop a normal LO being taken quickly though (from the mark, straight, travelling 5m etc).

Yep. A lot of people forget that.

The throwing-in side does not have to wait until both sides are ready before throwing in. The only requirement is that once the line-out has officially formed i.a.w. Law 19.8 (a), the throw must be from the mark and straight.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I concur with DaveT and Ian Cook

 

[Davet]

Set peices are potential flashpoints.

Manage them.

 

[OB..]

You also have to manage sides that tell you how to referee - particularly when they are wrong!

 

[ExHookah]

You also have to manage sides that tell you how to referee - particularly when they are wrong!

Exactly, much like teams that scream "can't take the second one quick" when they have clearly engineered the slow retreat on the first one that led to the second one. As we have discussed on here, the law requires the second one to only be taken once a mark has been made, but if we steadily and vocally make the progression to that mark then teams should have no complaint if you march out the ten steps, make the mark and then off we go.

 

[AlanT]

Thanks all.

My sanity is restored.