Worcs v Quins - is it in or outside the 22 then?

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
Worcs v Quins 25/2
Sorry - cannot find a video online to help generically but if you have BT sport its at the 3:30 minute mark game time

worcs kick from inside their half and the ball goes into touch JUST outside the 22. So HQ throw in.

The AR is standing just outside the 22. Worcs however line up just inside the 22 (including where thrower stands. AR remains outside.

Barnes stop play, insists on the gap. He clearly states for Worcs to stay on the line - which is certainly forward of the place the AR stands.
Presumably somebody from Worcs queries the ref (Barnes) because Barnes is then clearly heard to say "He's chosen to move the lineout". The AR has now given up standing where the LoT is and moves inside the 22m and stands behind the thrower.


So this is a new-ish thing? i.e. The throwing team can choose where the lineout now actually happens (at least before the LoT if they wish? ) Is there a law refence or a ruling that permits this?

If not, and I'm happy to be directed to this, It seems to me this is at best gamesmanship

I presume done so so there is no danger of any subsequent kick to touch being deemed "taken inside" so a direct kick can be made etc.

(as it is Care's box kick form the resultant maul doesn't find touch, and probably deliberately so, but that's the only explanation I can think of for this "tactic")

thoughts?

didds
 
Last edited:

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,240
Post Likes
253
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Maybe Ref was stating that the AR had chosen to change the mark or maybe Ref was overruling the AR which he is entitled to do.
I think the only scenario where the throwing in side can move back inside the 22 is in the case of a quick throw in and then they are deemed to have taken the ball back in.

Most likely scenario in this case is a breakdown in communications ie a cockup!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,729
Post Likes
2,245
It was Christoph Ridley wasn't it ?

It's an error, technically, but to be honest if it was me I would make clear to the throwing team that they have taken it back, and then let them get on with it
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
122
Post Likes
39
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
So this is a new-ish thing? i.e. The throwing team can choose where the lineout now actually happens (at least before the LoT if they wish? ) Is there a law refence or a ruling that permits this?

According to the laws, I don’t believe so - sure, for a QTI but only because there is a specific carve out in the rules. Pretty much every permutation of the LO law is the throw is taken “where the ball reaches the touch”. The few exceptions such as being caught in touch etc. still imply mark of touch is where it has to be taken.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
right - so they made it up as they went along, to try and bend the alws, barnes permitted it and not once said "treat this as taken in". So he made it up as he went along as well.


As I thought.

got you.

what a pile of <beep>
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,240
Post Likes
253
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
If not, and I'm happy to be directed to this, It seems to me this is at best gamesmanship and at worst cheating, with Barnes/To3 colluding in it effectively.


didds
Out of order!
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
687
Post Likes
207
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
right - so they made it up as they went along, to try and bend the alws, barnes permitted it and not once said "treat this as taken in". So he made it up as he went along as well.


As I thought.

got you.

what a pile of <beep>
Sounds like a simple mistake in law. Probably a lot going on before this, he’s maybe at the end his tether and doesn’t want to deal with more ‘helpful guidance’ from players. We’re all human.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,413
Post Likes
1,659
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Maybe Ref was stating that the AR had chosen to change the mark or maybe Ref was overruling the AR which he is entitled to do.
If that was the case the kicking would have got the throw
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,240
Post Likes
253
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
If that was the case the kicking would have got the throw
Maybe it's the wine....but I don't understand!
OP says the resultant kick didn't find touch.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,413
Post Likes
1,659
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Maybe it's the wine....but I don't understand!
OP says the resultant kick didn't find touch.
I'm referring to the first kick by Worcs. If kick was taken inside Worc's half and ref decided it went into touch inside Quins 22, then throw to Worcs.
 

pedr

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
90
Post Likes
0
The referee wasn’t Wayne Barnes. It was Chrisophe Ridley.

The ball was kicked into the Worcester half and kicked directly back, crossing the touch line very near to the 22 line. BT Sport broadcast replays while the line out was being set up and I can’t hear any discussion of 50/22 on the referee mic.

As noted in the OP it does appear that the AR stands outside the 22. But Worcester are clearly on the 22 which is odd as this is ahead of the AR. When the referee stops to increase the gap, the AR tells the thrower to move to his right, outside the 22, and the Quins hooker points out that doesn’t work given where Worcester are standing - the gestures show the nature of their conversation. The referee then says “Worcester stay on the line”, and the thrower and AR set up inside the 22.

It is odd.

How about this as an explanation: it wasn’t a 50/22, in the opinion of the AR so he indicates Quins throw and stands just outside the 22. He’s probably closer to the 22 than he could be - he takes a step away from the 22 when he, the referee, and the Quins hooker are trying to get set up, before moving into the 22 when it’s clear that’s where the throw in is going to be.

Worcester, however, stand on the 22. Perhaps they’re trying to steal a yard, perhaps they’re trying to convince the officials that it should be a 50/22 or to have another look at where the ball went into touch. There isn’t footage of whether they lined up there before the hooker stood inside the 22 but I think it’s likely they were first to suggest the position. If that’s the case, while it’s not ‘correct’, for the sake of getting things going and because Worcester placing the line out there has a downside to them - the line out is now inside the 22 - perhaps the referee decided that continuing - and, in fact, moving Quins back a step, was better than effectively penalising Quins by moving outside the 22/putting Quins on the line.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
Maybe it's the wine....but I don't understand!
OP says the resultant kick didn't find touch.
no. cares resultant box kick form the post lineout maul didn't find touch.

The intial Worcs kick was inside their half. It went into touch just outside Quins 22. QED Quins throw.

IF Ridley had ruled the ball had gone out inside the 22m it would have been a Worcs throw. But Quins threw in. So the initial long kick could not have gone into touch inside the 22. Even though that is where the lineout was set up, with full acceptance of Ridley presumably, who in effect indeed did over rule his AR.

didds

PS I may have juxtaposed the two teams in previous posts, in error. Worcs kicked, Quins threw.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
Apologies to ref's name. He sounded like Barnes. cheers Pedr for the correction.
 

Pedro

Rugby Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
258
Post Likes
1
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Would it have been a 50:22 anyway? Was there a phase of play in Worc’s half before the kick? I haven’t seen the match but from the posts above it doesn’t sound like there was.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
noi. deffo not a 50:22

the ball went into touch about a metre outside the 22. the AR's initial position is pretty much spot on, and in the TV coverage the commentators note that it was just the wrong side of the line.

the point I raise is that Quins were permitted to then move the LoT in effect inside the 22, and the ref acquiesced - his comments showing he knew that they had.

I can only assume as per my OP that by doing so there was no danger that the resulting lineout ball could ever be deemed as taken back in from the lineout .

which strikes me as at best gamesmanship. that the To3 did nothing to prevent. There was no audible indication form them to Quins that they couldn't get gain in ground from a direct kick.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,295
Solutions
1
Post Likes
292
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Would it have been a 50:22 anyway? Was there a phase of play in Worc’s half before the kick? I haven’t seen the match but from the posts above it doesn’t sound like there was.
What 'phase of play' is required? Somebody else's shorthand interpretation that ignores the first possibility:

18.8a "Either the team did not take the ball into their half, or a tackle, ruck or maul took place within the half, or an opponent touched the ball within the half."
 

Pedro

Rugby Club Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
258
Post Likes
1
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
What 'phase of play' is required? Somebody else's shorthand interpretation that ignores the first possibility:

18.8a "Either the team did not take the ball into their half, or a tackle, ruck or maul took place within the half, or an opponent touched the ball within the half."
My mistake then! Apologies.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
Agreed, you know better than that Didds, please edit this line out of your original message.
I will as I respect you all.

but I would like to say that something somewhere went very wrong, and the To3s actions did permit one side to at best bend the rules. And I am uncomfortable with that. Hope that is more acceptable but I cant think of a better way of putting my discomfort.
 
Last edited:
Top