You can't have two pods

[Phil E]

Something I was told/shown the other day by a senior referee, and I am not sure I agree with it.
Would welcome a discussion.

The attackers in a lineout put up two pods.

19.10(d) says:

[LAWS]Lifting and supporting. Players may assist a team-mate in jumping for the ball by lifting
and supporting that player providing that the lifting and/or supporting players do not
support the jumping team-mate below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the
front.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

The way it was explained was that you may only lift/assist a team-mate who is "jumping for the ball". Since you know where you are throwing the ball (which pod), they can't both be "jumping for the ball", one pod is a dummy and therefore NOT "jumping for the ball".

Free Kick against the attackers.

Thoughts?

 

[Guyseep]

Something I was told/shown the other day by a senior referee, and I am not sure I agree with it.
Would welcome a discussion.

The attackers in a lineout put up two pods.

19.10(d) says:

[LAWS]Lifting and supporting. Players may assist a team-mate in jumping for the ball by lifting
and supporting that player providing that the lifting and/or supporting players do not
support the jumping team-mate below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the
front.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

The way it was explained was that you may only lift/assist a team-mate who is "jumping for the ball". Since you know where you are throwing the ball (which pod), they can't both be "jumping for the ball", one pod is a dummy and therefore NOT "jumping for the ball".

Free Kick against the attackers.

Thoughts?

I have to strongly disagree with this. This interpretation is someone reading into the law way too deep. The spirit of this law is not meant to define who can or can't jump for the ball, because any player in the lineout has the right to jump. This law is to define how the lifters can lift the jumper. It would seem to be a safety issue so that you don't have lifters grabbing the jumper much lower on the leg therefore reducing the stability of the jumper. Imagine the lifters grabbing the jumper at the knee or calf - it would be unstable and dangerous.

I'd hate to be a player, coach or spectator at a game reffed by someone who interprets the laws like this.

 

[OB..]

I hope Guyseep's view wins the day.

 

[DocY]

It sounds like he's looking for a reason to penalise and ignoring the spirit of the law. It's there, as Guyseep says, to define what lifters are allowed to do. If you were to say "PEEP! You can't both be jumping for the ball!" you're going to quickly erode the players' confidence in you.

Maybe Phil could ask this senior referee about his views on a jumper going up and the ball being popped to the front man? Or indeed any non-jumping player. After all, the ball wasn't thrown to the jumping player, so he couldn't be jumping for the ball.
:norc:

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

That is absolute poppycock, but the law does say "a teammate" not "any teammate". "a teammate is singular"

 

[Rich_NL]

"I'm jumping for the ball in case the front pod misses it, sir."

 

[OB..]

That is absolute poppycock, but the law does say "a teammate" not "any teammate". "a teammate is singular"

Apart from my standard objection to such a legalistic approach, I would point out that the phrase "a player" does not appear in the extract quoted.

 

[beckett50]

Urban myth #1019

 

[DocY]

That is absolute poppycock, but the law does say "a teammate" not "any teammate". "a teammate is singular"

I interpret this as a single lifter cannot lift multiple jumpers.

I used to play with a South African prop who, after a demonstration of how a jumper can have a single lifter, tried to be a middle lifter between two jumpers in a L-J-L-J-L formation. We abandoned the idea as not really worth it, but it was quite impressive.

 

[Guyseep]

This is an example of why I've frequently said Law 19 needs a major re-write. Here's another example of a dubious law

[LAWS](j) Catching or deflecting. When jumping for the ball, a player must use either both hands or the inside arm to try to catch or deflect the ball. The jumper must not use the outside arm alone to try to catch or deflect the ball. If the jumper has both hands above the head either hand may be used to play the ball.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

I can't fathom a logical reason for disallowing someone to use their outside arm to catch/deflect the ball in a lineout.

I can only imagine that if the ball is thrown as such that the outside arm is the closest to the ball (ie the throw is not straight), then there is already a law for that.

or

If the argument is that if the jumper uses their outside arm, they could/would use their inside arm to push/obstruct/interfere with the opposing jumper, then there is a law for that as well.

Why is this law here?!

 

[Phil E]

If the argument is that if the jumper uses their outside arm, they could/would use their inside arm to push/obstruct/interfere with the opposing jumper, then there is a law for that as well.

Why is this law here?!

It's exactly for that.

In the days when you couldn't be lifted we used to use our inside arm to lever on an opponents shoulder for more height in the jump and to keep him on the ground. This was designed to stop that and probably predates other laws.

 

[Guyseep]

It's exactly for that.

In the days when you couldn't be lifted we used to use our inside arm to lever on an opponents shoulder for more height in the jump and to keep him on the ground. This was designed to stop that and probably predates other laws.

That's what I suspected. Why not simply say - you can't leverage yourself on an opposing player.
It's just looks sloppy on the part of World Rugby to create a law or not remove/correct a law that is so obviously flawed or redundant.

 

[Phil E]

That's what I suspected. Why not simply say - you can't leverage yourself on an opposing player.
It's just looks sloppy on the part of World Rugby to create a law or not remove/correct a law that is so obviously flawed or redundant.

Because you would have to list all the different things people got up to with their inside arm.

This way it groups them all under a catch all heading.

 

[Guyseep]

Because you would have to list all the different things people got up to with their inside arm.

This way it groups them all under a catch all heading.

The catch all would be "can not interfere, push or leverage off an opponent".
It just makes no sense to tell a player which hand they must use to perform an action.

 

[Phil E]

The catch all would be "can not interfere, push or leverage off an opponent".
It just makes no sense to tell a player which hand they must use to perform an action.

It did at the time.

 

[didds]

I can't honestly think what a side really gains by having two pods in the air at the same time, but agree with guyseep that lets just get on with it.


didds

 

[DocY]

I can't honestly think what a side really gains by having two pods in the air at the same time, but agree with guyseep that lets just get on with it.


didds

Two bites at the cherry and a confused opposition?

 

[Pinky]

That's what I suspected. Why not simply say - you can't leverage yourself on an opposing player.
It's just looks sloppy on the part of World Rugby to create a law or not remove/correct a law that is so obviously flawed or redundant.

They do that too 19.10(a)

 

[Guyseep]

They do that too 19.10(a)

that's my point! why have a redundant law. Clean it up

 

[chbg]

It did at the time.

From my 1980s Lock perspective it was also because you were not lifted or, in particular, supported - if you reached the outside arm across you were far more likely to unbalance yourself and fall into gap between the lines where there were knees and boots and things. So a safety issue.