[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 06 October 08 15:48 GMT
|
I agree with OB - you need to manage this sort of thing out of the game for your own sanity. Use law 19.7(k) as your justification:
<<19.7(k) - Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side
of the line of touch.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line>>
Anyone who stands 1m from the line of touch contravenes this Law - FK available if they do it after you've issued a warning.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 06 October 08 14:54 GMT
|
Two potential problems that I can see.
(1) The player must not be in the gap when the ball is actually thrown in.
(2) If the defenders start the same approach, the players may well bump into each other.
The first is an offence and the second should be avoided. I would suggest to the team that it desists.
|
|
|
mark.yeomans@uk.ibm.com
|
Mon, 06 October 08 14:31 GMT
|
many thanks for your help .........
this week's little challange
the two sides form up for a line out - they self select a gap of 1.5 to 2 meters and the throwing side start to swop places - some round the outside - some using the space in the gap
at what point is that "closing the gap"....in the game I let it all go - both ways and the players were happy ....this is just me getting the visulisation stuff sorted out in my own mind on Monday
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Mon, 06 October 08 01:23 GMT
|
didds,thanks for your claification.
zackly,actually it wasn't a pit bull quote.
The press's blaming of the ELVs is just another example of the general inaccuracy of their reporting.
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
zackly
|
Sat, 04 October 08 13:21 GMT
|
dr seoul <<< the other disfiguring aspect is the edict issued to referees by the International Rugby Board to be "more vigilant" around the tackle area >>>
DISFIGURING aspect ? !! Sounds to me like Moore Mouth getting it wrong (again).
See Sealing - Is It Legal thred
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Sat, 04 October 08 03:28 GMT
|
have just read other comments that support the players comments,
""There are two main concerns. The fact that defending teams are now able to stack the line-outs and pull down driving mauls has made it more difficult for attacking sides to control possession and territory. And the other disfiguring aspect is the edict issued to referees by the International Rugby Board to be "more vigilant" around the tackle area""
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
dr seoul
|
Sat, 04 October 08 03:21 GMT
|
many thanks...thought that it had little to do with the Global ELVs....so why are Moore and other writers complaining so heavily about the impact of the ELVs on our beloved game?IMHO the only major impact of the NH versions are the sanction on passing back into the 22....which has introduced the hail of Garry Owens and the loss of the rolling maul.The madcap tap and go free kicks a la S14 should not currently in the NH game(assumption since I have yet to see any current season games.)
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 03 October 08 12:36 GMT
|
Latest on the Lineout 2-metre Man from RFU/Morrison :
<< The outcome of the clarification confirmed the direct opponent of the player throwing the ball into the lineout must take up a position at least two metres from the five metre line and he is permitted to stand between his team’s lineout and his team’s 10 metre off side line.
Our present interpretation clearly states the direct opponent of the player throwing the ball into the line has to remain in a position close to line of touch. >>
And players & coaches are supposed to keep up with all this ! Thanks M. Bernard Lapasset, iRB Chairman, for a truly shoddy piece of ELV admin work !
This message edited on Fri, 03 October 08 by zackly
|
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 03 October 08 12:33 GMT
|
Dr Seol. Suggest you check out the recent Topic "Sealing - is it Legal ?" and the attachment of 23 SEP which gives iRB & RFU "Directives".
You could continue the discussion there ?
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Fri, 03 October 08 09:42 GMT
|
OB - that IS far more clear and O thank you for your patience and explanantion.
Dr. Seoul - the ELVs in tye NH include the "no bridging, no sealing" stuff (admittedly not really an ELV but more an insistence on what WAS already in place but studiously ignored for the benefit of coach potatoes - allegedly *cough*)
Hence some bleating about breakdown ELVs I guess. In that players are now ewxpected to do what they have SUPPOSED to have done.
Not that stopped the Cardiff and Comaught players from clearly sealiong off and bridging last friday night I noticed, unpenalised...
didds
|
|
|
dr seoul
|
Fri, 03 October 08 09:38 GMT
|
Apologies for not starting a new thread,but I'd be grateful for some general clarification on the ELVs.
I understood that in Europe the Global 13 ELVs were being trialed,which excludes the "sanctions change" shifting most breakdown penalties to Free Kicks,which figuired in the S14 and Tri-Nations.
I'm therefore puzzled by NH players mainly negative comments on the ELVs,which largely blame uncertainty at the breakdown...which to my reckoning the 13 ELVs have not changed?
|
-------------------------
dr seoul |
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 02 October 08 10:58 GMT
|
didds - I disagree.
Law 19.2 (f) At a quick throw-in a, player may come to the line of touch and leave it without being penalised.
Law 19.7 (d) When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout.
An overly enthusiastic interpretation of the latter would be in direct conflict with the former. Moreover any player who had gone past the line of touch would be unable to cross back without automatically becoming a lineout player.
If you want sophistry, then the player at the quick throw-in is not "approaching" the line of touch when others arrive: he is already there. Common sense and common practice is better.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 02 October 08 08:53 GMT
|
WB - in that case I had already extended your original point :-)
The fact still remains though that in a matter of a split second the winger can go from being the defender against a quick throw-in, to being part of a formed line out - and now (management issues aside and see earlier posts) he cannot leave the line out.
All it takes is 4 other players to turn up at the same time - not unlikely, especially if the winger isn;t to just abandon his duties wrt the QTI early.
didds
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 01 October 08 19:57 GMT
|
didds - I think it does cover it. The winger came to the line of touch because of the possibility of a Quick Throw-in.
Once that has gone, he may leave.
Obviously if he loiters until the lineout is fully formed and the hooker is ready to throw, he has foregone his entitlement, but some degree of overlap makes sense.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 01 October 08 14:13 GMT
|
OB - that's not the situation WB was describing.
He was mooting the scenario whereby a winger chases a kick to touch - and having reached the line of touch successfully prevents a quick throw in. As he stands there, he is very quickly joined by another of his team mates (maybe #7 guarding a longer quick throw in?) and two members of the opposition. The line out is now formed.
Under the ELV it is now in theory penalisable if the winger retires to his normally accepted position ie on the wing, >2m from the lineout.
didds
This message edited on Wed, 01 October 08 by didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 30 September 08 14:22 GMT
|
Law 19.2 (f) At a quick throw-in, a player may come to the line of touch and leave without being penalised.
This message edited on Tue, 30 September 08 by ob
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 30 September 08 08:47 GMT
|
WB - I guess the answer is that your queries are interesting ones that will be "managed" by the referee.
The ELVs in this regard, as you are probably aware from my perspective, now create more situations where the referee has to "manage" with the eventual result that somebody, somewhere will "manage" the situation out of kilter with nearly everbody else.
So, IMO, yes eventually one day a winger will get penalised for chasing up a kick and technically becoming part of the lineout then wanting to leave it to take up his or her otherwise totally normally accepted position.
didds
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 29 September 08 19:26 GMT
|
Mark
Law 19.11(c): (c) Players may change their positions in the lineout before the ball is thrown in.
As far as I know, this has not been either repealed or suspended by the wording of the ELV.
As to when the lineout is formed, that happens when there are two players from each side at the line of touch between the 5 and 15m lines. But that does not mean the throw can necessarily be taken then, nor that matters ahve been fixed at that time. Consider a possible quick throw situation. Chasers ensure they get two to the line of touch ASAP; opposition dawdle to keep their quick throw options open, but eventually decide to go with the conventional throw. The lineout is officially "formed" when the first two oppo players arrive at the line of touch to join the two chasers already there. If one of those chasers was the blind winger, does this mean he now can't leave the lineout? Can no other opposition players join after the first two, as the lineout has been formed? We may not at that point have a thrower's immediate opponent , which is a requirement before the throw can be taken - do we allow him to join after the lineout has formed, or accept a stalemate?
In practice, the theoritical formation of the lineout is solely a matter of when a QT can no longer be taken. Thereafter, things can be allowed to settle down, though they may remain reasonably active right up until the point the ball is thrown. iRB Law Ruling 7 of 2004 addressed this point prior to the ELVs, as follows:
"2. Prior to the commencement of the line-out, participating players may change places. The participating players in a line-out are those that line up in the line-out, the thrower and his immediate opponent, and the two players waiting to receive the ball from the line-out. Who the “receiver” actually is, cannot finally be determined until the very moment that the ball is thrown in. Until that time the players standing in the normal #9 positions are merely participants and they can change their positions at any time until the ball is thrown."
As OB points out, there is currently debate about the extent to which the requirement that the receiver may not encroach within 2m before the throw actually alters this ruling. But it is very clear that the swapping of places is OK.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 29 September 08 19:05 GMT
|
mark - I think you are trying to measure things with an inappropriate degree of precision.
Stepping out 2m to the receiver position is far more than is needed to swap places. Provided the sideways movement is not excessive, then swapping is allowed.
The question of swapping with the receiver is currently being challenged - the USA apparently have something from the IRB saying it is allowed, but I have seen nothing official yet.
|
|
|
mark.yeomans@uk.ibm.com
|
Mon, 29 September 08 17:43 GMT
|
W/B
Thaks for this - but it also illustrates my confusion .. you response would suggest that I am incorrect and should allow the switching of jumpers .........
"it is legal for the Lineout players (those who form the two straight lines) to change their positions after forming up, but before the throw."
to change their positions - they must step out of line - which because it happens after they have formed should be illegal? ....which begs me to ask/confirm - when is a line out formed? - because it must be formed before the ball is thrown ?
I accept that it is common for jumpers to switch about - but just trying to get straight why it is legal
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 29 September 08 16:54 GMT
|
mark, it is legal for the Lineout players (those who form the two straight lines) to change their positions after forming up, but before the throw. What may NOT happen this season is for a jumper to swap places with the receiver (former is illegally leaving the lineout; the latter is illegally encroaching within 2m), or for the jumper to retreat to the vacant receiver position before the ball is thrown (he's putting a serious bend in the previously straight line), nor for the receiver to come within 2m of the lineout (i.e. his players - not the line of touch) before the ball is thrown. In practice, as a ref I believe this makes it unlikely that any but the fleetest receiver could enter the line at the front or the middle - the ball would most probably beat him to it. If the receiver is not built like Ussain Bolt, I will mot likely FK him for encroachment.
This message edited on Mon, 29 September 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
mark.yeomans@uk.ibm.com
|
Mon, 29 September 08 15:14 GMT
|
I wanted to check a point around Line Outs and ELVs …..but on research into the Law Book I am not sure that I am right
A line out is called – and the two sides line up in two straight lines 1 m apart – last season we saw lots of movement – not just backwards and forwards but also jumpers and lifters switching positions in the line out .
My understanding this year is that once the line is set it must remain so until the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in – in which case the most common move ( if any ) would be a peel from front to back – before the ball is released the players must hold their position in the line
Any players – this season who leave the line out – before the ball has been released would be penalised – free kick on the 15m ?
Have I got this right ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
