Australian trial - non contested throws and straightness.

[didds]

But if an angels on a pin head question here, purely hypothetical etc really.

Under the Australian law trials, one of the trials is

• Only contested throws to lineout can be adjudicated as not straight

We have touched on this but I just wanted to return to it.
So in my hypothetical scenarios, red is throwing, blue is defending. Blue had displayed a tendency to not contest in the air but to defend on the ground. As such under this trial red can "get away" with non straight throws.
My question to you all as referees is how far would you let the throwing side really get away with? By this we have a spectrum of non straightness, from dead straight anyway, to increasingly not straight.
So what about if the defending team does not contest and

* the jumper goes up, but the throw is so wonky the jumper ends up catching the ball at full arms length to his own side ie arms towards his own receiver/DBL
* the jumper goes up but the throw is so wonky the jumper cannot get anywhere near it but a player on his side behind him in the lineout takes a step towards his own DBL and catches it
* the jumper goes up but the throw is so wonky the jumper cannot get anywhere near it and the ball goes directly to the receiver (~2m from the LoT)
* the jumper does NOT go up and the ball goes directly to the receiver (~2m from the LoT) with what looks like a pretty deliberate act ie a pass direct to the receiver in effect?
There are no right and wrong answers from my perspective, and I stress this is purely hypothetical. Im just interested in what others think.
For instance for my 2p, the first 3 all appear TBH to be within the remit of the trial. The throw is wonky, the oppo haven't contested so play on. I could see an argument for #4 that this is an act contrary to good sportsmanship - but would it actually be blown as such? because otherwise it also fulfils all requirements/provisions of the trial

didds

 

[Volun-selected]

Taking the trial test at face value I see no reason why if team A forfeits the right to challenge then team B could take full advantage as long as it goes 5m.

Now for the reductio ad absurdum… if there is no offense of not throwing straight if uncontested, what is to stop them throwing directly to their own non-lineout players as long as they are at least 5m in?

 

[crossref]

Presumably (in this trial): if red is throwing, blue will always lift a player ... Just to make sure red are subject to the discipline of having to throw straight

 

[didds]

Taking the trial test at face value I see no reason why if team A forfeits the right to challenge then team B could take full advantage as long as it goes 5m.

Now for the reductio ad absurdum… if there is no offense of not throwing straight if uncontested, what is to stop them throwing directly to their own non-lineout players as long as they are at least 5m in?

exactly point 4.
So QED you would permit the thrower to throw directly to the receiver (if not indeed the #10 30 metres away!)

didds

 

[didds]

Presumably (in this trial): if red is throwing, blue will always lift a player ... Just to make sure red are subject to the discipline of having to throw straight

yes. unless red think blue will not. Risk and reward.

 

[SimonSmith]

Two jumpers up means a contest is taking place in my head.

Otherwise stupid stuff is allowed to take place.

 

[Volun-selected]

exactly point 4.
So QED you would permit the thrower to throw directly to the receiver (if not indeed the #10 30 metres away!)

didds

Yep - but basically a gamble. If they remain static at the lineout and you throw to the receiver, all we’ll and good. But, if the previously non-competing team work out the plan and decide to compete at that moment, it’s going to be an easy penalty.

 

[Dickie E]

If they remain static at the lineout and you throw to the receiver, all we’ll and good.

If we get to that stage the game will have finally descended into farce

 

[Phil E]

Not a trial I am a fan of.
If the none throwing team have one player who jumps (not necessarily lifted) is he contesting the throw? I would say he is.
Which then makes a mockery of the whole trial.

 

[didds]

Two jumpers up means a contest is taking place in my head.

Otherwise stupid stuff is allowed to take place.

do you mean two defending jumpers?

Id suggest that "never" happens - nobody generally risks having six players out of the equation (ie 2 x pods ) if they lose the catch.

 

[didds]

Not a trial I am a fan of.
If the none throwing team have one player who jumps (not necessarily lifted) is he contesting the throw? I would say he is.
Which then makes a mockery of the whole trial.

thats pretty much my point here Phil indeed. Is the tail gunner hopping a foot off the ground nowhere near the ball a "contest" ? etc

 

[didds]

Yep - but basically a gamble. If they remain static at the lineout and you throw to the receiver, all we’ll and good. But, if the previously non-competing team work out the plan and decide to compete at that moment, it’s going to be an easy penalty.

Of course.
Hence my point about risk and reward. Im more interested in you guys thoughts if there is no contest and the ball is thrown directly to the receiver (or even "fly half" !)

 

[Stu10]

I wonder if they might modify the trial if some crazy stuff starts happening, like throwing straight to 10.

 

[crossref]

I wonder if they might modify the trial if some crazy stuff starts happening, like throwing straight to 10.

i think the outcome of the trial will be that every throw is contested (even if contested just enough to make sure the throw has to be straight)

 

[didds]

I suspect you are right CR, especially the further down the skill levels you get.
Im wondering though - hence my general querying - if sides can get away with something like a #6 in the line hopping/jumping would be seen as sufficient, as that would not compromise a defend on the ground tactic but probably - espcially at youth and very low levels - where a rear throw is unlikely anyway. that would very much depend on whether the guys and gals with the whistles would view it as a contest.
In essence this trial if really about what views refs will have. Because at another extreme if the only accepted contest is tyhe same jumper jumping eg a front challenge to a front ball) then that puts another twisat on it all... if eg a ref would not count a jump at the front to a ball thrown to the middle as a "contest" then that removes the point of jumping almost as it becomes a lottery as to whether the jump counts or not.

 

[didds]

I wonder if they might modify the trial if some crazy stuff starts happening, like throwing straight to 10.

Id ratgher hope some sides try it just to test the waters.
Any one here actually seen these trials in place ? They were in a very specific set of matches so maybe not.

 

[SimonSmith]

do you mean two defending jumpers?

Id suggest that "never" happens - nobody generally risks having six players out of the equation (ie 2 x pods ) if they lose the catch.

Nope. One from each team, roughly in opposition to each other. Front jumper and tail gunner doesn't count.

 

[menace]

Id ratgher hope some sides try it just to test the waters.
Any one here actually seen these trials in place ? They were in a very specific set of matches so maybe not.

If I recall correctly, this was trialled in our NRC about 4/5 years ago. And in the main it was effective to avoid the technical immaterial calls and another unnecessary stoppage (read scrum and resulting scum PK lottery).

I think you're reading too much into it with what will be let go when not contested. I haven't seen the details of the 'new' trial but with regard to the "degree" allowed I'd think of the phrase "don't take the p!ss (boys! )".

But like anything you'll also need to consider why a team was not contesting (did they stop contesting because the first 3 egregious crooked throws were not pulled up).

 

[SimonSmith]

Well, they're in place for our season here in Alice. It's Bush rugby, which generally means silky hands, booming kicks because of AFL, a lot of bash it up because of NRL, and not very many brains becaise it's Alice. So, every lineout, the defence hoists someone. So, every lineout is contested.

 

[didds]

Nope. One from each team, roughly in opposition to each other. Front jumper and tail gunner doesn't count.

thanks for the clarification.
then Id suggest teams are less likely to put up a jumper to contest merely to be in with a shout of getting the wonky throw call. Cos they have at best a evens chance of calling it right, and potentially just 1/3.
That said I have sympathy with the token rear "jump" being ignored especially at younger and less skilful/able levels where a rear throw is very unlikely, which is why I asked really.

However regarding front and middle jumps... Of course - part of the pressure applied by putting up a front defensive jumper as well as contesting the ball if thrown there, is the added pressure on the thrower if that forced him to throw to middle/back instead [ eg its a pattern of defensive play ] which could lead to a wonky throw with the added distance etc. In which case the front jump has in fact done its job - but if a font defender versus a middle jumper "doesn't count" you've now annulled that standard defensive jumping practise - summary: its not always about contesting the actual ball at point of catch.
In similar vein (though less likely to cause a wonky throw of course) is to put up a middle jumper defensively, with a view to offering the throwing team a "free ride" to the front where the ball will be contested on the ground. This of course tends to suppress attacking options to short side breaks and mauls, and off the top/wide backline attack is less likely from a front catch . In which case the tactic is working - but again in the (less likely) scenario of a wonky front ball, in this defensive strategy again the squint throw will be denied because the middle was used tactically rather than the front.

didds