• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Lineout without a receiver

J

jeremy

Member
It seems fairly clear in the laws that if the throwing team don't have a receiver, that doesn't affect whether the defending team can or can't have one (or vice versa).

Naturally, with two concise & well-defined Definitions ('lineout players' and 'participating players at a lineout'), the law itself (18.14) helpfully refers to 'players in the lineout', which is not actually defined.
It feels natural to me that when talking about numbers, this refers to the total number of participating players.
So having a receiver means that the opponent can choose to have one more player in the line, by not having a receiver.

Right?

Of course the question then arises as to when a team must decide whether they're having a receiver or not.
18.17 says 'once the lineout is formed' there are restrictions on movement - but when exactly is the lineout formed?
Is it when 2 players from each team have formed a line according to 18.9, 18.10 & 18.11?
What about the rest of the lineout players? Or the other participating players?
So many questions...

The throwing team's players may 'change positions with other participating players' before the throw (18.17a) - but this implies that if you start with a receiver, they can't join the line just before the throw - because this is not changing places with another player.
Likewise they can't move from the line to become a receiver at the last moment. And note that the wording of the law entails that moving from the line to receiver is 'leaving the lineout'.
Meanwhile, the defending team may only 'leave the lineout' to adjust numbers (18.17b) - and by comparison with 18.17a, they are therefore prohibited from moving from the line to a receiver position.

So, do teams need to advise whether they're using a receiver or not, at (say) the same time the throwing team nominate the number?

And then 18.18 chimes in that 'participating players may change places in the lineout before the ball is thrown' - presumably 'may change places according to the restrictions in 18.17', but this isn't clear.
What about the non-throwing player within the 5m zone? He's a participating player, but he's expressly not 'in' the line.

I realise I'm overthinking all this - but exploiting details of law is a sport unto itself, and you can drive a coach and horses through these bloody things.
 
jeremy said:
It seems fairly clear in the laws that if the throwing team don't have a receiver, that doesn't affect whether the defending team can or can't have one (or vice versa).

Naturally, with two concise & well-defined Definitions ('lineout players' and 'participating players at a lineout'), the law itself (18.14) helpfully refers to 'players in the lineout', which is not actually defined.
It feels natural to me that when talking about numbers, this refers to the total number of participating players.
So having a receiver means that the opponent can choose to have one more player in the line, by not having a receiver.

Right?
Click to expand...

No. Lineout players by definition are within the line of the lineout, which excludes the receiver.
 
In the light of that, I rewatched two French lineouts in last weekend's France-Ireland match - first at about 17 mins and then another at about 20 mins (just after Ireland saw a yellow, and which led to France's first try).

In the first lineout, both teams bring 5 to the line + receiver. France's #3 is at the end of the line on the 15m mark.
Before the throw - but after the lines are already pretty clearly formed - France's receiver moves up and joins the front of the line, and the French #3 steps a couple of metres back from the line of touch, but stays at 15m.
Ref sees this & calls out "stay out 3" and the throw is made.

For the second lineout, Ireland form up with 7 in the line, and as far as I can tell no receiver. Ireland #10 is in shot but a long way back.
They're a man down and defending close to their goal line, so I guess that's a tactical choice.
The French players then move up to form their line - and all 8 players move up to the line.
As they're approaching the line, ref asks "who's the receiver? Who's the receiver?".
And as the line forms he says to #3, who is once again on the end at the 15m mark, "Are you the receiver? Get out, get out."
#3 takes a half step out of line, then turns and says something to ref and steps back into line, and ref says "OK no receiver" - and the ball is immediately thrown.
#3 helps lift the catching player, and it transitions to a maul.

So what looked like a 7-man lineout suddenly becomes 8 vs 7, which seems pretty weird - but Ireland don't seem to complain.
Do they have anything to complain about?
 
With respect your post is possibly a little too lengthy and also vague!

Maybe it's just me!

Referee interpretation is king.

There are probably very few black r white scenarios in the game.

Have you tried refereeing at any level?
 
@jeremy

These law references may help:

18.14 Unless the throw is taken as soon as the lineout is formed, the non-throwing team may not have more players (but may have fewer players) in the lineout than the throwing team.

18.16 If a team elects to have a receiver, the receiver stands between the five-metre and the 15-metre lines, two metres away from their team-mates in the lineout. Each team may have only one receiver.

18.17 Once the lineout is formed, players:
a. From the team throwing in may not leave the lineout other than to change positions with other participating players.

18.18 Participating players may change places in the lineout before the ball is thrown.

Then you need to read it with this definition:
Participating players at a lineout: These consist of lineout players, one receiver from each team (if present), the player who throws in and an immediate opponent.

So in your first example, it reads like they just complied with the law, and the referee was reminding #3 that he had swapped into the receiver role.

In your second example, although maybe a little chaotic, it doesn't appear that any laws were broken, they elected to have no receiver and the French had one less player in the lineout.

In the context of the game, you'd probably find that in any following lineouts where Ireland was throwing the French (as well as the ref) were looking carefully at if they had a receiver or not, and adjusting their lineout numbers (and defence) as required.
 
Last edited:
RemainingInTheGame said:
So in your first example, it reads like they just complied with the law, and the referee was reminding #3 that he had swapped into the receiver role.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I included that first lineout mainly to provide context for the second, in particular that the ref was indeed paying attention to the French receiver.

RemainingInTheGame said:
In your second example, although maybe a little chaotic, it doesn't appear that any laws were broken, they elected to have no receiver and the French had one less player in the lineout.
Click to expand...

The French had one *more* player in the lineout.
And yes, it's hard to see that any law was broken.
(Although arguably, the ref telling #3 to "get out" was actually instructing him to violate 18.17 by leaving the lineout after it had formed.)
It's interesting that the laws talk about players leaving the line, but nothing explicit about the receiver joining the line.

It does seem odd that Ireland would line up with 7 if France had called a line of 8. No problem if that's a tactical choice, but if it's the result of the chaos then perhaps not quite so OK.
But the practice of calling the number of lineout players isn't in the laws anyway. Is that in guidelines, or is it just a courtesy?
I guess the upshot is that if the throwers call 7, it's understood that this actually means '7, or 8 with no receiver'.
 
Last edited:
Decorily said:
With respect your post is possibly a little too lengthy and also vague!

Maybe it's just me!
Click to expand...

No no, definitely rambling and vague.
Thinking out loud really, not sure what kind of response I was expecting.


Decorily said:
Referee interpretation is king.

There are probably very few black r white scenarios in the game.
Click to expand...

Of course.


Decorily said:
Have you tried refereeing at any level?
Click to expand...

Heh heh, I'm sure you can figure out the answer to that one.
 
jeremy said:
Agreed. I included that first lineout mainly to provide context for the second, in particular that the ref was indeed paying attention to the French receiver.



The French had one *more* player in the lineout.
And yes, it's hard to see that any law was broken.
(Although arguably, the ref telling #3 to "get out" was actually instructing him to violate 18.17 by leaving the lineout after it had formed.)
It's interesting that the laws talk about players leaving the line, but nothing explicit about the receiver joining the line.

It does seem odd that Ireland would line up with 7 if France had called a line of 8. No problem if that's a tactical choice, but if it's the result of the chaos then perhaps not quite so OK.
But the practice of calling the number of lineout players isn't in the laws anyway. Is that in guidelines, or is it just a courtesy?
I guess the upshot is that if the throwers call 7, it's understood that this actually means '7, or 8 with no receiver'.
Click to expand...
Sorry @jeremy I may have misread your 2nd scenario.

In my mind, when you quoted the ref saying "ok no receiver" in the 2nd scenario the referee was understanding that they were putting 8 in the lineout, and accepted this (and allowed that the French hearing this, could decide to match if they wanted).

If the French vocalised 7 in the lineout that is different.
 
The throwing-in team is allowed as many players in the lineout as they want. The opposition are allowed up to, but not more than, that many players.
 
jeremy said:
Yes.
How do they know how many that is?
Click to expand...
The Defending team is actually obliged to count and the ref should give them time to adjust if the attacking team are p#ssing about.
Modern convenmtion is the ref asks and attacking team tell them but they don't have to actually do that in law, it is up to opposition to match but not have more.
 
given the definitions, the only option ireland had presumably was for their receiver to step in - they couldnt have eg a centre step in and also keep the receiver ?

happy to be worng!
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
The Defending team is actually obliged to count and the ref should give them time to adjust if the attacking team are p#ssing about.
Modern convenmtion is the ref asks and attacking team tell them but they don't have to actually do that in law, it is up to opposition to match but not have more.
Click to expand...
I remember a team that had a lineout call of "all in" on their throw which meant 6 in. I wasn't overly impressed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top