• 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

Non-throwing hooker

S

smeagol


Referees in America
Clip

Is 18.15 one of those laws that is technically there, but isn't really enforced in 15s? Within my society, it's one of the laws given emphasis when transitioning to 7s, but was surprised to see it ignored in a knockout game.

For context - immediately prior to the LO, the defending side's' hooker was YC'd.
 
The law states that the none throwing team MUST have a player between the touchline and the 5m line.
The fact that they say MUST means it's none negotiable.

I would say that if the referee doesn't notice, then he can play advantage. In this case advantage would have been clearly over.

If I were assessing I would want to know why the referee didn't enforce the law.
 
Always enforced; most often does not require any referee action, except in younger age groups.

It makes sense that this was a one-off event, if the Hooker had just been YCed so no-one stepped forward in his place, when the referee's focus would have been elsewhere to ensure all the other line-out Laws were followed at this climax of the match. I doubt that it would have been a trend during the match.
 
Am I seeing this correctly?
the defending side (near theior own try l;ine)'s "hooker" [ dpoesnt6 have to be of course ] is standiomg on the thjropwing amnd attacking side's side of the lineout? ie massively offside position?

Why would he do that anyway? As it is it left his defensive channel open for that score.
Im not even sure Im seeing that correctly still after watching it 5 times!
 
didds said:
Am I seeing this correctly?
the defending side (near theior own try l;ine)'s "hooker" [ dpoesnt6 have to be of course ] is standiomg on the thjropwing amnd attacking side's side of the lineout? ie massively offside position?

Why would he do that anyway? As it is it left his defensive channel open for that score.
Im not even sure Im seeing that correctly still after watching it 5 times!
Click to expand...
That'd be the ref......who probably shouldn't be standing there either!
 
Phil E said:
The law states that the none throwing team MUST have a player between the touchline and the 5m line.
The fact that they say MUST means it's none negotiable.

I would say that if the referee doesn't notice, then he can play advantage. In this case advantage would have been clearly over.

If I were assessing I would want to know why the referee didn't enforce the law.
Click to expand...

Please read bold above.

When, at what point, does the ref ever award the free kick IAW 18.15? prior to throw, at the throw, after ball is caught, when ball isn't caught, or does he play advantage
 
Dickie E said:
I've never pinged it because I won't let the lineout start until he/she is in position
Click to expand...
So are you placing the burden of the 'must" in 18.15 below on the ref, not placing the burden of the "must" on the non throwing team despite the law sanction of a free kick against non throwing team in 18.15?

The non-throwing team must have a player between the touchline and the five-metre line. The player stands two metres from the mark of touch on their team’s side of the lineout and two metres from the five-metre line. Sanction: Free-kick.

I contend the burden of must is on non throwing team and is not the referee obligation other than sanction. Afterall a free kick against the referee is non existent to date, so far, but may be something to look forward in future
 
It's an odd law, not sure what the point of the law is?

But yes I will enforce it (if I notice!) by fixing it before the lineout starts.

It's not something I would ignore at 45-45, last play. I'd want to make sure that lineout was conducted completely correctly.


If you YC a hooker, it's often something to fix at the next lineout, as it may not occur to anyone else on the team to stand there (which no doubt is what happened in this case)
 
Last edited:
Not Kurt Weaver said:
So are you placing the burden of the 'must" in 18.15 below on the ref, not placing the burden of the "must" on the non throwing team despite the law sanction of a free kick against non throwing team in 18.15?
Click to expand...
the "burden" on the ref is to help teams avoid offending where it is reasonable to do so and where it is apparent that the player/s is/are unaware of law requirements. I appreciate that there are jobsworth refs who get a buzz out of pulling out their gotchas.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
So are you placing the burden of the 'must" in 18.15 below on the ref, not placing the burden of the "must" on the non throwing team despite the law sanction of a free kick against non throwing team in 18.15?

The non-throwing team must have a player between the touchline and the five-metre line. The player stands two metres from the mark of touch on their team’s side of the lineout and two metres from the five-metre line. Sanction: Free-kick.

I contend the burden of must is on non throwing team and is not the referee obligation other than sanction. Afterall a free kick against the referee is non existent to date, so far, but may be something to look forward in future
Click to expand...

All laws are implicitly a must, else what's the point of any of them. The how and when they are applied is the part to our discretion. But to Dickie E's point, if you verbalize to the non-throwing team that they must have a player in position there, at the first, second, maybe remind them at the third lineout if you're so kind, before commencing the lineout, that's just good game management as would similarly be elsewhere when the ref communicates to prevent infraction and keep the game going.

If by the 3rd lineout or after, or if the same non-throwing team didn't react / intentionally chose not to listen to my command that they must have a player in that position, that's when I think it's fair game to ping them, to get them back on track.

There's some sort of saying about refereeing rugby: "don't look for penalties to hand out" (I forget the exact words). The laws are less technical than most other sport's rules, e.g. American football which has a penalty every other play lol.
 
Last edited:
Dickie E said:
if the requirement wasn't there, the non-throwing team would have the advantage of an extra defender in their backline
Click to expand...
But also the significant disadvantage of one less defender on the short side (as we see in the video!)

So I don't see the point of the Law, at every scrum and ruck the defenders have to make a decision.. how many stand on the open side, how many on the blind side, how many on the offside line, how many back deep.

You take account of where your opponents are standing (to some extent you may want to match them) as well as field position and what you guess the opponents might do .

No where else are teams *required* to have a defender on the short side (although it's normally a good idea to!) I don't see why we have this odd requirement at the lineout
 
crossref said:
But also the significant disadvantage of one less defender on the short side (as we see in the video!)

So I don't see the point of the Law, at every scrum and ruck the defenders have to make a decision.. how many stand on the open side, how many on the blind side, how many on the offside line, how many back deep.

You take account of where your opponents are standing (to some extent you may want to match them) as well as field position and what you guess the opponents might do .

No where else are teams *required* to have a defender on the short side (although it's normally a good idea to!) I don't see why we have this odd requirement at the lineout
Click to expand...
Except the defending side did not have an extra defender in the backline due to the YC.

I'm with Dickie, I don't let the lineout go until there's someone in that spot.

NKW - I find that threatening a FK against the non-throwers is enough to get compliance, as I haven't had to award one to date.
 
crossref said:
I enforce it as well (see #9 ), because it's a Law, but i don't see the point of it
Click to expand...

It's to stop the defenders having an unfair advantage in the backs.

Defending receiver is optional, because the attacking receiver is also optional, so teams could match.

But the attacking hooker has to be there to throw the ball in, so it forces the defenders to do so as well.
I know they could drop people from the lineout to have more backs, but that is their choice to overload one area at the expense of another.
 
crossref said:
But also the significant disadvantage of one less defender on the short side (as we see in the video!)

So I don't see the point of the Law, at every scrum and ruck the defenders have to make a decision.. how many stand on the open side, how many on the blind side, how many on the offside line, how many back deep.

You take account of where your opponents are standing (to some extent you may want to match them) as well as field position and what you guess the opponents might do .

No where else are teams *required* to have a defender on the short side (although it's normally a good idea to!) I don't see why we have this odd requirement at the lineout
Click to expand...

There's some merit in your perspective on this too. This is the only player required to be somewhere from the non-throwing team. The rest of the lineout players (except for the minimum of 2 players required to form a lineout law) may choose to partake in the lineout or stay out, 10m back.
 
Phil E said:
It's to stop the defenders having an unfair advantage in the backs.

Defending receiver is optional, because the attacking receiver is also optional, so teams could match.

But the attacking hooker has to be there to throw the ball in, so it forces the defenders to do so as well.
I know they could drop people from the lineout to have more backs, but that is their choice to overload one area at the expense of another.
Click to expand...

Makes sense counter to my last reply. If only I waited a minute longer lol.
 
Phil E said:
, but that is their choice to overload one area at the expense of another.
Click to expand...
Indeed. So why shouldn't they be overload the open side at the expense of the blind side ?

(As they can at a scrum for instance, where they are perfectly free to shift the blindside winger to be an extra centre if they want to)
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
Please read bold above.

When, at what point, does the ref ever award the free kick IAW 18.15? prior to throw, at the throw, after ball is caught, when ball isn't caught, or does he play advantage
Click to expand...
one assumes its advantage played anyway.

The real question is at what juncture does that call get made i.e. "playing advantage - no tramline player" or similar.
Id suggest its once the ball has left the throwers hands as up until then in reality the lineout hasn't "started" [ cue 17 page discussion about when a lineout begins.,.. ]
UPDATE: read a few more replies... I do follow the suggestions of others including Dicke that enforce that requirement before the throw.
Im ubnsure of whether Id 100% agree with it - ican see merits with both approaches ie enforce/just ping. Thing is - its "oinly a FK" and I have a real problem with the actual effectiveness/point of "attacking" FKs. Im not convinced that a team awarded a FK for this in the oppo 22 really gain much from it overall - and maybe that clsoe to the line shoud be given the chance tio benefit from the lack of defender. But again ... if the throwing team have a rubbish lineout and you are confident that you will take their throw then an extra player in a backline/openside may help a counter attack/exit strategy ... so gamesmanship is in play now.

I appreciate its not a ref's job to second guess the relative strengths of sides etc. Thank eff Im not a ref ;-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top