• 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

Player throwing ball in

tim White said:
I could live with the throwers foot being on some part of the line, although it is not correct in law does it really affect the throw?
Click to expand...
its 15 feet to the closest possibe catcher.
18 feet to a likely catcher
heels on the line for a thrower with size 11 feet means that throw is a foot less to travel. 1 in 15.

that's
~7% benefit for the #1 catcher
~6% benefit for the #2 catcher


6% not material ?
 
didds said:
6% not material ?
Click to expand...
It's definitely not at the level I play at where you're lucky if the line marking the front of the lineout is painted within the same variance from the line marking the end of the lineout since the players paint the fields here, is the norm.
 
jdeagro said:
It's definitely not at the level I play at where you're lucky if the line marking the front of the lineout is painted within the same variance from the line marking the end of the lineout since the players paint the fields here, is the norm.
Click to expand...
the principle remaisn the same. A player with large feet is gaining a distance benefit which may be more material than the thought "does it really affect the throw?".

Put another way, if its NOT material/doesn't really affect the throw, then why do they do it?
 
didds said:
the principle remaisn the same. A player with large feet is gaining a distance benefit which may be more material than the thought "does it really affect the throw?".

Put another way, if its NOT material/doesn't really affect the throw, then why do they do it?
Click to expand...

You could equally say a tall thrower has an advantage since his arms are further forward, due to being longer, when he releases the ball.

You really are turning into chopper.
 
one is a physical advantage.
the other is stretching the laws.

If anyone is becoming chopperesque here it ain't me.
I'll return to an OB-ism

Put another way, if its NOT material/doesn't really affect the throw, then why do they do it?
 
didds said:
Put another way, if its NOT material/doesn't really affect the throw, then why do they do it?
Click to expand...

Either:
  1. Lack of realization / care, same as I think how the refs should be around it.
  2. Because sometimes rugby players make dumb decisions they think will be advantageous even when in practice they're not.
I'd say most times would fall under either of those 2 reasons.
 
If everything else doesn't need my full attention, I will get them to have at least their forefeet on the line, unless they really do not lift their heels during the throw. But if it is a windy day, I'm not going to worry about it.

(Why do teams always practice their throws along a line on the field? Don't we try to put one team, ideally the non-throwing, on a line, except at 5m? They really should practice throwing 1/2m away from a line!)
 
jdeagro said:
Either:
  1. Lack of realization / care, same as I think how the refs should be around it.
  2. Because sometimes rugby players make dumb decisions they think will be advantageous even when in practice they're not.
I'd say most times would fall under either of those 2 reasons.
Click to expand...
I'll add a 3rd being fair

3. Younger throwers and coaches have seen older throwers and coaches do it, so presume its what to do.
 
chbg said:
If everything else doesn't need my full attention, I will get them to have at least their forefeet on the line, unless they really do not lift their heels during the throw. But if it is a windy day, I'm not going to worry about it.

(Why do teams always practice their throws along a line on the field? Don't we try to put one team, ideally the non-throwing, on a line, except at 5m? They really should practice throwing 1/2m away from a line!)
Click to expand...
because it tests the straightness of the throw in practise. that's all.
I used to run a practise where to emulate the game conditions in between lineouts (exhaustion, muscle fatigue etc) a minute or so of intense activity (wrestling, push ups, short shuttles etc) Id call a lineout point to go and run to and "win". The intersections of lines is easy to ID rather thban "7m upfield from the 22m line, left hand side" ;-)
 
This is the same as the straight feed in the scrum. To me the law is clear that all of the foot should be on or outside of the line. We’ve just interpreted now to give more leeway. I just live with it even if I don’t agree with it (just like the scrum put it).
 
I think there were a couple threads where the law trial of “no sanction for not-straight throw if opposition doesn’t lift anyone” was discussed.
World rugby has provided the new language of the law for the trial. Language in bold is new trial language.
[LAWS=]18.23 The ball must:
a. be thrown in straight along the mark of touch towards a lineout player;

Sanction: If the non-throwing team does not lift a teammate to compete for the ball, then play shall continue. If the non-throwing team lift a teammate to compete for the ball, then they shall be offered the option of a lineout or scrum. If the lineout is chosen and the ball is again not thrown straight, a scrum is awarded to the team that originally threw in the ball.
[/LAWS]

@didds, I know you were especially curious how the particulars of the chosen wording might open up opportunities for exploitation.
 
so if you lift at 2, but the ball is thrown well over 2 but squint to 4, its play on? Really?
Or you lift at 2, but the throwing team throw crooked to their number 1 who turns to catch it ? Play on? Really ?
So then you leave your number 1 facing the thrower ready to contest the 1 throw, but now you can't lift at 2 to compete there, so they can throw crooked at 2 - see first scenario above? Really?
 
Last edited:
didds said:
so if you lift at 2, but the ball is thrown well over 2 but squint to 4, its play on? Really?
Or you lift at 2, but the throwing team throw crooked to their number 1 who turns to catch it ? Play on? Really ?
So then you leave your number 1 facing the thrower ready to contest the 1 throw, but now you can't lift at 2 to compete there, so they can throw crooked at 2 - see first scenario above? Really?
Click to expand...
I think we just interpret as *any* lift is indicative of intent to compete. So red throw squint to the back and white lift at the front, we ping red for not straight.

If white just stand there then play on.

Annoyingly, though…
1) If white just jump or try to play but don’t lift, then red get away with a duff throw?
2) If I’m in an age limited game where no lifting is allowed, then the throwing team have no incentive to throw straight at all?
 
Volun-selected said:
I think we just interpret as *any* lift is indicative of intent to compete. So red throw squint to the back and white lift at the front, we ping red for not straight.

If white just stand there then play on.

Annoyingly, though…
1) If white just jump or try to play but don’t lift, then red get away with a duff throw?
2) If I’m in an age limited game where no lifting is allowed, then the throwing team have no incentive to throw straight at all?
Click to expand...
It also gets pedantic fast, since by law you can't jump until the ball is thrown. So every legal jump is reactionary. The point I'm getting at is if my side didn't intend to contest, and I see that the thrower intentionally threw the ball not straight as he threw it, I can jump in response to get them pinged, even just a half-assed attempt at being lifted.
 
You're approaching this from the wrong way. First consideration by referee is "has throw gone straight over the head of the catcher?" If yes, next consideration is "has there been a genuine contest for the ball?" If yes, not straight. If no, play on
 
Is that a two man pod lift, or can just #1 lift #2 ? how far does #2 have to be lifted? 6" off the ground ?
 
Dickie E said:
its up to the referee on the day to determine if a genuine contest or not
Click to expand...
so wont ever be consistent week on week between different refs, or societies, then.

It doesn't help anybody. One ref's full lift at 4, or short lift at 6, to a 2 ball is another ref's no contest. Thats not a sensible way forward. WR need to really say exactly what constitutes a lift, and "compete"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top