Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
Or as an alternative. Scrap the crap
Player throwing ball in
- Thread starter ChrisHam
- Start date
didds
Resident Club Coach
shurely shome mishtake Marc... ;-)
DocP
Referees in England
Also, what is now the definition of competing? You have to be lifted? I saw more than one line out over the weekend where the catcher did not come off of the ground. Usually with a dummy jumper at the back and being thrown straight to 2. If that happens and it is off the mark the defensive team won't have time for a token lift, they will be heads down to form a maul.
Whole thing is a mess just to apease a small percentage of professional matches where the hookers* haven't learnt their trade
*please insert position required in this slot as, as SA have shown us this month, anyone can throw in.
Whole thing is a mess just to apease a small percentage of professional matches where the hookers* haven't learnt their trade
*please insert position required in this slot as, as SA have shown us this month, anyone can throw in.
didds
Resident Club Coach
especially when potentially its possible to create a non competed throw anywhere (dependent on future clarifications etc) so it really doesn't matter if they can throw or not.
Deskilling the game. A hooker will eventually just be a 3rd flanker as they wont need to be able to hook (ball squint feed) or throw (throw squint as above).
Caveat: maybe not at grass roots where you blokes keep players on the straight and narrow - and thankyou for that! But wherever the malaise of elite rulings may start - which I'd guess is probably something like Level 3 if not even 4 with teams with an eye on that prize
Last edited:
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Remember we're talking about the very specific occurrence of ball over catcher's head. Inside shoulder = always straight, outside shoulder = always crooked
That's a sensible perspective to a law change that doesn't sound like it had a lot of sensible thought put into it by its maker.
Let me ask you though, when does the chance to compete by the non-throwing team end and it's just play on now?...if the non-throwing team wasn't competing all game, and then on the next lineout a sneeze before the the receiver catches it, a player from the non-throwing team jumps a few inches off the ground, do we ping the throwing team? What if the non-throwing team's player waits until it's in the hands of the receiver to then bunny hop up a few inches?...maybe they wait til it's caught by the receiver and the thrower's team starts to form a maul, then the non-throwing team's player jumps to force the ping. Keep in mind the lineout isn't over yet. Is the non-throwing team entitled a chance to compete the entirety of the lineout or only til it's caught?
Furthermore, what's considered competing?...can a tall player from the non-throwing team just stand there with his hands in the air like he really doesn't care and is considered competing already, before the ball is even thrown?
Last edited:
didds
Resident Club Coach
Yuip. hence the final sentence of my #40.
WR cant chuck chuck words into laws without defining ahwta thos ewords mnean in rality - otherwsie they just create more mess than they allegedly solve.
The RFU (along with other governing bodies) usually give out advice and examples when they implement these new laws.
Lets not get our nickers in a twist until its official, which for England it wont be until the RFU announce it.
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Standing with your hands in the air isn't competing if the ball is 10' off the ground. Jumping up 6" also isn't. It's really not hard. You can't half-arse a 2-man lift to look like you're competing in any way that retains the benefit of not lifting and being set for the maul.
Is there a grey zone? Probably, there always will be. Even if the law book were rewritten consistently there would be. Is it a significant one? I doubt it very much.
Is there a grey zone? Probably, there always will be. Even if the law book were rewritten consistently there would be. Is it a significant one? I doubt it very much.
I'm sorry Rich, but I find that line of argument not great, and the slippery slope. Scrum half knocks on at the back of a settled ruck. No competition, so why call it? A forward pass with no opposition in sight - why call it?
I prefer the "older" days, when insisting on basic skill execution from both sides was foundational to the game.
Yea but that's subjective, eh? Some jumpers compete without being lifted in some cases (they are tall, skilled, and have hops). In other cases, the ball is thrown intentionally low, would a bunny hop or standing with your hands in the air count in those cases, by this logic? Conversely if the thrower intentionally throws it not straight and 30' feet in the air, is it no longer possible for the non-throwing team to compete (no matter how well of a lift they execute) either then? Etc etc
Rich_NL
Well-known member
That's an argument against the law in itself - and one I sympathise with - rather than the implementation. Similar to the case of the fullback who fumbles the catch (and in knocking on only makes it easier on the opposition due to having to regather), and yet we would all give the knock-on and that remains a fundamental demonstration of skill. Agreed, I'm not a fan of the law!
Given that the law exists, though, and for the reasoning that WR consider continuity to trump contest/basic skill in this area, I don't think "ooh it's a grey area though" is a very strong argument against it. Because the thinking behind it is clear for me, and I don't expect it to be too hard to implement because of that.
Not really. I don't see how your examples are in any way unclear if you look at our job as to reward contest (and penalise unfair removal of contest) and to promote continuity:
"Some jumpers compete" - so, they're competing
"The ball is thrown intentionally low" so competition is possible without jumping
"The ball may be thrown too high" so the thrower is removing the chance of any competition and should be penalised
Contest and continuity - the key principles on the first page of the WR introduction to match officiating
didds
Resident Club Coach
I'll wager if you ask 50 refs here what they define as "jump" and "compete" in this regard you'd get if not 50 different answers at least 10.
And THAT is the problem. How can you all possibly ever create any sort of continuity between yourselves when WR have used such woolly language .
Be prepared for a lot of genuine "but last week's ref" ....
And THAT is the problem. How can you all possibly ever create any sort of continuity between yourselves when WR have used such woolly language .
Be prepared for a lot of genuine "but last week's ref" ....
Volun-selected
Referees in America
Therein lies the rub. Many moons ago when I coached U10,12, and 14 we told the kids that although some laws are pretty clear, there will always be some variation between the refs for interpretation and part of their job as players was to learn that ref’s versions. Even if the ref saw things differently to me or last week’s ref, they would usually be consistent in their application and most kids would adapt quickly.
Thanks to WR, players will now have lots more opportunities to learn…
Rich_NL
Well-known member
Can you give an example of the sort of language you'd like to use for such a law?
I find this quite appropriate:
We have been here before and it seems those that want to disregard simple and well documented laws have had their way. All in the name of "progress"
Law 18 Touch, quick throw and lineout
Throwing into a lineout
22. The player throwing in the ball stands on the mark of touch with both feet outside the field of play. The thrower must not step into the field of play until the ball has been thrown. Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.
23. The ball must:
a. Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
b. Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.
We have been here before and it seems those that want to disregard simple and well documented laws have had their way. All in the name of "progress"
didds
Resident Club Coach
You're looking down the telescope from the wrong end.
I wouldn't have the stupid law change to start with. The GLOBAL GAME doesn't NEED it.
I'd say its a closed skill, under no direct pressure, so just throw the ball down the middle and let people defend/attack as they tactically see fit.
If somebody wants to change that then come up with a clear and obvious easily understandable universal set of requirements. that doesn't use woolly language open to individual interpretations. But I don't see the need to change it. QED I don't have to provide the language required. Its not _my_ problem to make the law change work..
TL;DR? The current requirements should be sufficient.
I'm confused on this one. Are you saying you would penalize the thrower for throwing the ball 30' into the air?
Rich_NL
Well-known member
If it were not straight, which is what you said in your example. As long as it returns to Earth somewhere it's legally contestable, play on.
I agree, but I was replying to your assertion that "THAT is the problem. How can you all possibly ever create any sort of continuity between yourselves when WR have used such woolly language"