Player throwing ball in

[didds]

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"

same answer. I wouldnt have the law. QED I have no solution. Its up to those that want the change to make it work. Not those that don't want it.

CF Brexit.


But if for some bizarre reason I had to write it i'd say any lineout participant with at least one foot off the ground between ball release and catch/flap back constitutes competing and jumping. Because now "compete" and "jump" are easily met, easy to spot, and so all throws must be straight. Simples.

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

Someone should print that out and mail it to everyone involved in tweaking the law so stupidly

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I don't understand this obsession with lifting/jumping to compete. It is not compulsory to do that when defending so it is impossible to say you are not competing so I'll allow a crooked throw. I would basically throw it directly to number 1 every line out therefore winning every ball without competition or fear of penalty if this stupid law comes in thus completely getting rid of all basic skills except catching the ball!

 

[Locke]

I think if the team not throwing in lift any player, even if they guess the wrong pod that the team in possession throw to, it still counts as contesting and the throw would have to be straight.

 

[Dickie E]

I think if the team not throwing in lift any player, even if they guess the wrong pod that the team in possession throw to, it still counts as contesting and the throw would have to be straight.

Its the other way round. If there's a contest, then the throw isn't straight

 

[didds]

I think if the team not throwing in lift any player, even if they guess the wrong pod that the team in possession throw to, it still counts as contesting and the throw would have to be straight.

"Think".

there's your [collective] problem in a nutshell.

 

[Locke]

Its the other way round. If there's a contest, then the throw isn't straight

Sorry for the confusion, I meant to communicate “if opposition lifts anyone, then the throw is required to be straight”.

I was pointing out that even if, for example, the ball is thrown to the front but opposition lifts the back jumper, it’s still “contested” and should require a straight throw. Opposition doesn’t have to correctly guess the distance of the throw.

"Think".

there's your [collective] problem in a nutshell.

Ha, fair point. I am curious, if opposition doesn’t lift anyone but instead someone jumps with an arm up, is that contested? Does it matter how tall they are or how high they can jump? As always, World Rugby seems to have only thought through, or only clarified, the answers to some of the questions, and created more questions.

 

[Mipper]

Ha, fair point. I am curious, if opposition doesn’t lift anyone but instead someone jumps with an arm up, is that contested? Does it matter how tall they are or how high they can jump? As always, World Rugby seems to have only thought through, or only clarified, the answers to some of the questions, and created more questions.

I reckon that in the same way we are required to judge 'materiality' in the game, we should be able to judge whether the oppo is genuinely contesting a lineout. I'm pretty sure that I can.

In the cases of no competition, I do agree that we need some guideline on the determination of not straight.

 

[didds]

I reckon that in the same way we are required to judge 'materiality' in the game, we should be able to judge whether the oppo is genuinely contesting a lineout. I'm pretty sure that I can.

so are they genuinely contesting a linout if they lift at 4 but the throw goes to 2?
Or lift at 2 but a lobbed throw goes to 6 passing over 2 easily ?

 

[Dickie E]

so are they genuinely contesting a linout if they lift at 4 but the throw goes to 2?
Or lift at 2 but a lobbed throw goes to 6 passing over 2 easily ?

I would consider both of those as contested.
What the law makers are doing is stopping the situation where non throwing team stay planted on the ground ready to maul, throw goes directly above catcher's head and ref blows for not straight. A sensible change.

 

[didds]

What the law makers are doing is stopping the situation where non throwing team stay planted on the ground ready to maul, throw goes directly above catcher's head and ref blows for not straight. A sensible change.

as I've opined before, I disagree.

if you can't get a closed skill done under no pressure, then why reward that?

You wouldn't ignore a full back knock on from a long kick with the nearest oppo player 35m away, would you? And that's not even a closed skill.
So what's the difference in skill requirements?


And, back to the lineout, why not then allow a throw direct to the receiver if there is no contest? Or maybe you would !

 

[SimonSmith]

I would consider both of those as contested.
What the law makers are doing is stopping the situation where non throwing team stay planted on the ground ready to maul, throw goes directly above catcher's head and ref blows for not straight. A sensible change.

Disagree.

It's another example of protecting inadequate skills.

As Didds says, it's a closed skill. There's no competition happening. It's one person throwing the ball in. If that player can't at least get it inside the gap, his team doesn't deserve to retain the ball. What the defenders do/don't do is immaterial to that player's failure to execute.

 

[Mipper]

so are they genuinely contesting a linout if they lift at 4 but the throw goes to 2?
Or lift at 2 but a lobbed throw goes to 6 passing over 2 easily ?

Well its hypothetical of course, but i would say so, yes.

My thinking is; why would you lift at 4 unless you thought there was a chance of competing? Even if one supposes that they only lifting at 4 in order to force the hooker to throw straight then;
a) this is daft as you're wasting three players, and
b) its forcing the hooker to throw straight

Lots of lineouts, particularly at junior and lower levels only ever lift at 2 as they have just one jumper. I would say this is competing.

 

[crossref]

I would think teams will lift a player at almost every line out (certainly every lineout in the first fifteen minutes or so) in order to establish that throws need to be straight

(Then once established, you can always not lift on a specific occasion)

If this happens then basically the new Law won't make any difference

 

[didds]

Well its hypothetical of course, but i would say so, yes.

My thinking is; why would you lift at 4 unless you thought there was a chance of competing? Even if one supposes that they only lifting at 4 in order to force the hooker to throw straight then;
a) this is daft as you're wasting three players, and
b) its forcing the hooker to throw straight

To try and force the oppo to throw to 2 - it limits the options off the loineout eg less efficient to try and play the ball into a centre chanell with the backs ie squeezes the attack channels.

As for wasting three players, you are wasting 3 players if you lift at 2 and they throw longer. Same same.

 

[didds]

I would think teams will lift a player at almost every line out (certainly every lineout in the first fifteen minutes or so) in order to establish that throws need to be straight

(Then once established, you can always not lift on a specific occasion)

If this happens then basically the new Law won't make any difference

I think that depends on what the new law REALLY requires.
eg if it requires the competition to be a full lift where the ball alights then maybe teams will just give up competing at all as oppo throws would be permitted squint wherever they threw it. So congratulations to the law makers you may as well have a free pass/tap on the 5m line.

 

[Mipper]

To try and force the oppo to throw to 2 - it limits the options off the loineout eg less efficient to try and play the ball into a centre chanell with the backs ie squeezes the attack channels.

As for wasting three players, you are wasting 3 players if you lift at 2 and they throw longer. Same same.

Yes, tharts right. The players are not wasted in either scenario as they are competing, which it turn is forcing the hooker to perform this 'closed skill'. If, as a defensive side you are forcing the oppo to change that which they may wish to do (ie throw high, or throw short), then that is competition. To me.

To be honest, the more I think about this, the more I consider it a good change that will force the hookers to refine the throwing skills rather than neglect it.

 

[didds]

still not seeing how providing an excuse for throwers to not be straight refines skills.

whilst removing legal tactical defensive decisions.

Potentially if the idea is to FORCE defenders into lifting a pod, it can only ultimately lead to more mauled 5m tries - which its clear a sizeable demographic see as a blight on the game.

 

[Dickie E]

Potentially if the idea is to FORCE defenders into lifting a pod, it can only ultimately lead to more mauled 5m tries - which its clear a sizeable demographic see as a blight on the game.

No, the idea is if the defenders decide not to compete then a slightly not straight throw is immaterial.

 

[SimonSmith]

No, the idea is if the defenders decide not to compete then a slightly not straight throw is immaterial.

Hold on a sec.

We already give them the latitude of inside shoulder.

Not straight - outside shoulder, or over the head - isn't "slightly" anything. It's very not straight.