"Afters" - Foot on line at throw ins?

[Rugbygramps]

So are we saying their feet are their feet can straddle the line. Some on here are going to be devastated

[TigerFeetSteve]

So are we saying their feet are their feet can straddle the line. Some on here are going to be devastated

Yes, so long as both feet are touching some part of the line at point of release (so no heel on the back of the line lifting up prior to releasing the ball, keep ball of the foot on it), I believe that a foot on the line is within the laws of the game.

[Scott1]

So are we saying their feet are their feet can straddle the line. Some on here are going to be devastated

Big win for you,celebration time

[LittleBigG]

And yes, the hooker standing on the pitch is a major bugbear of mine as well, it is so easy to enforce, just tell the hookers that the law requires them to be off the pitch and if they stand on the pitch to throw in, it's a free kick to the opponents, simple.

One other wish is that the ref had a spray can like in football to mark the spot for a penalty, this would be to stop Dan Biggar pinching 2 yards at each kick!

Haha, we were saying this at the match on Saturday because Hastings constantly "pinched" about FIVE yards when we played Gloucester! (I might be exaggerating slightly, but it was by far the biggest joke that I've ever seen - literally started AT the mark and then went for a wander down the pitch)

I disagree with some people though; I think most people taking kicks at least go "through" the mark (e.g. start a yard before and kick a yard after - still naughty, but not taking the mick as much as those who start at it!)

[LittleBigG]

So, when Muri (rightly) got yellow carded last week and Sarries got a penalty restart, we were confidently informed by the commentators that "it's something they are cracking down on"

This week, after watching the higlights, we see Phipps shove Potter back down into the mud

Unfortunately I think my assertion of "this is the first - and last - time we'll see that this season" won't be too far off the money...

Having seen it a couple of times I think Phipps tried to jump over Potter just as Potter was standing up. Just accidental, I thought.

I'll watch it again, but I thought I saw a little push into his back before giving him a bit of a condescending pat

I guess my main point though is: why was he trying to jump over him in the first place... the argument by the commentators and referee was the Muri could have avoided the collision against Saracens (which, actually IMO, once committed, he couldn't). By this train of thought, why did Phipps try and jump over him, and not just step round, or stop?

Potter could have easily had a knee to the head, or had his hand stomped on - did Phipps anticipate Potter just having a little nap there for a few minutes, or did he think that he might have immediately got up to celebrate?

It's this low-level cynical rubbish that causes teams to get wound up and is something that I would like to see stamped out

Trying to modify player behaving by enforcing outcome, rather than action, leads to inconsistencies and is ineffective - e.g. a player, pumped up on adrenaline, will almost always think "yeah, but I won't smash him in the head because I'll be careful!" Rona did not intend to smash Weise in the head, he was just bracing himself for the impact (but still ended up on his ass, lol) and Phipps did not intend to knee Potter in the head - fortunately, in this instance, this was not the outcome!

[Robespierre]

And yes, the hooker standing on the pitch is a major bugbear of mine as well, it is so easy to enforce, just tell the hookers that the law requires them to be off the pitch and if they stand on the pitch to throw in, it's a free kick to the opponents, simple.

One other wish is that the ref had a spray can like in football to mark the spot for a penalty, this would be to stop Dan Biggar pinching 2 yards at each kick!

Haha, we were saying this at the match on Saturday because Hastings constantly "pinched" about FIVE yards when we played Gloucester! (I might be exaggerating slightly, but it was by far the biggest joke that I've ever seen - literally started AT the mark and then went for a wander down the pitch)

I disagree with some people though; I think most people taking kicks at least go "through" the mark (e.g. start a yard before and kick a yard after - still naughty, but not taking the mick as much as those who start at it!)

I wonder who among us remembers Tigers HCup win against Toulouse on a snowy January afternoon at Welford Rd a few years ago, when Tigers were awarded a penalty just inside the half-way line. Toby Flood indicated to the ref he was going for goal and the ref turned away to signal to the touch judges whereupon Flood nudged the ball forward 5 metres or so, planted the tee and prepared to kick and the ball just cleared the bar! A narrow Tigers' win, was it 9-5? Good man, Toby!

[Tiglon]

To be honest I'd be very disappointed if referees started pinging hookers for being 12 millimetres into the field of play. If we start getting that pedantic about the laws then every game will just be 80 minutes of whistling. Might as well go and watch the World Whistling Championships instead.

[Nofrontteeth]

12mm on field, continual whistling?
Please guys you talk common sense then let's try:-
a) Don't do it
b) Assistant ref pulls them up before throw, no different to ref directing an offside encroachment .

No delay, no short throws (however short), no whistles!
Persistent infringers of any rule/law will leave a general impression of team discipline on Sir.

[TigerSID]

And yes, the hooker standing on the pitch is a major bugbear of mine as well, it is so easy to enforce, just tell the hookers that the law requires them to be off the pitch and if they stand on the pitch to throw in, it's a free kick to the opponents, simple.

One other wish is that the ref had a spray can like in football to mark the spot for a penalty, this would be to stop Dan Biggar pinching 2 yards at each kick!

Well that’s 2 people I’ve seen who don’t like it. You and WRFC should start a petition

I think 2m is a gross underestimate.

I think it would be fairly simple for the referee and their team of assistants to move the lineout back to compensate for the distance in front of the mark that the kick was taken then 2m or 5m the distance is taken off at the other end so there is no advantage to move far from the mark. Wouldn’t have to be every time but certainly were the kicker is taking a liberty.

[westwinds31]

Are we creeping towards soccer 'ignores' like running throws and ball not on the 'D' for corners?
Slow erosion of standards by gamesmanship?

Always makes me laugh. Footballer gains 3 inch advantage by placing ball outside of ‘D’ then can’t clear the first defender !

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

So are we saying their feet are their feet can straddle the line. Some on here are going to be devastated

Yes, so long as both feet are touching some part of the line at point of release (so no heel on the back of the line lifting up prior to releasing the ball, keep ball of the foot on it), I believe that a foot on the line is within the laws of the game.

Yet the "Diagram" on the World Rugby site shows both feet behind the line...one for an actual "Sir"? Does Nigel answer questions?

[johnthegriff]

I don't want to be pedantic and say rules are rules but actually they are. If a players foot brushes the line when he is in possesion of the ball then that is in touch, if a ball is grounded and just touches the tryline it is a try a millimetre short it is no try, at a lineout the ball has to travel 5 metres, at a kick off it has to cross the 10 metre line, the lines and distances are marked so there is no excuse for not conforming to the rules, if as some say thee is no advantage gained then why do it? Obviously a kick from an unmarked spot like a penalty we say has to go through the mark and it is up to the ref indicate the mark and of course given half a chance the kicker will attempt to lessen the distance or improve the angle. For me the ball should be put in straight at the scrum, players should be behind the kicker when he kicks off and lineouts taken with throwers feet outside of the field of play, the throw straight and the ball should travel 5 metres. These are clear rules with no room for interpretation and should be adhered to, some off sides, breakdown offences, deliberate knock-ons and even forward passes can be a matter of opinion but if there is a line to mark the position then it is there for a purpose and should not be ignored.

[Rugbygramps]

So are we saying their feet are their feet can straddle the line. Some on here are going to be devastated

Yes, so long as both feet are touching some part of the line at point of release (so no heel on the back of the line lifting up prior to releasing the ball, keep ball of the foot on it), I believe that a foot on the line is within the laws of the game.

Yet the "Diagram" on the World Rugby site shows both feet behind the line...one for an actual "Sir"? Does Nigel answer questions?

I believe he does if you message him on twitter

[Tiglon]

As TigerFeetSteve has pointed out, both feet need to be touching the line, not behind it. It doesn't need a referee to confirm that, it is simply what the law is. The diagrams show the lineout thrower being a foot or so behind the line, that's just to make it a simple illustration - if they showed the feet just touching the line it would be far less clear.

There are hundreds of technical offences that go unpunished in every match. To make it any kind of spectacle the referees have to decide whether the offence makes any material difference to the match and they simply cannot spend 80 minutes arguing about an inch here or there. I know the grumpy old men of the internet like to moan about it but it is what it is.

For all the moaning about lineout throwers being too far forward, and having had the law clarified by TigerFeetSteve, I'm curious as to how often the thrower is actually too far forward and by how far? If throwers are regularly standing a foot inside the pitch then fair enough, it probably needs to be addressed, but I don't think that's the case. If it's an inch, then who honestly cares? Who wants to watch a match where the referee spends the entire time blowing his whistle and asking the thrower to move an inch back, the kicker to move the tee an inch to the right, and the restart kicker to take it again because he kicked it from an inch over the halfway line?

Sorry, but it's pedantic nonsense.

[Rugbygramps]

As TigerFeetSteve has pointed out, both feet need to be touching the line, not behind it. It doesn't need a referee to confirm that, it is simply what the law is. The diagrams show the lineout thrower being a foot or so behind the line, that's just to make it a simple illustration - if they showed the feet just touching the line it would be far less clear.

There are hundreds of technical offences that go unpunished in every match. To make it any kind of spectacle the referees have to decide whether the offence makes any material difference to the match and they simply cannot spend 80 minutes arguing about an inch here or there. I know the grumpy old men of the internet like to moan about it but it is what it is.

For all the moaning about lineout throwers being too far forward, and having had the law clarified by TigerFeetSteve, I'm curious as to how often the thrower is actually too far forward and by how far? If throwers are regularly standing a foot inside the pitch then fair enough, it probably needs to be addressed, but I don't think that's the case. If it's an inch, then who honestly cares? Who wants to watch a match where the referee spends the entire time blowing his whistle and asking the thrower to move an inch back, the kicker to move the tee an inch to the right, and the restart kicker to take it again because he kicked it from an inch over the halfway line?

Sorry, but it's pedantic nonsense.

I do agree with you 100%