Talk:Line-out (rugby union)

Quick Line Outs
I think this rule (which confuses many rugby fans) should be summarised by somebody who knows what they are talking about (not me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.33.140 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lifting
I was under the impression that the laws had been changed to allow lifting, but I'm not sure whether it has or whether it's equivalent to the league requirement that scrums not be fed. Anyone know? Hig Hertenfleurst 13:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK you can support but you cannot lift. This was a rule I think that the South Africans developed during their exile from international rugby and was adopted by the IRB shortly after their return.GordyB 13:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's correct. And that sentence about "more in the breach than the observance" is lovely. -- GWO

Article move to Line-out (rugby sports)
Articles should not be disambiguated unless there is a need to do so. Until there is an article or a demonstrable need for an article called "line-out" that is not about rugby union then this article should not have brackets after its name. Since the line-out article did nothing but redirect to the newly renamed article then it was pointless.

In particular, it should not have been called "rugby sports" because a) it is ungrammatical b) only one sport has line-outs (rugby union).GordyB 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Line-out (rugby union) to keep consistent with scrum (rugby union) and many other rugby union articles. AIR corn (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that line-out should instead redirect to line out. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Line-out (rugby union) → Line-out — Move over redirect. No requirement to dab. Naming guidelines say where possible we should not dab. Fmph (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose "line-out" should redirect to the disambiguation page Line out. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We should instead redirect to Line out since it is a possible alternative spelling to the dab page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with ZZyzz and the ip, line-out is common spelling variation of line out and that should redirect to the line out DAB page. Keep this one as is. AIR corn (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Line out (dab page) per Zzyzx11, et al. "Line-out", "line out", and "lineout" are verbally ambiguous and should all go to one dab page. ENeville (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-07-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick throw-in
I don't think the history of this is quite right. The article and the source linked suggests that the QTI was introduced by the 2008 ELVs, but a QTI was always permissible - the 1980 Lions lost the third test to SA by a try scored from a QTI by Germishuys. I think the 2008 amendment were designed to make the QTI easier - the article refers to being able to throw in at 45 degrees, whereas before I believe the throw had to be parallel to the goal line (as with the regular line-out). I'll see what I can find on this. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that it had to be thrown in straight, and on the mark. Now it can be thrown backwards and behind the mark. I'm not completely sure, but think those were the only changes. - Shudde  talk 07:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're spot-on with that, they were exactly the changes, everything else stayed the same (no-one else to have touched the ball, same ball etc) with maybe the exception that the "old" QTI had to go 5m and the new one doesn't - am struggling to find any definitive online reference to the previous version though and may have to look for a printed reference from books I have. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the on the mark thing anymore - -  Shudde  talk 08:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this inaccurate statement. The cited website (now archived) is unfortunately wrong - whether there was variation to rule in 2008 or not.... . A simple google search establishes that quick throw ins go back to at least 2000 (based on a search of archived news articles mentioning a 'quick throw in' in the context of rugby)...and probably much earlier (as I never understood the rule as a kid)...The fact is, this paragraph as worded, is misleading--27.253.121.171 (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Inside 22
" If it is kicked directly into touch, without first landing in the field-of-play or touching the referee or an opponent who is not in touch, the line-out is formed in line with the spot from where it was kicked, with two exceptions: if the kick was a penalty kick or if the kicker had at least one foot on or behind his own 22-metre line, the line-out is formed at the spot where the ball crossed the touch-line"

As I understand it, a player who receives the ball outside the 22 and who kicks the ball directly into touch will also lead to the line-out being taken from the point that it went into touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.64 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Who gets to throw into a lineout?
The article should address which team gets to throw into a lineout. I don't have the knowledge to write about this properly.  PK T (alk)  15:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Parallel to goal line
AFAICS the article lacks a simple statement, which a novice might well require, that the throw must be parallel to the goal-line. I'll leave time for someone else to add it; they might also choose to resequence some of the text, which looks a little jumbled to me. Harfarhs (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes but what is it?
This article talks at great length about the meaning and rules of line-outs without saying what it actually IS, physically, ie players from each team lining up while another player throws the ball in. We see a picture but not a description. I have started to try to correct it with the second paragraph but someone else needs to fill it out. It is a classic case of an entry that is clear only if you already know what the thing being talked about is.Faff296 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)