By Matt Brown
August 12th 2008 @ 12:25am
Loading ...Related coverage
Why are hookers still throwing the ball into lineouts?
I’m constantly bemused by the idea that the hooker has to throw the ball into the lineout. And now there’s talk of dropping Polota-Nau because he can’t throw.
The French are among the many nations that have tried using other players to throw the ball into the lineout.
Why do we doggedly persist with the idea that the guy with the number 2 on his back must be the thrower?
Why don’t the Wallabies trial all the smaller forwards, and whoever has the best skill set, gets the assignment?
In fact, teams should have a few options up their sleeve to cover for replacements.
What is there to be lost by having George Smith, or one of the front rowers throwing?
In this way you can keep a talented player on the field, while covering for their woeful throwing skills (think Jeremy Paul).
Just as in goal kicking, if a player loses the plot, replace them with another member of the team. But keep them on the field for their other roles.
Wallabies, you need to get smarter.
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(55)
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 1:17am | Report comment
That’s quite a good point. I imagine the reason is psychological – once we start reversing the traditional trend of positions then are we getting closer to league? In many cases I think it is simply because many players wouldn’t be skilfull enough, some forwards literally cannot throw the ball backwards. Also, you could never have Smith throwing in because the 7 is a crucial presence in the lineout just in case the throw were to miss and the opposition were to gain the ball. 7s should always be monitoring the back of the lineout for defensive reasons. 6s are always needed to actually jump in the lineout so that just leaves props. In England’s case Sheridan and Vickery could not throw in because they are too tall and are necessary lineout lifters. Thus it is only the nations with smaller props that could perhaps do this.
formeropenside said | August 12th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Yes, the winger used to throw into lineouts. All 8 in the line in those days I believe.
Ok, who should do it, if not the hooker? The halfback? Forget quick clearances then. The openside? His job is to stand at the end of the lineout and chase play. Today, the 6 and 8 are likely jumpers. The second rowers are specialist jumpers, so that seems a bit of a waste.
Ok, maybe some shorter props could learn to throw. What if that prop gets injured, either during a game or loses form? Should he be kept in the team to cover someone else’s failings?
Like it or not, the hooker throwing into lineouts is a sensible solution. If a player cant learn to do his core jobs, then it does not matter what else he can do: you would not suffer a 10 who had no kicking game.
Clarky said | August 12th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
It is also worth remembering that in the dim dark past, hookers never threw into the lineout. It was the job of the winger…
Matt said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:25am | Report comment
If the winger was to throw it would at least allow you to put the hooker into the lineout as a strong lifter. With the new unlimited number laws that cold work out quite well. Or you could put the hooker into a lifting role and drop a loosie to the midfield for the crash ball? I’m sure it will be something that the coaches will start to look at.
I’m also waiting for the old school style set moves to come back in vogue now that the free kicks are in place. after all hte defense has to be back 10m on a free kick (just like at scrum time), but you get the versatility of using your forwards as decoys too.
On the topic of lineout throwers though, the AB’s have recently made comments about Tony Woodcock (that great cheat and scrummaging myth) and his additional role on the current Tri-Nations tour to South Africa. The AB’s coaches usually like to take 3 Hookers 3 Halfbacks, as they see these both as important specialist roles. However this time they have only taken 2 Hookers with them and have instead taken loose forward cover (no doubt due to McCaw’s importance on the sides Looseforward balance).
So, Tony Woodcock will now cover the throwing duties, should Hore and Mealamu both get injured. If this does occur then Afoa is said to be the Scrummager (he will pack down at 2, between Woodcock and Sommerville) while Woodcock will throw into the lineouts.
Hoy said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Also need to remember though that in those days there was no lifting, and percentages of lineout wins on your own throw were probably a bit down on what they are today, simply due to the fracas that followed the throw in as the tall timber jumped.
I just fail to understand how a professional worker (lets face it, it is a job now), can’t perform his task. A hooker’s job is to throw a line out. These blokes train for what? 10 -11 months of the year. What is it that hinders their throwing capability? You are paid to throw lineouts and scrum, and you have great coaches teaching you both. I don’t think it is too much to ask to be able to throw if it is your job.
I also think that in recent history with the Wallabies, the lineout was far too complex. Jumpers feigning to run to the back, then jumping in the middle etc. It became too much. What about the simple quick jump to number 2. It became like a competition to outfox and out-complicate your opponent in the lineout in the early to mid naughties. It buggered up a few hookers as it became too hard to hit a jumper. I think anyway.
Teach TPN and he will be a great hooker. He is mobile, has great hands around the park etc. He just had a bad night throwing. It is part of his job description, teach him. Foley was our best throwing hooker of the 90’s, even though he was oft overlooked for Kearns. Teach the hookers to throw.
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:41am | Report comment
The best goal kicker kicks goals, the best line kicker kicks at the appropraite penalty.
Its a situation where the throwing team should be in control so the best thrower should throw.
I suppose it depends on how much the “thrower” and the resulting possesion is valued.
As for making it like league – league doesn’t have lineouts so why would changing the thrower make a difference?
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Because it alters recent traditions. A hooker’s role is specific. In league hookers can play dummy half, they have no set piece worries. If the hooker doesn’t throw then every team might as well pack another flanker in that position.
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:56am | Report comment
As said before – when the rules changed (lifting) wingers stopped throwing & hookers took over. Is ten or so years even a “recent” tradition? I doubt it.
The srum need a hooker that can scrummage – that the specialty, not throwing.
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Andy Dalton was throwing the ball in 1983, so was C. Fitzgerald, as was Peter Wheeler… need I go on? Is 1982 ten years ago? I doubt it.
So if the new duty of a hooker is to scrummage why not pick a third propr then?
Jerry said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Mr Mac – hookers have been throwing in well before lifting was legalised – I don’t think wingers have thrown in since the 1970’s.
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Hookers started throwing in the mid-80s about a decade before lifting.
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:08am | Report comment
OJ, Wheeler was throwing in in 1980, Pullin and Windsor in the 70s.
Spiro Zavos said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I’d like to introduce an idea that I once put to Eddie Jones, who apparently thought there might be something in it: namely that a tall player throw the ball in. The theory behind this is that the taller the player the less of a loop that needs to be put on a throw. The less of a loop the less chance there is of a lineout steal.
The point about lifting is that bulky big players are harder to get into the air quickly than lighter, thinner players. I’ve even seen Chris Whitaker win a lineout, being thrown high into the air like a rag doll.
Because lifters can throw lighter players into the air every bit as high as the taller/bigger players can go, it would be relatively easy for these catchers to make the quick, highish leap for the non-looped throw from the tall player.
The question might be asked, what would be the use of tall players if lineout work was taken away from them?
My answer is that the third dimension of rugby, the ball in the air, is moving from the sole point of the lineout to all around the field. Specialist catchers of bombs and kick/passes to the sidelines will be a necessary part of the tall forward’s game in the future.
eric said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Hoy,
Surely you can understand that throwing can be difficult. Even Warnie bowls the odd long hop or full toss, top tennis players only get 60-80% of first serves in, darts players don’t throw bulls eyes every time. Lineout throwing is no different. But I do agree that it doesn’t have to be the hooker. I am also bemused by the throwing stance, with toes level. Think of nearly every similar sporting action, and it is done using a dominant side action, eg archery, shooting, lawn & ten pin bowling, tennis serving, cricket batting and bowling, dart throwing, golf putting, rugby goal kicking etc. In fact, if you asked untrained people to throw in to the lineout, I reckon they would naturally stand side-on. Why are our coaches stuck on front on?
Also, why do our drop kickers go through that bizarre ritual of bouncing the ball before kicking, at 22’s & kick-offs?
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Given there are examples in the 80’s what then makes a tradition and when does keeping a tradition become outmoded?
Is a tactic a tradition – I am sure that if one country changed the way a position was played the others would follow & game would alter.
Its called evolution – after all is that not how hookers came to throw “back then”?
Jerry said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Spiro – on the Whitaker lineout take, the Hurricanes used to do the same with Jason Spice.
I’m not so sure the tall hooker/tall quarterback analogy is entirely appropriate. A large part of the reason of the effectiveness of tall quarterbacks is that the extra height allows them to SEE over the defence, which isn’t really a requirement for hookers. The difference in trajectory wouldn’t be all that much, even from a 2 metre tall hooker as they’ve got to throw it from 5 metres back at the very least and a bit of a parabola on the throw is necessary unless the throw is going to the very front.
Eric – it’s to test how the ball will bounce of course. The most crucial part of any drop-kick attempt is to get the ball to bounce up uniformly as the kicker has no opportunity to adjust his swing after the bounce. Different spots on the field can bounce differently as there will always be some variation in how hard/soft the pitch is.
Jerry said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Also – re the front on throwing method.
Have a look at free throw shooting in basketball – a lot of players shoot with both feet level.
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Mr Mac, there are examples in the early 70s and the 60s. I think therefore that basic chronology makes throwing a hooking tradition.
Spiro, I thought that was the point of the second row pairing – one larger, no.4, and one slimmer and more agile, no.5.
There is a balance on purpose, and in any case Whitaker could not get higher in the air than Matfield, or somebody even taller like Bekker or Charteris. Furthermore I don’t think a players weight comes into lifting as long as he has a moderate vertical jump. On a simple level there will always be a place for taller players because forwards by necessity have to be larger than backs.
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Throwing – the opposition jumpers are often in the air by the time the hooker has released the ball, the arc and release would take even longer with a taller thrower, thus giving further opportunity to the defensive lineout to throw a player upwards.
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Benjamin
Bible or evolution – I’ll go for the latter – that’s life
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Hookers are supposed to position their body, head and arms so that the ball is visible to the forwards.
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
OJ, I don’t follow?
Mr. Mac, shame you’re not an international rugby coach or you could be revolutionising contemporary rugby.
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:47am | Report comment
I was referring to why they stand front on.
When did the French stop using their halfback for the throw ins?
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Benjamin
I don’t need to be – there are others more skilled – but change will occur & if its not successful it will fail – but occur it will
Benjamin said | August 12th 2008 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Mr. Mac, all jokes aside, let’s be realistic, hookers will throw the ball in for the forseeable future.
OJ, I have no idea, I do know that Dintrans and Dubroca threw in, so that covers the late 70s and 80s.
Chris Beck said | August 12th 2008 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Spiro -
I think you generally want the best thrower of the ball to throw the ball. Height would be nice but . . . .
Some years ago my hometown NFL team (the Seattle Seahawks) drafted a quarterback named Dan McGwire, who is the brother of baseball player Mark McGwire. Anyway, Dan McGwire was 6′8″ (very tall for an NFL QB) and it was postulated that such height would be advantageous because he could see clearly over the oncoming pass rush.
As these stories often end, the theory and what actually happened were substantially different. While he could see clearly over the line of scrimmage, he couldn’t throw the ball worth a damn. He was ineffective, to say the least, and only spent four or maybe five years in the NFL.
I agree with your concept of making more use of tall players around the field. High kicks in the direction of a height mismatch, etc are effective provided the kick is reasonably well-placed.
Mr Mac said | August 12th 2008 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Benjamin
That is probably so but its not a reason to exclude the option of others doing it.
Think of all possibilities under the ELV’s – a jumping group 25m infield
Whats wrong with a Gridiron (that probably reflects my age) type throw 3/4 the way across the field. Possible but ripe for an intercept – there are probable other variations.
These would require a different type of thrower
Jim Boyce said | August 12th 2008 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Excuse me if I did/do have an interest in this. Firstly the fatigue element comes into play and if you watch the second half throws you will see a marked deterioration and guess what, when are the crucial throws? I sympathise with hookers trying to get their sightlines straight when they are just come from the bottom of another scrum or ruck. Secondly Mr Mac has a good point, a long throw should be in the arsenal. Hit the O/C at speed and look out. Thirdly both feet on the line is the accepted norm, but a throw has to have speed or you are going to get picked off, particularly if you have two small flankers and only have two jumpers. Very few Dart competitors use two feet up. A lot of hookers fudge later in the game and have one foot in the field of play but are very seldom blown for it because the linesman is monitoring the straightness. Lastly, I would use the blind side flanker, amazing how clean a shot you can get on the 5/8 or F/B if they are getting rattled.
I would be fascinated to know how these guys train. If the thrower cant hit the black dot on the crossbar 8 out of 10 from 15 metres then you should look for someone else. There are also other techniques such as the catcher in baseball positioning his body so it looks like a strike, even if it is wide.
Amazing response to this issue. I believe Spiro is right , you need speed and a minimum loop. The Wallabies were fooling around at the front of the lineout. That is low percentage stuff because you need surprise and can only pull it off once a game. Referee will mostly pull it up because it hasn’t gone 5 just on suspicion because no-one is ideally placed to make a tight call on this. Look forward to any comments on this as we seem to be on record setting pace for a “Roar” issue.
JohnB said | August 12th 2008 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Just to clarify – when I started playing rugby in 1972 as an 11 y/o you still occasionally saw the winger throwing in (at that not very exalted level). Within a year or two after that it was virtually universally the hooker. A Wallaby hooker at that time was Mick Freney, who threw into the lineout. I think you would have to go back into the 60’s to find wingers still throwing in at the top level. Lifting in the lineout didn’t come in until the 90’s. Throwing in strikes me as a harder skill now than it was then, as the ability to lift cuts down the margins for error. In my view it is underrated in its difficulty – don’t forget, when the ball is thrown you don’t have anything except a spot in the air to aim at. Contrast that with basketballers taking free throws – they are ultra-professional too, but still miss, even though they have a fixed point to aim at (and as Jim Boyce – not the former winger and noted lineout thrower? – points out, without having to cope with the effects of a body contact game.
Nowadays, if you throw fairly flat to 4, someone lifted at 2 or 3 is a fair chance of catching it or getting a hand to it.
For fear of even mentioning the name, I don’t think we’re even close to the Tahu record for Roar discussions!
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2008 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Yeah,
They say that throwing in is the most difficult closed skill to execute in a game of rugby. The hooker has to stay relaxed to achieve an accurate, powerful throw, and as Jim rightly points out, fatigue plays a huge part, not only in the throwing but also in the lifting.
Speaking of throwing in, Fred Allen had this to say about the twins James and Stewart Boyce — “wings of good class, but as throwers-in from touch each was a genius. Each had developed the torpedo throw, curving the fingers under the ball as it left the hand to produce a spinning flight in the one plane.”
The American winger Peter Dawkins usually gets credited for popularising the torpedo throw at Oxford in 1959, perhaps Jim can tell us where he picked it up? Prior to that it was two hands from between the legs, right?
JohnB said | August 12th 2008 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
OJ – I knew about the Boyce twins from Fred Allen’s book. There was also the throw in with an action like bowling in cricket.
Matt said | August 12th 2008 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
All good points, but I still believe throwing is a far more complex skill than sweeping at the back of the lineout or lifting. If you have a dynamic hooker (as in Polota Nau), then they could cover the 7’s role, if it turned out the flanker was the most skilled (and more importantly) the most consistent thrower. I think it is crazy that we persist with guys (like Jeremy Paul) who were great around the park, but couldn’t hit the side of a barn door. Keep them in the side, just take the job of them.
Peter K said | August 12th 2008 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Maybe a lot of people don’t realise that hitting a fixed visible target like a crossbar , or a hoop held 3 metres up is a lot easier than the real thing. Why? In a lot of cases you have to aim and throw at an imaginary point based on the call. The further back you are throwing the earlier you have to throw. Only a quick throw to no 2 are they up in the air in position before you throw, and have an actual target to aim at.
So imagine having to throw 10-15 metres away, at an imaginary target 3+ metres up in the air. If you leave it until the jumper is up and ready it gives time for the defence to go up and intercept. This is why it is such a hard skill to master.
In practice at fixed targets they hit 49/50 throws.
Jim Boyce said | August 12th 2008 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
To answer ohtani’s jacket – Stewart and I were doing this from 1962 onwards. I was playing most of my club football at O/C, while Stew was a specialist winger from 1960 which was our first year out of school. We were 20 in !962 and tried a few things together. In New Zealand it wasn’t so easy as you were inevitably playing in wet conditions and there were no towels to dry the ball for a good grip. In South Africa in 1963 it was easy, particularly on the veldt. Towels were more available from 1963 onwards. Thanks for the memory. Regards Jim
Cutter said | August 12th 2008 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
So, George Smith (or whoever) becomes the new thrower. However, he retires at the end of the season or is injured during a match. Do all 7s being considered to replace him now have to be able to throw into lineouts? Phil Waugh comes off the bench to replace him but cant throw into the lineout so we have to replace the hooker too?
The reason one position throws into the lineout is so that when he is replaced, his replacement can also throw into the lineout. A French club (which still uses its 9s to throw into the lineout) recently paid a lot of money for a good Currie Cup halfback. However, he spent two thirds of the season learning to throw into the lineout while the existing substandard halfback played.
Whatever model you use, whether it be 7s, 9s or 2s throwing into the lineout, everyone has to do it. TPN has a weak throw at times, but what’s to say that Pocock wouldnt be worse? This isnt a solution. Continuing to teach TPN to throw is a solution.
mudskipper said | August 12th 2008 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Why are hookers still throwing the ball into lineouts?
If you packed down in the middle of an ugly scrum all day with the hardest men on the field and then had to play the ball with your feet you would want to get to touch the ball every now and then too…Hence the hooker gets to touch the ball during the lineout throw, its a reward…for scrummaging…
But are Hookers scoring to many tries these days is the real question?
Netrug said | August 12th 2008 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
I believe that the best thrower should put the ball into the lineouts.
As stated here, wingers used to but you had a different thrower on each side of the field and that lacked consistency.
In the late 1970s, the French reckoned the beat thrower was the halfback and he was used for a couple of years. Two problems emerged, one was that the half was a shorter man so had to throw a much higher lob to reach his catchers. The other problem was that a flanker had to play behind the lineout as the receiver because the half was guardibg the front of the line and the flanker did not have the passing skills of the halfback. They reverted to the hooker throwing the ball.
ohtani's jacket said | August 12th 2008 @ 11:41pm | Report comment
Thanks for the reply Jim.
Speaking of hookers scoring tries, I watched Uli Schmidt score a beauty today — http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEeddJwVj8 (NZ Cavaliers vs Springboks highlights, well worth watching if you think Botha or Fox were just kickers.)
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2008 @ 1:28am | Report comment
Now this is interesting.
I was trying to research who pioneered using hookers to throw the ball in and apparently it was Dave Gallaher’s 1905 All Blacks.
In the 70s it seems Pullin and Windsor were the first hookers to throw the ball in. 1975 was the earliest footage I could find of them throwing the ball in. France were using wingers from the late 70s footage I watched and in the 1979 France/NZ Test at Eden Park both Dalton and Wilson threw the ball in.
Interesting enough, the Wallabies used wingers in their loss to Tonga in 1973. The comentator mentions Tonga’s success in the lineouts.
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2008 @ 1:31am | Report comment
I should mention that in all of the 1974 Five Nations footage it’s a winger throwing the ball in.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 1:35am | Report comment
OJ – Pullin’s England debut was 1966.
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2008 @ 1:52am | Report comment
That doesn’t mean he was throwing in from 1966, though.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 1:54am | Report comment
I believe he was. Interestingly I picked up Peter Wheeler’s autobiography on amazon the other day. So that may be informative when it arrives.
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2008 @ 2:08am | Report comment
It didn’t look like Pullin throwing in during the ‘73 Barbarians match.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 3:08am | Report comment
I couldn’t imagine Duckham throwing in, or Bryan Williams. I’ve looked at replays and it looks like Pullin but it’s hard to tell because they all have the same hair. I think the All Black no. 11, Batty, was throwing in on the NZ put in?
Dublin Dave said | August 13th 2008 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Have a look at this link here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwCbG4I0QyA&feature=related
It’s a lineout in the 1973 Barbarians New Zealand match. Even if Cliff Morgan’s commentary is wrong “John Pullin, England’s Captain” the number two on his back is a giveaway. Furthermore, those of us old enough to remember what John Pullin looked like can confirm that it is indeed he throwing the ball in.
However, I remember going to a couple of the games in Ireland on that tour as a kid and the All Blacks used their wingers to throw in. I remember because they used an unusual action that I had not seen before. The winger stood sideways on to the touchline and lobbed the ball in one handed over his head like a hand grenade.
It was definitley the early to mid 1970s when it became popular for the hooker to throw the ball in.
Benjamin said | August 13th 2008 @ 7:44am | Report comment
The ol’ basketball hook shot. maybe Batty was a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar fan?
Mick Holden said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Thanks Dublin Dave for allowing me to watch that try again.
I wasn’t to be born for two years after this match but I grew up hearing my old man’s tales of this very try and the welsh players skills of that era. That is the rugby we all love and remember. A bit loose, plenty of space and enough half chances for skillful players to have some fun. Classic Baa Baa stuff.
ohtani's jacket said | August 13th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Pullin it was!
I watched Batty score off his own throw against Eastern Transvaal in ‘76.
Gatesy said | August 13th 2008 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
Matt, you are a breath of fresh air – a new topic to debate. Why didn’t we think of it before?
You are totally correct. You don’t drop Giteau if his kicking goes off the boil, you just get another kicker.
We could experiment with everyone in the squad. Wendell Sailor, for instance would have been worth a try because he couldn’t do much else….but seriously, the guy with the best skills should be the thrower, and imagine …. the innovative coaches could probably find ways to use it to their advantage.
Training sessions would be a lot more fun, too.
Spiro’s idea has some merit, but you couldn’t seriously suggest that Dan Vickerman should be the thrower, when we need him to win ball.
I still remember the days of the winger doing the “Warnie” loop, with the ball going end over end, and the lineout being a complete brawl.
However, let’s not forget that if we in the SH have an original idea, all the NH guys will immediately find ten reasons why it’s not a good one!
You could have a long throw specialist, a short throw specialist, etc, you could develop variations on the current throwing technique, the mind boggles. Mind you, you’d only get away with that against the Irish!
It’s refreshing to think that we can open up a whole new line of thinking in our game. Can our RL mates say that?
Gatesy said | August 13th 2008 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Another thought.
In 1987 when I was in the Navy and my ship was visiting Manila, we played in a tournament at the Nomads club (what an experience, and what a great club!).
We played against two USA teams, Marines and Navy. I can’t remember which one it was, but these big black guys were throwing gridiron passes across the field almost from one side to the other. Imagine if they had had the benefit of the ELV’s. You can just see it. Who says you have to throw it into the lineout. Why not throw it clear across the paddock to a waiting winger?
The mind boggles with the possibilities.
Dublin Dave said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
Gatesy
This jibe “if we in the SH have an original idea, all the NH guys will immediately find ten reasons why it’s not a good one” is as unfair in what I assume to be its attempted meaning as it is illogical in its actual expression.
After all, if somebody can come up with ten reasons why something isn’t a good idea, that at least suggests that the idea is debatable.
I thought I had posted here a piece ( I either forgot to press the button or it just didn’t appear) in favour of varying who throws the ball into the lineout. I’m all in favour of mixing things up tactically and thinking outside the box.
What I would object to, and what I think you meant to refer to, would be you SH types saying. “Let’s write into the laws that it MUST be your shortest fattest slowest bloke who throws the ball into the lineout because that will make the game quicker”
There’s a difference.
Dublin Dave said | August 13th 2008 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Throwing the ball long into the middle of the park has NOTHING to do with ELVs. It’s been done many times before. In fact I’m pretty sure I remember reading that Alexander Obolensky, the Russian prince who played for England in the 1930s once threw a long pass like that from a lineout to the winger on the other side of the pitch.
Of course the receiver had to make up ten yards, which meant that the pass was extremely vulnerable to an interception, which is probably why it is not used so much. But with the benefit of the element of surprise it is something that can be and has been done.
And let’s face it. You can’t get more “Northern Hemisphere” than a bloody Russian!!!
Matt said | August 19th 2008 @ 8:13am | Report comment
See, I was onto something!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24203957-5015651,00.html
Dublin Dave said | August 22nd 2008 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Just as a footnote to this.
I read that the All Blacks on the 1905 tour to Britain and Ireland, the one captained by Dave Gallagher, used their hooker to throw the ball into the lineout, which was considered innovative at the time because the common practice then was for the scrum half or wing to throw the ball in.
For some reason, they had stopped doing it nearly 70 years later when I saw them, but they do do it again now.
So like many things in rugby, this thing is just a vogue that swings in and out of fashion. There is absolutely no hard and fast reason why the hooker HAS to throw it in.