Line-out experiments in South Africa

Five possible changes

The IRB gave various countries experiments to perform on possible law changes. Argentina was given the scrum, South Africa the line-outs.

South Africa used the South African Academy Week in Upington to conduct the experiment.

The Academy Week is a provincial tournament for Under-18 school teams, roughly a second team from each of the provinces just before the first teams went off to Craven Week.

Experimental Law Variations were sent to provinces and coaches as well as to the referees concerned two months before the week at the end of June.

Tinkie Heyns conducted the experiment. He and Free Burger were in Upington to monitor the situation. Statistics are being collated, and coaches and referees are to deliver their comments.

The following were the Experimental Law Variations:

1. Provided there was a minimum of two in each line-out numbers would not count.

2. Supporting players were not allowed to pre-grip jumpers, that is have hold of them before they started jumping. Gripping/support of jumpers was allowed only after they had got off the ground under their own steam.

3. If the mark for a penalty kick was outside the team's own half and they kicked it directly into touch, the other team would throw the ball into the line-out.

4. If a defender passed the ball back to a team-mate inside his 22 and the team-mate then kicked directly into touch before any tackle, ruck or maul had taken place, there would be no gain of ground, i.e. the line-out would be opposite where he kicked the ball.

5. If the ball or ball-carrier crossed the plane of the touch-line, the ball was in touch.

Comment on each:

1. This would eliminate the need for counting numbers and resultant free kicks. At the Week there were hardly any short line-outs as a result. It was always clear who the receiver was.

2. This was not always well policed but it appeared that there was more of a contest for the ball in the line-outs and the "supported" players did not rise as high, thus reducing the possibility of danger.

3 & 4. Players ran more with the ball and there was greater continuity. In the case of 3., the ball was more often kicked at goal.

5. The idea behind this was to eliminate much unclarity in this regard – whether the ball is out and if it is whose ball is it.

There were no incidents of this. At first glance it would seem silly if the ball-carrier is out if just a hand or arm crosses the plane of touch.