Scotland's first try

[Phil E]

So IMO #7 in the example wasn't legal as he had no intention or possibility of receiving the ball .

You are reluctant to say whether you think #7 was legal or not? whaddya think ?

I am not reluctant, I just thought it was obvious from my previous emails. He is legal because he is in a position to receive the ball. Whether he did or not is irrelevant, as were his intentions.

I'm done now.

 

[crossref]

I am not reluctant, I just thought it was obvious from my previous emails. He is legal because he is in a position to receive the ball. Whether he did or not is irrelevant, as were his intentions.
.

well for me

d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.


'so as to be' means 'in order to be' or 'with the intention of being' in a position to catch.

I don't think it gives the throwing team a licence to drop out of the lineout and stand 2m back.
What does anyone else think ?

in the case of scotland #7 he clearly wasn't legal as he didn't keep moving.

[LAWS]d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over.[/LAWS]

which is all part of the same thing : he dodn't leave the lineout as 'peeler' to receive the ball, he left the line out to position himself behind the planned receiver of the ball, and to get momentum as he joined the maul

 

[Arabcheif]

I understand what CR is saying. I think that the wording is so a player can peel to receive a tap down or pop pass and continue a run. The aspect of this for me would be the continue moving. Watson has stopped and is waiting on the ball. So has stopped. But as has been said, is never reffed like that, at least anymore. I've never seen it penalised either on the TV at any level or at grass routes. If fact I asked one of my Soc colleagues this very question during the Lions Tour and he said that it was fine. I remain dubious about it TBH. And if we allow attacking team to step out, equity dictates we allow the defense they same freedom.

 

[belladonna]

Tbh I think the peeler is a side issue given that the move was either a FW and/or a pre-latch.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The Australians never whined about it (unbelievably ) so can we surmise they're happy? Or was it so cute they never spotted it in real time?

I thought it was a FW or pre-latching.

That said is HM leaving the lineout to "peel" or have Scotland got 2 receivers? = FK

What a mess!

 

[crossref]

The Australians never whined about it (unbelievably ) so can we surmise they're happy? !

no, we tell players not to appeal and complain, and well disciplined teams conform to that and focus on the game.

we can't then conclude that they must be happy.

 

[timmad]

I understand what CR is saying. I think that the wording is so a player can peel to receive a tap down or pop pass and continue a run. The aspect of this for me would be the continue moving. Watson has stopped and is waiting on the ball. So has stopped. But as has been said, is never reffed like that, at least anymore. I've never seen it penalised either on the TV at any level or at grass routes. If fact I asked one of my Soc colleagues this very question during the Lions Tour and he said that it was fine. I remain dubious about it TBH. And if we allow attacking team to step out, equity dictates we allow the defense they same freedom.

Agree with this. 18.29.d re leaving the line should be clarified so it cannot be interpreted to allow what amounts to double banking - unless, as you say, the defending team are allowed to do the same.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

no, we tell players not to appeal and complain, and well disciplined teams conform to that and focus on the game.

we can't then conclude that they must be happy.

I assume Hooper was captain and NO WAY would he not mention it if he had a problem, unless of course he knows he'll get short shrift from RP. I don't think they noticed.

Look at the Lions reaction in 1974 to Slattery's disallowed try in the last minute of the final test. You know when players are pissed off. And that was from a time players kept their gobs shut - too busy thumping each other most likely.

 

[OB..]

Being in a position to receive the ball does NOT imply that he must be expecting to do so. It might be a dummy run .

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Being in a position to receive the ball does NOT imply that he must be expecting to do so. It might be a dummy run .

So let's assume 2 lifters and a catcher. Are we all happy with 4 "dummy runners" and the receiver?

 

[Caniscot]

A senior referee presented at our recent society meeting. During the Q+As, the discussion turned to applying the Global Law Trials. If I remember correctly, they said that the instructions senior refs were getting was that the latching GLTs were intended to be used to control what was allowed by players picking the ball out of the back of a ruck that had become slow and static and were not intended to control activities in more dynamic situations, such as occur when a maul forms in the immediate aftermath of a lineout. If this is correct, this explains why the clear two person latching that happened during this move was not seen as an issue by the team of 3 and TMO at the match.

 

[Zebra1922]

A senior referee presented at our recent society meeting. During the Q+As, the discussion turned to applying the Global Law Trials. If I remember correctly, they said that the instructions senior refs were getting was that the latching GLTs were intended to be used to control what was allowed by players picking the ball out of the back of a ruck that had become slow and static and were not intended to control activities in more dynamic situations, such as occur when a maul forms in the immediate aftermath of a lineout. If this is correct, this explains why the clear two person latching that happened during this move was not seen as an issue by the team of 3 and TMO at the match.

That’s all very well, but it’s not how the law has been written, and there is no publically available guidance to all referees that it should be applied in this way. If we look at why pre-latching is not allowed, it’s because it prevents a fair contest to the ball carrier, and is potentially dangerous. No difference in this scenario to any other examples of pre-latching.

I was very surprised the try stood, if it wasn’t pre-latching (and I see no reason why it wasn’t), it was offside as the ball was passed back before a maul was formed.

 

[Decorily]

If we accept that the ball was not transferred back prior to contact (which is the way I see it) then in my opinion the move was legal. The lineout had not ended as the ball was passed from the jumper to another player still in the lineout and then should be treated as any other attempt to form a maul.
The definition of a flying wedge says it occurs from a penalty, free kick or open play.....this scenario fits none of those.
It was still a lineout and an attempt to form a maul with the ball at the front and the ball carrier tackelable.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

With the risk of getting screamed down - was this not the beginning of a flying wedge like manoeuvre?

Regardless of that - passing the ball back into a preformed maul like that is against the whole point of rugby being a contest for the ball.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

It was still a lineout and an attempt to form a maul with the ball at the front and the ball carrier tackelable.

Disagree - the catcher has released the ball to another player who has left the lineout - Line out over.

 

[Decorily]

Disagree - the catcher has released the ball to another player who has left the lineout - Line out over.
View attachment 4262

The player with the red scrumcap hasn't left the lineout. ..not sure what the point of the image you posted is!

 

[SimonSmith]

no, we tell players not to appeal and complain, and well disciplined teams conform to that and focus on the game.

we can't then conclude that they must be happy.

Jesus. That's the voice of a man who hasn't seen much of Michael Hooper. Or indeed listened to him much in the game. Romain had a constant temperature check on how Hooper was feeling for the full game.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

The player with the red scrumcap hasn't left the lineout. ..not sure what the point of the image you posted is!

So the red scrum cap, being on the ground, made no real attempt to catch the ball and a metre behind the catcher, along with the 7 who ends up with the ball are all in the lineout?

The picture shows the point where 6 releases the ball - at which point the LO is over for mine. Redcap already has their back to the wallaby line and looking at their pre-bind they are in the wedge formation:

[LAWS]An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.[/LAWS]

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Jesus. That's the voice of a man who hasn't seen much of Michael Hooper. Or indeed listened to him much in the game. Romain had a constant temperature check on how Hooper was feeling for the full game.

D'accord.

 

[didds]

The definition of a flying wedge says it occurs from a penalty, free kick or open play.....this scenario fits none of those.
It was still a lineout and an attempt to form a maul with the ball at the front and the ball carrier tackelable.

So the pass off the top wasnt the ball leaving the lineout, lineout over, and now open play is in place?

didds