any thoughts on this passage of play?

[Volun-selected]

Looking at the second video, EE seems to be deliberately waiting for the opportunity. The moment ruck moves forward and Marler’s “bind” stays passive that seems to act as a trigger.

Agreed, a call of “unbound, ruck over” would have been helpful, but are we expected to give the players a running commentary or warn them of deficiencies in their setup?

EE read the situation (and the way the referee was interpreting) perfectly for this play - isn’t that we coach players to do?

 

[crossref]

Looking at the second video, EE seems to be deliberately waiting for the opportunity. The moment ruck moves forward and Marler’s “bind” stays passive that seems to act as a trigger.

Agreed, a call of “unbound, ruck over” would have been helpful, but are we expected to give the players a running commentary or warn them of deficiencies in their setup?

EE read the situation (and the way the referee was interpreting) perfectly for this play - isn’t that we coach players to do?

Yes we do . Full marks to EE

Turning to the ref, don't we coach refs to referee consistent with currently accepted conventions, and never to pull an unexpected gotcha out of a hat ?

 

[Stu10]

Looking at the second video, EE seems to be deliberately waiting for the opportunity. The moment ruck moves forward and Marler’s “bind” stays passive that seems to act as a trigger.

Agreed, a call of “unbound, ruck over” would have been helpful, but are we expected to give the players a running commentary or warn them of deficiencies in their setup?

EE read the situation (and the way the referee was interpreting) perfectly for this play - isn’t that we coach players to do?

It was generally agreed that this was a planned move, that a player would rock the ruck and then EE would pounce... he was definitely deliberately waiting for the opportunity. They tried the same thing earlier in the game (apparently, I've not seen it) but it didn't work and EE got penalised for offside.

I wonder if they had spoken with the ref pre-KO to clarify this situation (i.e. incomplete bind) and whether the ball would be considered out.

 

[didds]

... but are we expected to give the players a running commentary or warn them of deficiencies in their setup?

Well that seems to have been the case for decades already so whats new?
Why do refs tell kick chasers to stop if they are offside? isnt that a "deficiency in their makeup"
Constant warnings and info etc has just created a 2nd bite of the cherry scenario. ie have a go, and if told to stop do so - unpunished. But if not told carry on safe etc.
telling players the ball is out is already in use and is just a continuation of the verbal aids that have been constantly given for decades
At least since 1997

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.rugby.union/c/M3gzOiGVP8U/m/-rfZWIXBImQJ

;-)

 

[belladonna]

Yes we do . Full marks to EE

Turning to the ref, don't we coach refs to referee consistent with currently accepted conventions, and never to pull an unexpected gotcha out of a hat ?

Like I said earlier, with Nika Amashukeli there are sometimes these "strange things". I love having referees from all over the world but I'm frankly puzzled by his appointment to Tier 1 games. This isn't the first time he's left people scratching their heads.

 

[Camquin]

International props, even semi-retired ones - should know they need to bind with the whole arm.

That they don't says a lot about the way English referees have managed the game - that is, they have permitted hands only binds for too long.
They also permit scrum haves to play the ball from an off-side position, rather than require the players in the ruck to move the ball.

I have no problem with IRB changing the law to permit the scrum-half to advance to the ball as they can in a scrum, or to permit binding by placing a hand on a ruck, - but until they do, I think referees should apply the law as written.

 

[shebeen]

so wonder what would happen (not related to OP):
Ref hangs arm and calls "knock on Blue, advantage"
Everyone relaxes, Blue swoop on ball and score try.
TMO review shows no knock-on actually occurred.
Try awarded?

It can't even get that far. The ref would blow the whistle as soon as blue gathers the ball and "red" loses advantage.

 

[Volun-selected]

Well that seems to have been the case for decades already so whats new?
Why do refs tell kick chasers to stop if they are offside? isnt that a "deficiency in their makeup"

For me, calling out a tackle has been made, a reminder to keep hands out of a ruck, to get back onside, etc. are just to try and keep the game flowing but if I don’t get chance to call it before a player steps in to illegally pull the ball out of the ruck then they get penalized regardless of whether I called it in advance.

I’m more differentiating between that and calling out a play unfolding - say a series of pick and goes that seem to be more interested in going toward the center of the pitch than advancing towards goal while the No 10 seems to be dropping back to a very kickable position. I’m not going to yell “make sure it’s a drop kick” or “watch the offside if it comes back off the post” or such.

 

[crossref]

i think it's good idea to call out what phase of play we are in (tackle / ruck / maul / touch) so that everyone knows what Laws you are applying.

This seems sensible as many of the players won't be well enough sighted to tell on their own (and indeed may have a different POV from the ref)

I am less keen on instructions that tell them how to play.

 

[SimonSmith]

We seem to be looking at this context free from the rest of the game.

EE had tried it earlier in the game, and had been penalized for getting it wrong earlier in the game. To call this a "gotcha", when both sides were clearly now aware that a) this was a thing that Sharks were looking at doing and b) the referee had laid out his standards on it seems a bit harsh to me.

If a team had tried this earlier in the game, do you not think that it's incumbent on 'Elite' players like Marler and Care to, I dunno, be half awake and be aware? This is the equivalent of me, in HR, not being aware of a recent change in Discrimination Law or something. if it's core to your job, you should know about it. This is squarely on those two and not the referee.

 

[crossref]

In what way had the ref laid out his standards the first time if he penalised EE for offside the same way anyone else would?

Were Quins actually drawn in by the ref ?

 

[belladonna]

What would you have called in this instance though, if you'd been on the spot?

Would you have blown EE up for offside despite Marler's bind with the hand only, because that's kind of customary practice - or would you have stuck to the letter of the law and rewarded EE's smart thinking and enterprise?

I was thinking about this in bed the other night (I have no life ) and couldn't make up my mind one way or the other. Seems unfair to penalise EE, but also seems like not what everyone expects to allow play on

 

[Mipper]

What would you have called in this instance though, if you'd been on the spot?

Would you have blown EE up for offside despite Marler's bind with the hand only, because that's kind of customary practice - or would you have stuck to the letter of the law and rewarded EE's smart thinking and enterprise?

I was thinking about this in bed the other night (I have no life ) and couldn't make up my mind one way or the other. Seems unfair to penalise EE, but also seems like not what everyone expects to allow play on

Two thoughts on this;
My initial reaction is that the ball was out because it moved away from below Marler’s leg, I.E. out of the side. I know this is often ignored by refs but imho it shouldn’t be.
Secondly it appeared that Marler moved forward as he sensed EE moving around and left the ball completely “out” which seemed rather odd.

I must confess that the binding issue didn’t occur to me at the time. Must do better!

 

[Stu10]

What would you have called in this instance though, if you'd been on the spot?

Would you have blown EE up for offside despite Marler's bind with the hand only, because that's kind of customary practice - or would you have stuck to the letter of the law and rewarded EE's smart thinking and enterprise?

I was thinking about this in bed the other night (I have no life ) and couldn't make up my mind one way or the other. Seems unfair to penalise EE, but also seems like not what everyone expects to allow play on

I'm not convinced I would be fast enough to have spotted what happened in real-time!!! If you clearly saw the bind "break" and you were sure the defender started on side then let it go; but if I wasn't 100% sure then I'd ping the defender.

One thing that would concern me in a grassroots game is that once you let the first one go, there will be defenders chancing their luck for the rest of the match, which could be a headache to manage.

 

[BikingBud]

Get rid of the caterpillar bind and you then have a distinct back feet/ball still in position that doesn't require absolute precision to manage effectively.

This will also speed game up as SH will not be waiting for the 3 or 4 players to set up the caterpillar and then manhandle the ball back.

 

[didds]

I agree... but then you have legislate very precisisely that cant just be out-thought within a few days. Which WR have manifestly shown over time they are not capable of.

 

[Mipper]

Vaguely related to this, I did an U16 game at the weekend where one team formed a caterpillar at the back of their ruck that took the ball, probably 3 feet over the try line!

I was the only one on the pitch, who seemed to understand that this was a very silly thing to do. Scrum half picked up and kicked clear.

I spoke to both sets of coaches afterwards, none of whom realised that this could/should have led to a try. Probably because this rarely happens on TV it doesn’t occur to them.

 

[Stu10]

Vaguely related to this, I did an U16 game at the weekend where one team formed a caterpillar at the back of their ruck that took the ball, probably 3 feet over the try line!

I was the only one on the pitch, who seemed to understand that this was a very silly thing to do. Scrum half picked up and kicked clear.

I spoke to both sets of coaches afterwards, none of whom realised that this could/should have led to a try. Probably because this rarely happens on TV it doesn’t occur to them.

I referee and coach u16 and have never seen a caterpillar ruck around these parts, but I know a lot of u16 scrum-halves that would have pounced on that ball when it got to the try line.

 

[Stu10]

Vaguely related to this, I did an U16 game at the weekend where one team formed a caterpillar at the back of their ruck that took the ball, probably 3 feet over the try line!

I was the only one on the pitch, who seemed to understand that this was a very silly thing to do. Scrum half picked up and kicked clear.

I spoke to both sets of coaches afterwards, none of whom realised that this could/should have led to a try. Probably because this rarely happens on TV it doesn’t occur to them.

Did you shout "ruck over" when the ball got to the try line?

 

[Mipper]

Absolutely not. That would have been inconsistent with the rest of the game. The funny thing was that the initial ruck didn’t extend past the try line but the 9 called for another forward to extend it (over the try line), and I thought “this ain’t gonna end well”. But it did. Good kick too.