[Law] Can;t bind before tackled

[didds]

Debating elsewhere I've just been told

" technically you're not allowed to bind to a player before they are tackled it was to stop the flying wedge"

really? I'm having a brain fart now cos I can't think how this could possibly be?

(leaving aside the fact that a tackled player is on the ground and assuming the person with tis claim means in contact with an opponent)

didds

 

[beckett50]

Rubbish!

 

[ChrisR]

" technically you're not allowed to bind to a player before they are tackled it was to stop the flying wedge "

I'm assuming they meant that pre-binding by a teammate to the ball carrier is unlawful. I don't see that it's specifically prohibited in law. Ignoring applying the 'flying wedge' law.

I think that it should be but I'm not on a crusade to ban it. I do think that the 'latcher' poses a risk to the would be tackler.

If the latcher is bound on the same side that the tackler is approaching then, when the tackler puts his head behind the BC, his head is going to be in front of the latcher. Plus, the tackler has double the mass to contend with. Pick and go's aren't the main threat tho that's where the latcher works his trade. I'm more concerned with the crash from depth where the latcher joins at the point of tackle at speed.

I can't point to any injury study to support my view. It's just a feeling that if two cars crash into one there has to be more damage done.

 

[chbg]

If the latcher is bound on the same side that the tackler is approaching then ... it should be obstruction (Law9.3)

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]Flying wedge: 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].
Tehnically, it doess seem to be a flying wedge but in practice i guess it's only a flying wedge when it happens at a pk

Or, better, it's only. FY when you have a latcher on both sides

 

[didds]

Plus, the tackler has double the mass to contend with.

Almost playing devils advicate though, that's not a lot of difference from a diminutive scrum half facing a bullocking second row.

I do see the point being made of course, very reasonably. I guess its just very difficult to write into law something that's definitive and "easy" to spot and referee. The closest we get is the flying wedge law and while the argument may be that as a law it is thus effective, I've NEVER seen a FW - or something pinged as a FW - in over 40 years of involvement.

didds

 

[didds]

If the latcher is bound on the same side that the tackler is approaching then ... it should be obstruction (Law9.3)

Think you've misunderstood.

"Same" side here being eg left side of ball carrier to the attackers, right side of ball carrier to the defenders. eg the same hip. Not the defending teams' side/neatest the defnder's DBL.

didds

 

[OB..]

I do see the point being made of course, very reasonably. I guess its just very difficult to write into law something that's definitive and "easy" to spot and referee. The closest we get is the flying wedge law and while the argument may be that as a law it is thus effective, I've NEVER seen a FW - or something pinged as a FW - in over 40 years of involvement.

didds

The law is not really a definition. It describes "An illegal type of attack" which the referee should treat as dangerous play.

The first mention in the Times was in 1985 when apparently Ireland had banned it in junior rugby. It wasn't added to the Law book until 1996. I have a vague recollection that the Flying Wedge and the Cavalry Charge were among other Australian imaginative ideas for use at penalties close to the goal line. Like didds, I don't remember ever seeing any of these (except occasionally on TV).

These days this site the only place where I see them mentioned. I don't think it is helpful to try and shoehorn other activities into these vague concepts.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

We saw a lot in Welsh club rugby in the 1980s. Cardiff were particularly adept at them. A lot of tries resulted from them.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

[LAWS]Flying wedge: 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].
Tehnically, it doess seem to be a flying wedge but in practice i guess it's only a flying wedge when it happens at a pk

Disagree, it says usually happens. I would say that latching on, by definition is illegal as it is a flying wedge that is happening, just not at a penalty. Always thought it is dangerous and should be banned. Seems that the laws actually say that.

 

[menace]

Think you've misunderstood.

"Same" side here being eg left side of ball carrier to the attackers, right side of ball carrier to the defenders. eg the same hip. Not the defending teams' side/neatest the defnder's DBL.

didds

I think you may have over-thought chbg....he was suggesting the latcher could effectively prevent the tackler getting to the ball carrier....hence the obstruction.
I would tend to agree...that would be obstruction.

 

[didds]

Fair enough menace - I'll respectfully disagree then wrt this being obstruction. Otherwise every lineout "maul" setup would be obstruction wrt two lifters adopting side support upon the catcher landing, or similarly lifted kick receipt.

didds

 

[menace]

Good point. Though with lineout it's more static situation and provided the catcher is "in front" and available to be "tackled" then all ok...but if support step too far on front then they are obtructing and are liable for Pk?

The open play situation in my mind ia kinetic and doesn't allow the time for a player to target the ball carrier with the same ease. So a little different.

 

[didds]

When I "began" and way before lifting, the RFU (and maybe other NGB's) suggested lineout "blockers" (which are now lifters) were coached to bind over the back of the catcher , creating a bit of a "V" surrounding the catcher. This was more obstruction that the usual current scenario where "inside" arms tend to go around the midriff of the catcher leaving more of his rear available for opponents contact. In fact, this ended up (pre lifting) as my preferred method of blocking/binding as i found my elbow kept getting smashed the wrong way when binding over the back.

didds

 

[crossref]

Disagree, it says usually happens. I would say that latching on, by definition is illegal as it is a flying wedge that is happening, just not at a penalty. Always thought it is dangerous and should be banned. Seems that the laws actually say that.

And there's the rub. The Laws do indeed seem to say that latching is illegal, but, by convention, we allow it .
It's a shame the 2018 authors didnt have a go at this one, a good opportunity to make sure the Law reflects how WR want it reffed .

Or perhaps they did.