Did he leave and re-enter from the side or in front of the ball carrier?
Unless the elites are being instructed to create some other interpretation?????
True, but how realistic is that? I remember seeing Neil Back do it, very carefully and cautiously. However if the player only uses one arm, for example, he must surely be releasing and rejoining illegally. If he moves up fast the odds are heavily that he is not continuously bound.if a player remains bound with at least one arm at all times then where is the offence?
True, but how realistic is that?
I remember seeing Neil Back do it, very carefully and cautiously. However if the player only uses one arm, for example, he must surely be releasing and rejoining illegally.
If he moves up fast the odds are heavily that he is not continuously bound.
The OP and subsequent comments seem focused on the defending side and their attempts by changing binds to get to the BC.
I have seen much more this season (and penalised with pretty much universal lack of apparent understanding by players) the situation where the BC - usually the person handed the ball at line out and therefore only one player back from the defending team releases from his bind and slides to the back of the maul. As this is normally happening at the same time as players join in front of the BC to prevent him being got at by defenders I tend to explain by saying to players "joining in front of the ball carrier - must joint at back foot" which is easier to sell I find than when there are no joiners and the offence is explained as "ball carrier did not bind continuously".
Several sides have said that they are coached to do this to which - shrug.....