Defending the lineout

[Brian Ravenhill]

Game yesterday (10th Feb.) two university sides. Do all the pre-match checks and talks etc finishing with the away side. The away team (red) coach then approaches me a says ‘we have a defensive move at the line outs were we all stand off, they form a maul and we appeal for truck and trailer’. ‘Thanks for letting me know’ say I , ‘I’ll look out for it but your team must be disciplined because if one of your players is in there its fair game’.
I walk away thinking I hate that idea, shall I tell the opposition (gold) of the ploy, I resolve not to do anything.
Game starts no problems, other than being bitterly cold with snow flurries, mid way through the half reds try the all back away move at the line out, gold’s form a huddle with the ball at the back, red then send one player to the back to steel the ball, he gets it and play continues.
In the second half reds try the move again, huddle forms reds back away this time shouting ‘truck and trailer’ whilst gold march up the pitch, ‘its not’ say I ‘until your play for the ball’, they hit the huddle, I blow for accidental off side. Reds try it again, same reaction from me do nothing until I red attempts to play the ball then blow for an accidental off side. They try it again from a defending five meter line out, this time rather than let gold walk over and score I do shout play the ball as soon as I realise what is happening.
After the game I approach red coach I say that I don’t like his team’s tactic for defending lineouts. The game is about a contest for the ball and until his team make an attempt to play the ball I am happy to let the opposition carry on. He claims that his team are being obstructed, but obstructed from what, your team are not attempting to play the ball therefore the opposition are not obstructing you. He then goes on to say I missed a couple of high tackles against his players when I had penalised his No9 for a high tackle in the first half, so I confirm that I may have missed a few things, but walk away thinking I had won the lineout argument.
So my questions,
Am I correct in thinking that the game is about position of the ball?
That whilst one team are not interested in possession of the ball the opposition (within reason) can do what they like?
Could I have penalised red for leaving the lineout?
That I should have left it until after the game to tell the coach how I would referee that scenario?

 

[Davet]

I don't like the move buts it's legal.

The ping for accidental offside sounds fair, and since accidental offside is only pinged if the opposition are disadvantaged then I can see the logic in asking them to be disadvantaged before you ping it.

Coach would probably argue that they were disadvantaged becasue no one could get at the ball carrier from the front, and may have a point.

Clearly they can come the back of mass of players, no offside lines exist, and you correctly allowed that.

Leaving the lineout... trickier. Lineout isn't over till reds' back feet cross LoT, IF there is a maul. Since there isn't a maul... has a player emerged from the line out carrying the ball?

I wouldn't have a problem with you pointing out to the coach the things he needs to bear in mind before the game - same as you may do for scrum, backs at lineout, ruck / maul, 9 hands on, 8s binding, etc.

Simple answer may be to call it loud and clear "No Maul!... Gold, don't obstruct" - and then ping for Accidental Offside (which seems like a fair call, rather than full penalty) if they don't move the ball away immediately. This ploy is well enough known for teams to be switched on to the possiblity it will be used, and should be able to react to a clear call, and if they do, then play on.

I wonder if a side might counter the ploy, when detected or called by ref, by simply getting players in front of ball carrier to step side and turn back around to bind on again, now behind the ball carrier and drive him hard and fast at the thin defensive line...

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The away team (red) coach then approaches me a says ‘we have a defensive move at the line outs were we all stand off, they form a maul and we appeal for truck and trailer’.

I had this happen in my first ever L9 (I was L10) league game almost 2 years ago. I said I would call it as I saw it - well dodged that man - and luckily it never arose however it did upset my preparation as it preyed on my mind. B@stards!

A fellow Society bod gave them a penalty rather than oppos try when they backed off at LO close to their line a couple of weeks later.

It's too much to expect it won't come round again.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I wonder if a side might counter the ploy, when detected or called by ref, by simply getting players in front of ball carrier to step side and turn back around to bind on again, now behind the ball carrier and drive him hard and fast at the thin defensive line...

That is a wedge isn't it?

 

[Davet]

but not a flying one, no one has had the advantage of 10m free space to get up a head of steam.

It's no different to standard pick and drive.

 

[Phil E]

In the second half reds try the move again, huddle forms reds back away this time shouting ‘truck and trailer’ whilst gold march up the pitch

Peeep....Penalty to Gold for appealing :biggrin:


Devils what not:-

How can you class this as accidental offside, what was accidental about it?
It was a planned move (to form a maul) from Gold, who failed to observe what the Reds were doing (or not doing)?

 

[Dixie]

Brian, I sympathise, but for what its worth I think your idea about contest for possession is both simplistic and overly prescriptive. Teams can play to their strengths, and if that means using the brain instead of the brawn I think it would be wrong of a referee to force them to mix it with a side that will inevitably defeat them on those terms.

I had this in a schools game last year, and when the away side told me of their plans for the move, I told them that it was a risky ploy. They did it the first time at a 5m scrum; walked away from the advancing inverted wedge, claiming offside. The home side dotted down, and I told the skipper that as no-one had tried to play the ball, there was no-one who was obstructed.

Same ploy at next 5m throw-in. As they backed away I blew up, told them not to leave the lineout before it was over and reset the line. Davet says this is not permissible; for me, it is the best solution to this particular form of clever dickiness. There are certainly counter-arguments from a technical perspective, but I think if a jumper tried to step 2m back from the lineout after the throw and while a receiver was in place, we'd tell him to get back into the lineout and may well FK him for leaving the lineout if he didn't.

Like you, I don't like the attempt to milk the sanction, but once Blue has seen the ploy they should be alert to the possibility and act accordingly. A bit like the non-striker being run out in cricket by the bowler not releasing the ball, but only after a warning has been given (apologies to the US contributors).

 

[stuart3826]

Of course, if a red player had been involved in the forming of the maul - and by definition, one must have been otherwise it wasn't a maul, then when the red player(s) pull away from the maul, the maul hasn't ended 17.4 . Any attempt by gold to nip up the side would then be in the side or offside.

And if red players back off from forming a maul, before the ball/back foot crosses the line of touch, then I think I might have a legit reason for pinging under 19.14f

A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

 

[Dixie]

I might have a legit reason for pinging under 19.14f

Stuart, I think we have to accept that "at the [offside] line" encompasses also "behind the line". It would be odd to be given offside for standing 5m behind the offside line.

 

[Davet]

Stuart2836

A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Please explain how they can join what doesn't exist?

Note, it doesn't say "Must create a ruck or maul..."

 

[stuart3826]

So in that case, let's shout at the ball carrier "Gold use it" and prevent problems occurring.

I just want to develop this for a bit, and I'll explain where my thinking comes from.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

If Red back off before Line moves peep penalty to Gold, Offside.
If they can back off as the line moves before Gold get hold of one of them it is offside technically. first time accidental offside.
Second time penalty red, Gold have been warned

 

[ianh5979]

As a point of interest, can you rule an accidental offside or anything else if the catchers leave the ball with the front player so all his teammates are behind him

 

[crossref]

if the ball carrier is at the front, marching toward the line, and the defenders don't engage with him, he can clearly walk all the way to the try-line...

 

[Dixie]

As a point of interest, can you rule an accidental offside or anything else if the catchers leave the ball with the front player so all his teammates are behind him

It would be difficult, as no-one is offside, no-one is obstructing anyone else and there's nothing else to ping. The closest you could come within the LoTG is a flying wedge, but IMO thta would not be an appropriate call.

 

[Davet]

If Red back off before Line moves peep penalty to Gold, Offside.

Offside how?

 

[Rit Hinners]

Offside how?

19.13 e provided the ball stays on the line.

 

[Deeps]

Now I read somewhere (and don't ask me where, I remember facts not references) that for management purposes as soon as there is a risk of a truck and trailer situation, as in this scenario, the referee should ask Gold to 'Play the ball', followed fairly swiftly by 'Use it, or lose it' on grounds of potential accidental offside.

 

[OB..]

Tricky stuff. I’ve tried to break it down in to separate steps.

Red are not allowed to leave the lineout until it is over, so if they step too far away, they can be penalised.

If they step back half a metre, so as to make it clear that they are not in contact with gold, the onus shifts to gold. If they move the ball to the back, that is obstruction, and they are liable to penalty.

If they keep the ball in the hands (at least partly) of the front man, they are legal and can move forward.

When does the lineout end? There is no maul, so if gold move forward with the ball at the front, I would suggest the lineout ends when the ball carrier leaves the lineout ie he passes the line of touch. The lineout offside line has disappeared, so red players can go round the back of the bunch of golds and challenge for the ball.

One red player could tackle the ball carrier provided he takes him low ie not in a fashion that could be considered binding and thus forming a maul.

Red should not start appealing for truck and trailer, any more than they should be appealing for knock-on or offside.

I don’t really see how accidental offside comes into it.

Like most people, I dislike contrived infringements (and so does Law 21.9). It is perhaps a good idea to warn the coach that you will be monitoring his team carefully to make sure they do not commit the first offence, and that you might consider appealing to be a form of (pre-emptive!) dissent.

 

[Deeps]

Tricky stuff.

I don’t really see how accidental offside comes into it.

It doesn't when you follow your logic of ball positioning, however, it is a convenient management tool that helps the referee to defuse negative/contrived play and should counter the opposition screaming for obstruction. It's a way of demonstrating that there is no future in the tactic for either side.

Like most people, I dislike contrived infringements (and so does Law 21.9). It is perhaps a good idea to warn the coach that you will be monitoring his team carefully to make sure they do not commit the first offence, and that you might consider appealing to be a form of (pre-emptive!) dissent.

That's a good idea too.