FK and maul

[macleod33]

reviewing the various laws, we stumbled upon a peculiar situation.
- a FK is awarded for the blues.
- they form a maul
- the ball is ejected and a drop goal tried and scored.

Several refs opted to award the drop goal, others a 22 drop out. After many discussions, we received a mail from the "head office" explaining that we have to opt for the 22 drop out.
I'm not completly happy with that because a DG can be scored after a FK once the ball has been touched, played by an opponent and/or after a tackle. (law 21.6 ) During a maul, it is very likely that the ball is going to be touched by an opponent. The DG can therefore be awarded.
But.... seniors refs pointed out that for the general public, the coachs and players, the decision to award the DG could be not understood but I think that in the minds of most observers, as long as there is a "contact" between the ball carrier and an opponent, the DG can be awarded.

Obviously, if I see that the ball hasn't been touched, I'm pretty comfortable with the 22 drop out.

 

[OB..]

In the past we have considered the situation if a scrum is taken instead of the kick, and most of us agreed that the restriction on scoring applied until after the ball came out of the scrum.

In your case the FK was actually taken, so the situation is significantly different. However my view is that the aim of law 21.6 (b) is to ensure that the opposition had a genuine opportunity to play the ball before a drop goal could be scored, and the aim of the maul was precisely to deny them that opportunity. In the case of the scrum we felt it was pointless agonising over whether or not the opponents had in fact managed to touch the ball (far too hard to be sure either way), and I think the same thing applies here. I would disallow the drop goal.

 

[didds]

and in more layman's terms maybe - but agreeing with OB entirely - how can you be SURE that an opponent touched the ball in the maul?
I think you'd have to see the ball stripped off the ball carrier then ripped back again to be confident of awarding a DG - and be 100% sure of both of those actions.

didds

 

[Jenko]

But a maul cannot be actively formed without the interaction of the opposition. If they are setting up to form a maul are we in 'flying wedge' territory and/or obstruction issues? I know this is taking it away from the specific question but I am trying to understand how we get to the situation where the opposition haven't attempted a tackle that has resulted in a maul.

 

[Davet]

But a maul cannot be actively formed without the interaction of the opposition.

True, an opponent is required to be ound on to the ball carrier, along with a team mate of the ball carrier

If they are setting up to form a maul are we in 'flying wedge' territory and/or obstruction issues?...... how we get to the situation where the opposition haven't attempted a tackle that has resulted in a maul.

Who is "they", if it is the non-ball carrying team that you are referring to then generally they are trying to stand up the ball carrier and prevent the offload, to slow down an attack, and ideally hold the ball in and static long enough to win a turnover.

If the ball carriers want to set up a maul then they want to use their power and technique to drive forwards, suck in opponents and either drive across the goal line with ball under control at the back, or to spin it wide when sufficient opponents are sucked away from their wider defensive duties.

Whether we have a flying wedge or not becomes a judgement call. What makes it dangerous is the space available at a PK for the masss of bodies to get up speed. We often see a tackle/ruck situation where we have a pick and drive with a supporter helping drive the picker on - that is not, in my view, a flying wedge.

Clearly, until we actually have a maul formed, then the ball carrier must be the frontmost player - available to be tackled. Note that even if he has a supporter bound on to him then an opponent may still tackle him below the waist without forming and immediately collapsing a maul (a maul requires a "bind", and a "bind" is, among other things, above the waist).

Once a maul is established then the ball may be legally worked away from the opposition.

 

[Jenko]

The 'they' I referred to was the same 'they' as original post ie team taking Free Kick. That is the point. The team taking the free kick are looking to set up a maul...that is why I mentioned the potential' flying wedge' scenario.

Also why is speed relevant in the flying wedge? As IUI it is 2 players bound to ball carrier moving forward it is the formation that is illegal and not the speed! It could be almost stationary but illegal!

 

[Taff]

After a FK, I always understood that an opponent had to touch the ball or tackle the ball carrier before a team could score from a Drop Kick.

21.6 SCORING FROM A FREE KICK
(a) A goal cannot be scored from a free kick.
(b) The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or until after an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.

However, at a recent meeting we were told that there had to be a "phase of play" between the FK and the DK so tackle, ruck or maul. It isn't strictly what the lawbook says, but if a team can DK from a ruck, I don't quite see why the lawbook would stop them DKing from a maul.

 

[Davet]

The 'they' I referred to was the same 'they' as original post ie team taking Free Kick. That is the point. The team taking the free kick are looking to set up a maul...that is why I mentioned the potential' flying wedge' scenario.

But you began by talking about the opposition needing to be involved, which created doubt as to what exactly you were asking.

Also why is speed relevant in the flying wedge? As IUI it is 2 players bound to ball carrier moving forward it is the formation that is illegal and not the speed! It could be almost stationary but illegal!

The only place a "flying wedge" is mentioned is under 10.4.o - and 10.4 is about dangerous play. If the play is not dangerous then it is not dangerous, and the determination of wheteher something is damngerous is down to the referee. It is described in the context of a PK (or I guess a FK), and it os the 10m space afforded there that may result in a danger.

If I saw a player pick up the ball, and stand still, and two team-mates bind on, one either side, all stood still then I see no danger, if they advanced slowly I see no danger, if they began to advance from that standing start over say a metre before being challenged physically by one or more opponents - eg as at a pick and drive - then I see no danger, if they advanced at increasing pace over about 8 - 10m then I would see a danger.

 

[Jenko]

A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal

taken from law book.

10.4 is Dangerous play and Misconduct.

Forming a flying wedge is misconduct.

I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Davet]

Then we disagree.

I would prefer to use a little judgement and common sense before penalising players.

 

[Dixie]

taken from law book.

10.4 is Dangerous play and Misconduct.

Forming a flying wedge is misconduct.

I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

You are being overly technical. The iRb has told you not to go down this road:

Ruling: 7-2006
Union: SRU
Law Reference: 10
Date: 14 November '06
Request

The SRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 10.2 Obstruction and Law 10.4 Flying Wedge

Team A win their lineout and as the jumper returns to the ground his team mates bind onto him and stay and drive him forward. At no point do players from team B contest for the ball or bind on to any members of their own team or members of team A.

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball remains with the initial ball carrier who is at the front of the group of team A players and not preventing any player from team B tackling the ball carrier?

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball is transferred to a player in the middle of the group of team A players and preventing any player from team B from tackling the ball carrier?

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball is transferred to a player on the edge or at the back of the group of team A players and not preventing any player from team B tackling the ball carrier?

If the scenarios listed above are not deemed to be in the flying wedge category should they be considered obstruction?


Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

In this situation, players of the defending Team B have not committed to make any contact or tackle of the ball carrying Team A. Play should continue as the actions of the Team A players are not preventing Team B players from making a tackle. Subsequently if the ball is not held by the lead player of the group of Team A players, and a Team B player attempts to tackle the ball carrier and cannot, then a PK should be awarded against Team A for obstruction.

The clear inference is that pre-binding is fine, provided no-one prevents the oppo from tackling the ball carrier if they dare.

 

[OB..]

taken from law book.

10.4 is Dangerous play and Misconduct.

Forming a flying wedge is misconduct.

I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

Also from the law book

[LAWS]The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks 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. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.[/LAWS]

So the referee can judge if the play in question constitutes an illegal Flying Wedge. Which is what Davet said, and (nearly, apparently) all referees adopt.

 

[Jenko]

Dixie

is that still extant? Obstruction law is now 10.1 and Flying wedge 10.4 (p). has it been incorporated into new law?

The clarification is at a lineout not a free kick. Was it not to stop the Italien lineout defence of standing off?

 

[Jenko]

OB

my confusion is the specific statement that a flying wedge is illegal! in the law as you have put up it is defined as players immediately binding either side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation.

If i see this at a free kick I will blow immediately and not allow it to get to the 'uh oh this could be dangerous' stage by which time it is probably too late!

 

[Davet]

jenko

can you clarify, are you saying that the action of a ball carrier being bound onto by two team mates, one either side is:

Illegal at PK or FK?

Illegal at all times?


For the record my position is that it is probably illegal at PK / FK (because that is where it becomes dangerous if the wedge starts to "fly", ie gain speed.)
It may be dangerous at other points in the game, depending on the circumstances - if it is dangerous then it is illegal.

 

[Jenko]

at a FK or PK it is illegal and this is where (according to the book) we are most likely to see it.

In other circumstances it may occur (a line out as per the clarification) may be an occasion but because of proximity to other players is probably going to turn into a static maul almost immediately. In these circumstances there is more likely to be obstruction to be aware of.

after rucks or mauls when we have 'runners' coming into play I would blow if we had a pod of three bound up but would not worry if there were 2 players 'leeched' together! (as long as ball carrier was in front!!)

 

[Davet]

after rucks or mauls when we have 'runners' coming into play I would blow

If they were coming from a distance then fine, but if they are picking and driving from the base of the ruck - driving into contact very quickly - then I assume you would apply the same principle as at a lineout?

 

[Jenko]

If they were coming from a distance then fine, but if they are picking and driving from the base of the ruck - driving into contact very quickly - then I assume you would apply the same principle as at a lineout?

If they were a trio i would say that would hit the penalty offence!

 

[Davet]

Interesting - yet not from a lineout.

Why the differentiation?

 

[Dixie]

But a maul cannot be actively formed without the interaction of the opposition. If they are setting up to form a maul are we in 'flying wedge' territory and/or obstruction issues? I know this is taking it away from the specific question but I am trying to understand how we get to the situation where the opposition haven't attempted a tackle that has resulted in a maul.

Dixie

is that still extant? Obstruction law is now 10.1 and Flying wedge 10.4 (p). has it been incorporated into new law?

The clarification is at a lineout not a free kick. Was it not to stop the Italian lineout defence of standing off?

You do indeed have a point, but the law hasn't actually changed since 2006:

2006 relevant law: 10.1(c) - Blocking the Tackler: A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling the ball carrier. Penalty: Penalty Kick.

2012 relevant law: 10.1(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

2006 Flying Wedge: 10.4 - Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the ‘Flying Wedge’ or the ‘Cavalry Charge’.
Penalty: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.
‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. The kicker tap-kicks 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. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal. Penaly: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement

2012 Flying Wedge: 10.4(p) - Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the ‘Flying Wedge’ or the ‘Cavalry Charge’.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.
‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. The kicker tap-kicks 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. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal. Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

I can well see that if there is indeed a wedge (i.e. one either side of the ball carrier) then you have a PK situation against the attack. But this is incredibly rare, and in most cases you'd have ball carrier plus one. This is NOT a wedge as defined, and as OB says, this is a subset of the 10.4 Dangerous Play law. It might be dangerous, but probably isn't - especially if there is nothing stopping the head-on tackle.