Flying wedge or not?

Carrot Cruncher

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
3
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
At a line out on the 5m line, if the attacking side catch and stay on their feet with two team mates pre-bound/latched, ball at the front, no defenders engage, they then walk 5m to the try line unopposed, would you penalise that as a flying wedge? ...award the try? ...manage/sanction in another way?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,458
Post Likes
1,754
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
When you say two team mates pre-bound do you mean including the ball carrier (so one latcher) or as well as (so two latchers)?

I would be looking to manage it first by telling them not to pre-bind when I saw them getting ready to do so.
If they ignore this management then they can't complain if you penalise them.
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
130
Post Likes
34
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Even though we are having a similar conversation about Scotland having done this, I can't imagine this would ever happen at a 5m attacking lineout at grass roots! o_O I think the Scotland situation may be more complicated because the ball was shifted from the catcher to a different pod... anyway...

I suppose it is reasonable to expect two supporting players to bind onto the ball carrier and are ready to drive forward after he comes down with the ball because 99.9% of the time the ball carrier is going to get smashed in the back by a defender... to avoid being penalised in this scenario is the expectation that one of the supporting players then disengages from the ball carrier?

Or, am I suffering from a fly-half perspective, and lineouts are new to me this year as an age-grade ref... does the ball carrier have to take the hit before 2 teammates can bind onto him?

Also include a link to a related blog... no idea who wrote it ;)

 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
At a line out on the 5m line, if the attacking side catch and stay on their feet with two team mates pre-bound/latched, ball at the front, no defenders engage, they then walk 5m to the try line unopposed, would you penalise that as a flying wedge? ...award the try? ...manage/sanction in another way?
if they are walking they cannot be a *flying* wedge. The prohibition of flying wedges is a safety thing, not a technical thing
if the ball is not at the front then they would be obstructing
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,379
Post Likes
286
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
We’ve been advised that if the ball stays at the front they can walk the full length of the pitch
 

Carrot Cruncher

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2017
Messages
3
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
…two latchers on the ball carrier with all 3 totally unopposed ?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
599
Post Likes
128
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
We’ve been advised that if the ball stays at the front they can walk the full length of the pitch
If that's the case I as the tackler can then tackle straight into the knees/lower legs of the BC? Or lay on the ground and make the BCs trip on my body? Cause if it ain't a maul I can't get pinged for collapsing it can I?

Pre-binds like this need to be looked at, its one of the most dangerous areas of the amateur game which doesn't seem to be addressed by the IRB.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
If that's the case I as the tackler can then tackle straight into the knees/lower legs of the BC? Or lay on the ground and make the BCs trip on my body? Cause if it ain't a maul I can't get pinged for collapsing it can I?

Pre-binds like this need to be looked at, its one of the most dangerous areas of the amateur game which doesn't seem to be addressed by the IRB.
@Jarrod Burton I'd suggest that this would be a trip technically and is also dangerous. More so for the tripper, as everyone is gonna fall over you. Furthermore, you're on the ground, you can't take part in the game. You'd need to tackle below the waist of the BC.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,379
Post Likes
286
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
If that's the case I as the tackler can then tackle straight into the knees/lower legs of the BC? Or lay on the ground and make the BCs trip on my body? Cause if it ain't a maul I can't get pinged for collapsing it can I?

Pre-binds like this need to be looked at, its one of the most dangerous areas of the amateur game which doesn't seem to be addressed by the IRB.
You can tackle the ball carrier, or anything else that would normally be legal to do do a ball carrier in open play
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,458
Post Likes
1,754
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
if they are walking they cannot be a *flying* wedge.

Why not?
The law doesn't mention speed, velocity, walking, running?
Is a fast walk better than a slow jog?
Where would you draw the line?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
599
Post Likes
128
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
@Jarrod Burton I'd suggest that this would be a trip technically and is also dangerous. More so for the tripper, as everyone is gonna fall over you. Furthermore, you're on the ground, you can't take part in the game. You'd need to tackle below the waist of the BC.
Why is an ankle tap not a trip too then?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
599
Post Likes
128
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You can tackle the ball carrier, or anything else that would normally be legal to do do a ball carrier in open play
And trying to tackle and stop a player who has an extra 160-220kg of attached players providing momentum is effectively impossible. The only real way is to hit the lower legs and there is where it becomes dangerous for the tackler (knees/feet into the head) or the BC (who's knees aren't going to like being hyperflexioned backwards by the hit).

If players getting $100k's a year to play a game want to risk permanent knee damage then that's a career choice, but when you start to see it in the weeds and a couple of blokes can't work for 9-12 months because the "knee damage looked like a car accident not a sporting injury" then its time to start thinking about duty of care.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
Why not?
The law doesn't mention speed, velocity, walking, running?
Is a fast walk better than a slow jog?
Where would you draw the line?
It mentions flying , clearly someone walking isn't flying
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,765
Post Likes
1,186
It mentions flying , clearly someone walking isn't flying
purely being cheeky here, but similarly anybody running isn't flying.... flying requires some degree of being off the ground for longer than a nano-second at a time surely?

</pedantic>
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
We could compare with a cavalry charge (illegal)
CF a cavalry *walk* (legal)
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,379
Post Likes
286
Current Referee grade:
Level 9
And trying to tackle and stop a player who has an extra 160-220kg of attached players providing momentum is effectively impossible. The only real way is to hit the lower legs and there is where it becomes dangerous for the tackler (knees/feet into the head) or the BC (who's knees aren't going to like being hyperflexioned backwards by the hit).

If players getting $100k's a year to play a game want to risk permanent knee damage then that's a career choice, but when you start to see it in the weeds and a couple of blokes can't work for 9-12 months because the "knee damage looked like a car accident not a sporting injury" then its time to start thinking about duty of care.
It would probably be safer to engage your team mates support and contest in a maul then wouldn’t it?

Tongue in cheek, but they are choosing to not contest and look for a ’gotcha’ outcome, that’s negative play for me and shouldn’t be encouraged. That’s why the sanction for the passing back offside in these cases is a scrum not a penalty, not overly penalising the team that’s trying to play positively
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,458
Post Likes
1,754
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
We could compare with a cavalry charge (illegal)
CF a cavalry *walk* (legal)

Wasn't Cavalry Charge removed from the law book as part of the GLT's?
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,379
Post Likes
1,639
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Communication here is that one latcher = good. 2 latchers = bad. Same elsewhere?
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
7,542
Post Likes
809
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Communication here is that one latcher = good. 2 latchers = bad. Same elsewhere?
It is in my games! :)

Before Christmas I had to call "1 latcher" at a ruck as I saw Blue limbering up for using 2 and then provided a complete explanation after I'd PKed 'em. ?

That was actually the only time I've done it this season.

I tend to use "latcher stay up" or similar as they (ball carrier and ONE latcher) bind on or go into contact. Sometimes works. Again a complete explanation as they go back 10m if it doesn't. ?

Had one PK on Saturday and couple where they stayed up so not a bad return. It was a shitty old pitch too - so even better.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
599
Post Likes
128
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Communication here is that one latcher = good. 2 latchers = bad. Same elsewhere?
Have so far received next to zero communication from TRU or RA around GMG's etc so who knows? RA probably needed to cut a few more community rugby staff to pay some rubbish wallabies players a bit more to do next to nothing which explains why nothing has come down.
 
Top