Is refereeing around the lineout becoming too pedantic?

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Took another look at this and what I see is catcher comes down, back to defenders, and presents the ball back but keeps hold of it. Sticking one arm out with the ball ready to be transferred isn’t actually a transfer so this picture doesn’t really match the “attacking team clearly transfers the ball behind the front-most player” that would trigger a “use it” call.

To me the ball is still with the front-most player and from the angle I can’t be sure if the supporting players are in front of the BC for an obstruction call.

To me, the defenders step back, so PK against them - but why not play advantage? As per the USGMG:

If the defenders had opened up legally the BC and pod could happily advance and score - so give them advantage to advance and score. They can walk or run it over, as long as the ball stays in the hand of the front-most player.
It's a logical conclusion based on the USGMG, but the only reason I wouldn't is because I disagree with the premise of the USGMG that the defenders should be penalized for this. Good thing I don't ref much these days 😅.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
261
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The Italian Savoy cavaleria regiment made one of the last successful cavalry charges in military history on August 23, 1942.
Well I didn't know that. Which poor enemy forgot their longbowmen on that occasion then?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,230
Post Likes
1,908
No that's not right. After the "red ball at front" event the ref tells them to use it. If they don't, blue scrum (as per Phil's post)
ah - so thats what my actual question was of course.

So all blue has to do is NOT create a maul at the lineout eg step sideways and not engage and blue ALWAYS has to play the ball away. i.e. it is the perfect defece to attempts to drive a maul to score.

correct ?
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
ah - so thats what my actual question was of course.

So all blue has to do is NOT create a maul at the lineout eg step sideways and not engage and blue ALWAYS has to play the ball away. i.e. it is the perfect defece to attempts to drive a maul to score.

correct ?
Not in the states with USGMG apparently. It states that blue's huddle is allowed to march on as long as they keep the ball carrier in the front.
 
Last edited:

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,913
Post Likes
409
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
From the lawbook (and note once the ball has moved from the line of touch the lineout is over)

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched 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.

Law 9: Foul play
Teams must not use the ‘flying wedge’.
Law application guidelines
Law changes summary
The five current Global Law Trials – Goal Line Drop-out, 50:22, jackler protection, banning pre-bound pods in open play (flying wedge) and approving a single latcher – will become full law.
Law application guidelines
Side entry
On the whole, the coaching, playing and refereeing application has seen a cleaner, safer breakdown, especially aligned with the 2021 global law trials around protecting the lower limbs of the jackler, permitting the 1-man latch but outlawing the flying wedge of 2+ players pre-latched which have now been moved into full law.

I maintain that if the defending lineout players step aside, not offside which they do in the clip, you can't bind onto the ball carrier and march down the pitch.

for the clip we have I would say,
penalty advantage Purple offside;
Use it blue; Either pass it away or lead ball carrier breaks with one maximum binding onto him
If they don't , come back for the penalty on 15M line;
Stop the game and explain my decision IAW laws of game.

IMO USGMG are simply wrong
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,314
Post Likes
2,281
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Not in the states with USGMG apparently. It states that blue's huddle is allowed to march on as long as they keep the ball carrier in the front.
Yes to this. It corrects what I excluded earlier regarding ball carrier at front
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,314
Post Likes
2,281
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I've now seen that video on a number of rugby and/or referee platforms. I know those 2 clubs (I actually played for one) and I know the referee, who is in the early days of his refereeing career. This was a relatively low level juniors game.
I wonder how I'd feel if I was the centre of such scrutiny & controversy especially (I presume) without my consent
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,230
Post Likes
1,908
so basically we have

a set of referees that would allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
a set of referees that would not allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.

At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose.
Elsewhere - who knows on the day,....
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
so basically we have

a set of referees that would allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
a set of referees that would not allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.

At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose.
Elsewhere - who knows on the day,....

Welp, played in a game here in the states yesterday and we got blown up for obstruction when the non-throwing team didn't engage the huddle (ball & ball carrier kept at the front) and we took a step forward. Seems the ref called it slightly off from what the USGMG state. I can't really fault him though, he did an excellent job otherwise, and I personally like his reffing qualities whenever we cross paths. I just wish there was all around less confusion on how this is allowed to be played out, especially for the ball carrying team.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,314
Post Likes
2,281
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Welp, played in a game here in the states yesterday and we got blown up for obstruction when the non-throwing team didn't engage the huddle (ball & ball carrier kept at the front) and we took a step forward. Seems the ref called it slightly off from what the USGMG state. I can't really fault him though, he did an excellent job otherwise, and I personally like his reffing qualities whenever we cross paths. I just wish there was all around less confusion on how this is allowed to be played out, especially for the ball carrying team.
This game is just getting more & more confusing and difficult to officiate with clarifications, guidelines, applications, inter-region variations, law trials, etc, etc
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
This game is just getting more & more confusing and difficult to officiate with clarifications, guidelines, applications, inter-region variations, law trials, etc, etc
I must agree. While I was less versed on the laws back then, I do feel I recall the game flowed more often and clearly when I started playing 20 years ago up until about a decade ago.

Also the law trials seemed to have become more abundant in the last decade or so too. I feel they should probably take more time to observe the previous law trials that have become actual laws, before continually implementing new ones.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,440
Post Likes
1,571
Welp, played in a game here in the states yesterday and we got blown up for obstruction when the non-throwing team didn't engage the huddle (ball & ball carrier kept at the front) and we took a step forward. Seems the ref called it slightly off from what the USGMG state. I can't really fault him though, he did an excellent job otherwise, and I personally like his reffing qualities whenever we cross paths. I just wish there was all around less confusion on how this is allowed to be played out, especially for the ball carrying team.
I would. This has long been a settled issue in the USA.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I would. This has long been a settled issue in the USA.

Gotta pick your battles. I asked him about it respectfully, relative to when it occurred, but his mind was made. Not much I can do. Again, no ref is perfect, so if this was his one mistake, as a captain, I'm pretty ok with it - especially being more scrupulous of the laws myself.

Next time I cross paths with him, I'll have a healthy discussion about it with him, to clarify.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,230
Post Likes
1,908
Welp, played in a game here in the states yesterday and we got blown up for obstruction when the non-throwing team didn't engage the huddle (ball & ball carrier kept at the front) and we took a step forward. Seems the ref called it slightly off from what the USGMG state. I can't really fault him though, he did an excellent job otherwise, and I personally like his reffing qualities whenever we cross paths. I just wish there was all around less confusion on how this is allowed to be played out, especially for the ball carrying team.
hence my caveat

"At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose."
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,230
Post Likes
1,908
I feel they should probably take more time to observe the previous law trials that have become actual laws, before continually implementing new ones.
This "problem" being all law trials, variations, changes etc are driven by the pro end of the game. and WR/NGB/Statue unions etc are all constantly trying to create/find perfection in a complex game. 99.9% (my guess!) of games ie non pro globally work just fine without constant tinkering.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
434
Post Likes
100
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
This "problem" being all law trials, variations, changes etc are driven by the pro end of the game. and WR/NGB/Statue unions etc are all constantly trying to create/find perfection in a complex game. 99.9% (my guess!) of games ie non pro globally work just fine without constant tinkering.
Meanwhile at the pro level they can't seem to figure out how to keep their feet at rucks. Perhaps WR should focus on enforcing the fundamentals at that level instead. 🫠
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,989
Post Likes
957
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
It's a bit of a stretch to call 8 guys walking toward the oposition line wit hte ball at the front a "Flying" anything.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,230
Post Likes
1,908
It's a bit of a stretch to call 8 guys walking toward the oposition line wit hte ball at the front a "Flying" anything.
i dont disagree.

hence a previous question about

walking
jogging
running.

at what juncture - if even walking doesn't constitute a FW - does "walking" become "flying"
 
Top