Is this a new Lineout tactic?

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Watching the Dragons v Glasgow Warriors game last weekend, and can't help wondering if we've seen the start of a new tactic.

At a LO, the Dragons obviously didn't want to create a maul, because as soon as the Warriors won the ball, they would all stay in line and step back from the BC. Eg if the BC advanced 1m, all the Dragons pulled back 1m in a clearly rehearsed move.

I think they got away with it on the night (clearly no maul was created) but isn't that a PK offence for leaving the LO? :chin:
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't see a problem. There isn't anything in the Law that forces a team to co-operate in forming a maul if they don't want to

If the Warriors hand the ball back to a player at the back of the group trying to form a maul, then the ball has left the lineout, so lineout over and the Dragons can go anywhere they like, even run around and tackle the ball carrier.


If the Warriors take the ball down to the front of the group then the Dragons cannot leave until The Warriors advance the ball past the LoT with the ball at the front. If they do, the ball has left the lineout. In that case, if the Dragons keep backing away, all the Warriors have to do is keep moving forwards.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If the Warriors hand the ball back to a player at the back of the group trying to form a maul,

as long as it is not a long arm ... whatever that is :shrug:
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Not new at all. SH teams been doing this for a while.

Just be careful that the defending team don't leave the lineout before it is over.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
as long as it is not a long arm ... whatever that is :shrug:

AIUI its when the BC hands the ball "over the back" of a bound on player to another player

eg ABC - A has the ball and hands it to C


didds
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
... and if the ball stays at the fornt the BC can be _tackled_ still.

If the ball is at the back, a defender then connecting/binding to the front of the "non maul" creates a accidental obstruction (by convention) - IIRC refs usally then call AIOLI to the ball holding team

didds
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
Far from being a new tactic, I'm asked about it before 9 out of 10 games!

Things to look for: the team not in possession cannot leave the lineout until it's over (BC crosses the LoT or transfers the ball)
The team in possession cannot transfer the ball back. If they do and either don't use it immediately (the ref should tell them) or advance, it's an accidental offside.
Once the LO is over, it's open play, not a maul, even if it looks a bit weird.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
clearly my understanding is incorrect.

so if the ball is passed back, and then a defender engages at the font, what is the outcome? Immediate scum to defenders for obstruction?

didds
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
clearly my understanding is incorrect.

so if the ball is passed back, and then a defender engages at the font, what is the outcome? Immediate scum to defenders for obstruction?

didds

Yes, if the ball is still in the not-a-maul. In practice, it's almost always a scrum as soon as it's been transferred. The team not in possession will either be obstructed by the player at the front, or they'll flood around and stop the ball coming out (or both).
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.


There is no other reference (or definition) of 'leaving the lineout' that I can find. So I have to assume that it's the 10mx10m area from LoT to 10m back between the 5m and 15m from touch.

Therefore the non-catching team should be able to retire, and the catching team advance, until the ball leaves the LoT. Then we are in 'general play' and obstruction laws should apply.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.


There is no other reference (or definition) of 'leaving the lineout' that I can find. So I have to assume that it's the 10mx10m area from LoT to 10m back between the 5m and 15m from touch.

Therefore the non-catching team should be able to retire, and the catching team advance, until the ball leaves the LoT. Then we are in 'general play' and obstruction laws should apply.
Law 19.8 defines how a lineout is formed. Therefore any player in the lineout who does not conform to these requirements has left it (there are some specified exceptions).

I agree it would help to have "leaving" defined". Personally I would set the limit at 1 metre. This would enable a team to make it clear they did not want to form a maul. Current WR thinking seems to be that they should move sideways.
 

Nigib


Referees in England
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
342
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Yes, if the ball is still in the not-a-maul. In practice, it's almost always a scrum as soon as it's been transferred. The team not in possession will either be obstructed by the player at the front, or they'll flood around and stop the ball coming out (or both).

The added wrinkle this season is that the ball must be ripped by a player in contact (hence no 'long' transfer) - the ripper then stays in position, and the ball is then transferred back through the maul.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Personally I would set the limit at 1 metre. This would enable a team to make it clear they did not want to form a maul. Current WR thinking seems to be that they should move sideways.


I could live with 1m tho I'm not sure if it's enough to make a clear statement of non-engagement. The proposed WR solution is a non-starter in my opinion. Has it been applied and, if so, what happened next?
 

Christy


Referees in Ireland
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
527
Post Likes
60
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Watching the Dragons v Glasgow Warriors game last weekend, and can't help wondering if we've seen the start of a new tactic.

At a LO, the Dragons obviously didn't want to create a maul, because as soon as the Warriors won the ball, they would all stay in line and step back from the BC. Eg if the BC advanced 1m, all the Dragons pulled back 1m in a clearly rehearsed move.

I think they got away with it on the night (clearly no maul was created) but isn't that a PK offence for leaving the LO? :chin:

Surely if bc catches ball in line out & advance forward with ball in hand towards opposition ,
Line out is over .
Opposition rehersed step away also , simply shows they not looking to engage in maul..
They wont be penalised for same .) But they looking for obstruction penalty ???

If ball gone to back of non maul at line out ,,i believe refs are encouraged to advise team to use it & not allow them to advance forward , as this clearly obstruction .
We all know this is 1 reason why opposition have stepped away ,

Also if pottential maul is near try line .
For me another reason why opposition use this risky stratergy of not forming a maul .
Is because quite often mauls near try lines tend to be imaginary pulled down , & attacking teams then awarded penalty / penalty try .
( wales v france either im sure on warburtons red card issue , france did this to wales also ,,could of been 6 nations , game over ,,france won ) ,from a collapsed maul , ended with french penalty try ..

Ideally had wales , not entered maul , they cant pull it down ,,still hi risk
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
if a team didn't engage close to their own try line it would be a high risk strategy indeed. presumably the tactical thinking is that with no maul they can't be driven over, or they have the potential of a collapse and a PK at least, a PT possibly, and a YC even.

the tactic may well be to hope to "catch out " the oppo to transfer the ball and advance and "buy" at least a scrum turnover to relieve the pressure - but if the ball isn't transferred its almost a certain try - unless they can buy a "flying wedge" PK maybe (now there's esoteric thinking).

I'm not saying the above is a correct thing to do, but it seems the logical thinking behind the practice.

didds
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Ideally had wales , not entered maul , they cant pull it down ,,still hi risk

Utter rubbish.

Ideally, had they not pulled it down...they wouldn't have given away a penalty.

Your statement is like saying.....if they don't make any tackles, they can't commit any high tackles!

True, but worthless.
 
Last edited:

Christy


Referees in Ireland
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
527
Post Likes
60
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Utter rubbish.

Ideally, had they not pulled it down...they wouldn't have given away a penalty.

Your statement is like saying.....if they don't make any tackles, they can't commit any high tackles!

True, but worthless.

No phil , im not suggesting no tackles is like saying it cant be a high tackle .( i agree that is nonsensce thinking )
There have been loads of mauls from line outs near try lines that have not been pulled down ,,but yet the penalty has gone that way ..for allegedly collapsed mauls .
But my response was simply of a view , of why i feel from taffs observation , of this practice in mauls from line outs ..
 
Top