- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,094
- Post Likes
- 2,358
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
I just don't believe that. Do you have video evidence?
Is this a new Lineout tactic?
- Thread starter Taff
- Start date
I just don't believe that. Do you have video evidence?
Christy
Referees in Ireland
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 527
- Post Likes
- 60
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 1
Beleiving is seeing .
Im surprised you a non believer ..
Ill look at this later when im back ,,ill see what i can find for you .
Nigib
Referees in England
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 342
- Post Likes
- 70
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 7
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?
I've seen the tactic tried several times in games I referee over the last couple of seasons. Usually the captain speaks to me beforehand and advises that they use the tactic. I make it very clear that they if they touch I'll call a maul, and if they step back (rather than slide apart along their line) they'll be pinged. Not seen one success at this, usually always contact... until last Saturday in a schools U18 game. They tried a couple of times and didn't succeed, and then. LO on Red 5m, Black throw-in. Taken by Black, who formed to trundle; Reds parted, Black roll through over the goal line. Luckily for Red, they had some backs who got in the way and managed to hold it up. But an object lesson in choosing where you shouldn't try this.
I had my first real experience of this last week, with one team - to begin with - using it at every defending lineout
I can't really see the point of it, the attacking team caught the ball, formed a loose maul like structure and moved the ball rapidly (hand to hand) to the scrum half who immediately used it -- sometimes with an attacking player running round to try and disrupt, fruitelssly
I could really see anything to penalise... but couldn't really see the point of the tactic
I can't really see the point of it, the attacking team caught the ball, formed a loose maul like structure and moved the ball rapidly (hand to hand) to the scrum half who immediately used it -- sometimes with an attacking player running round to try and disrupt, fruitelssly
I could really see anything to penalise... but couldn't really see the point of the tactic
What you are claiming is that senior referees, more experienced at that level than any of us, and much closer to the action, are regularly getting it wrong. Moreover that also implies the Match Observers and coaches are also missing it.
I'd require a very high level of evidence before I could accept that claim.
But that is exactly what they ARE doing surely. All 8 were moving back in a line.
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.
Wouldn't the opposition have to catch the mall and move at least 1-2 metres for the ball to be deemed to have left the LO? My point is if the oppos have caught the ball and advanced past where the "defenders" had been standing when the LO formed, but they're not there any more ... isn't it fair to say they've left the LO before it was over? After all, if they're not where they started - where have they gone? And there is no way they could argue they were "peeling" because most of the time, they didn't step out till the ball had been lost.
I've got no problem with one side "parting". In fact as I understand it, that is the best way to avoid a maul.
Parting - good
Leaving - bad. :biggrin:
Last edited:
All the information you need Taff, is in the 2014 memo from WR regarding how to manage non-engagement by the side not winning the LO.
Your OP describes the "defending" team as leaving the LO which is a PK. As you say, part = good, leave = bad
Your OP describes the "defending" team as leaving the LO which is a PK. As you say, part = good, leave = bad
Yes, but it is not a very satisfactory document IMHO. It is heavily biased towards making it difficult to avoid forming a maul.
Thunderhorse1986
Referees in England
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
- Messages
- 226
- Post Likes
- 0
Non-ball carrying side also have the option of the direct "sack" of the ball carrier. A maul is not formed immediately on contact between ball carrier and opposition if they are attempting to tackle (particularly if below the waist).
TigerCraig
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,464
- Post Likes
- 236
How does a touch form a maul? A maul requires a bind. In the season just go I coached my team to put their hands straight up in the air and scream 'no maul not bound' in unison. We won at least 1 scrum per game. We had a very weak line-out so didn't bother other team ball but got more than our share of turnovers
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I don't understand why teams not wanting to form a maul don't simply drop down to a crouch as the ball is thrown and go straight for the legs of the catcher the moment his feet touch the ground - grasping an opponent below the hips is not binding, so no maul can be formed.
Binding by an opponent of the ball carrier is not a requirement when forming a maul. The BC "Held" by an opponent and a team mate of the BC "Bound" to him is the minimum requirement.
What happens when the big forward comes on a crash ball and his mate binds onto him just before an opponent grabs him? By your definition that would be a maul formed and collapsed by the one defender. I think you'd struggle to sell that.
Not my definition, by the definition provided in Law 17.
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.
I was simply pointing out to Ian that the Laws don't require an opponent to bind to the BC.
There are many instances during a game where, as a tackle is occurring, you could argue that, technically, a maul has formed. It's up to the referee to manage such split second instances.
and in the pro game especially refs do everything they can to perceive these things as a tackle, wherever they possibly can.
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,067
- Post Likes
- 1,797
whuch has just made me think...
blue catch and form a "non-maul".
red part.
blue move forward a metre or so such that red are lined up in line almost in line the foremost blue player (just a inch or so closer to their own DBL), whoi has supporters either side of him.. The ball could be anywhere in this "non-maul".
wherever red now "hit" the non-maul, have they no got legitimate claims for obstruction? the ball carrier is blocked by a teamn mate on all sides potentially with a defender at worst coming in level with him?
Agreed it would take split second timing!
didds
I think yes, but WR guidance is that we call this accidental offside, not obstruction.
(WR are trying to discourage the use of this defence)
Only accidental offside (under the WR guidelines for non-engagement at the LO) if blue transfer the ball back from the front player (i.e. jumper).
If, in didds' scenario, blue keep the ball at the front of the "non-maul" and move a metre or so forward and have actually moved over the LoT, the LO is over and we are now back in general play and as such, normal obstruction laws apply i.e. PK
well yes.
but then as didd said timings become split second,
and also we are back in the terriority of an issues we once had a 300-post thread about, with much acrimony : can you be guilty of obstruction if you are behind the ball carrier....
Yes
10.1 Obstruction
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Blue form a "non-maul" thingamajig/whatchamacallit type formation around their ball carrier. I'd say that would bring 10.1(c) into play
Last edited: