[Line out] Leaving the Lineout?

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
IMG_0405.jpg

I see it most obviously when watching the Crusaders, as precursor to setting up the line out drive, but shouldn't this be considered leaving the lineout?

It is neither changing position nor is it peeling.

Stamping it out would certainly make for a more level playing field when trying to defend the lineout.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Trying to eliminate peeling to set the maul would not end well. Black are not competing for the ball and they can manouver the same way. I don't see a problem.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
As long as Blue keep moving, I don’t see the problem. ��
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,112
Post Likes
1,819
whether lifted jumpers or not, this is how its been done "for ever". Certainly for over 40 years. frankly its too late to stop it now, and Im not sure what stopping it would honestly bring as a "benefit" to the game.

didds
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
With much comment on how difficult it is to defend a lineout maul and drive when the maul is effectively set and ready to go by the time the catcher hits the ground, one might think it could be an area to look at. Especially in light of "simplification" of the laws.

In effect, as things stand, the lineout as a mechanism to get the ball back into play quickly further loses its meaning in the laws.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,112
Post Likes
1,819
*shrug*

I don;t have an issue with the lineout maul scenario.

Maybe somebody who does can come up with a solution, but in the meantime I suspect deciding something that has been stanadrd practise for decades at least illegal instead is going to be a hard sell to achieve that.

didds
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
718
Post Likes
234
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this? You would need the ball carrier to cross the LOT prior to the maul forming, then players attempting to engage. In my view this would move things too far in favour of the defending team who get free option to sack the ball carrier and also overwhelm the ball carrier prior to support players arriving.

All fine to me, let it continue.

More interesting to me is what happens to the defending team who choose not to engage. Do they step aside along the LOT (OK) or retreat from the line out before it is over (not OK). More frequently the latter in my experience.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?
I was just thinking the same. :chin:

Players are allowed to form a maul and must join the maul either behind or alongside the hindmost team-mate, so to an extent, they have to leave the LO to form a maul. OK, technically they may have "left the lineout" but this really isn't an issue. If it's not broken - don't fix it. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,292
Post Likes
159
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?

Im guessing that you mean, How else would you be expected to join a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?

AYAK,The maul forming and its applicable offside lines only requires 2 from ball carrier side in L/O and one from opponent at L/O
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,292
Post Likes
159
I was just thinking the same. :chin:

Players are allowed to form a maul and must join the maul either behind or alongside the hindmost team-mate, so to an extent, they have to leave the LO to form a maul. OK, technically they may have "left the lineout" but this really isn't an issue. If it's not broken - don't fix it. :biggrin:

I do agree with you.

However, this is an example of an unintended consequence of not enforcing the letter of law by allowing the maul joining players to leave the L/O. Had it been enforced verbatim, we would never encountered the Italian tactic of non engagement.
 

TigerCraig


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,464
Post Likes
238
More interesting to me is what happens to the defending team who choose not to engage. Do they step aside along the LOT (OK) or retreat from the line out before it is over (not OK). More frequently the latter in my experience.

I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.

At our level catchers just automatically feed the ball back before contact. This season in 7 games we have had 6 turnover balls for "accidental offside", a stack of "use its", plus one ref gave us a penalty when a team tried to do it a second time. Not one try conceded.
 

TigerCraig


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,464
Post Likes
238
I understand.

I feel the same about rucks, scrums, and passing.

Nah, love scrums - 80 minutes of scrums would do me

I vaguely remember rucks before they became flops

Passing is over rated - I believe it is something backs do in between brushing their hair and doing their nails

Seriously I love a good driving maul constructed in general play, but from a lineout 5 metres out it is just dull
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,292
Post Likes
159
Seriously I love a good driving maul constructed in general play, but from a lineout 5 metres out it is just dull

Huh, never thought of it as dull. L/O mauls aren't exactly complex design, after all everyone is already on location. So i agree with dull as a descriptive.

Just to take it one step further and seriously, lifting at L/O (maul or not) is also dull, and predictable, and repetitive.
 

TigerCraig


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,464
Post Likes
238
Huh, never thought of it as dull. L/O mauls aren't exactly complex design, after all everyone is already on location. So i agree with dull as a descriptive.

Just to take it one step further and seriously, lifting at L/O (maul or not) is also dull, and predictable, and repetitive.

I just think they are too heavily weighted towards the throwing/maul creating team. Pretty much because everyone is there. Constructing a maul in general play is harder so more interesting.

Just an opinion.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,112
Post Likes
1,819
I just think they are too heavily weighted towards the throwing/maul creating team. Pretty much because everyone is there. Constructing a maul in general play is harder so more interesting.

Just an opinion.

I dond;t strongly disagree with the overall premise, but equally I'm not at all bothered.

regarding general play mauls... when do they ever happen now?

didds
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
regarding general play mauls... when do they ever happen now?

didds

Very seldom, as far as i can see. Many thing that might have been called mauls (eg chest high tackle and supported of the ball carrier is bound on, ten to be called a tackle when the ball carrier goes to ground. It is difficult to hold up a ball carrier to get a maul these days.

Mauls are likely only where folk are on their feet and the side with the ball recons they can advance by pushing the opposition back. Seems to me that is likely to be the situation in some lineouts where the ball is caught, and not many other places.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
442
Post Likes
92
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.

At our level catchers just automatically feed the ball back before contact. This season in 7 games we have had 6 turnover balls for "accidental offside", a stack of "use its", plus one ref gave us a penalty when a team tried to do it a second time. Not one try conceded.

Argentina U20's [v England] tried to employ the 'don't contest' the BC tactic, but they utilised a backing away from the LO-BC tactic when the BC started moving forward, I was praising the referee for not giving them one single decision for their contact avoidance retreat.

Well done that Ref.
:clap:
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,815
Post Likes
3,153
I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.

I would say 'thanks for letting me know, but having given me the heads up, please tell your players - DONT scream at me during the game '
 

TigerCraig


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,464
Post Likes
238
I would say 'thanks for letting me know, but having given me the heads up, please tell your players - DONT scream at me during the game '


Fair enough, but it's more to confuse the opposition. More than once they gave just stopped dead and started looking around wondering what to do
 
Top