Line Out Maul Not Contested #2

[SimonSmith]

Is there a summary version of the reason why he didn't give the try?


There's nothing in law about "shepherding" either, but that's the term used.

To me though the term "Flying" implies a fastish movement. I'm not convinced anything starting from a standing start (just 1m from the opposition) can be described as "Flying".

the fact that HQ has - AGAIN - had to send out the clarification should tell you all you need to know about the standard of refereeing in the States.

*cries into beer*

 

[Dixie]

There is no law against pre-binding (though some argue there should be).

The flying wedge law does.

That's one (very unusual) interpretation, but one that brings with it all sorts of grief. I mentioned one element of that grief:

Think about this: The ball carrier has been grasped by his supporters even before the ball is thrown in. As the ball carrier comes down, they will adjust their grip to a bind. Under the ref's view, PK against every time. I've played and reffed the game for 35 years and never, ever seen it given.

There are many others. Let's take just one. A maul occurs. The ball-carrying team (Blue) makes ground, and Red splinter away. That leaves 4 Blue players with no reds in front of them. The iRB (now World Rugby) has addressed this situation in a law clarification 9/2006:

1. During a maul the ball carrier and one of his team mates leave the maul.
a. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
b. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

Answers:
a) yes - it is no longer a maul
b) yes, otherwise it is obstruction.

Perhaps WR forgot to mention the automatic PK for the flying wedge - or perhaps (more likely) it's just not an issue.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

That's one (very unusual) interpretation, but one that brings with it all sorts of grief. I mentioned one element of that grief:



There are many others. Let's take just one. A maul occurs. The ball-carrying team (Blue) makes ground, and Red splinter away. That leaves 4 Blue players with no reds in front of them. The iRB (now World Rugby) has addressed this situation in a law clarification 9/2006:

1. During a maul the ball carrier and one of his team mates leave the maul.
a. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
b. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

Answers:
a) yes - it is no longer a maul
b) yes, otherwise it is obstruction.

Perhaps WR forgot to mention the automatic PK for the flying wedge - or perhaps (more likely) it's just not an issue.

Or (even more likely) WR/IRB answered the questioning matter of factly that a flying wedge requires teammates not one player as in this clarification.

Where can I find current/active clarifications. I believe a 2006 clarification would be dissolved in the rewrite of 2009(?)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

the fact that HQ has - AGAIN - had to send out the clarification should tell you all you need to know about the standard of refereeing in the States.

*cries into beer*

Donde esta la clarificatione?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

And this is the error. There is no law against pre-binding (though some argue there should be). The flying wedge is a red herring - that's an effort to stop a charging mass of players who have 10m grace to get a good run up at the oppo. Never the case in a lineout, where the teams start off 1m apart and by the time the ball is caught, there is no gap to exploit dangerously - unless one team wants there to be.

Think about this: The ball carrier has been grasped by his supporters even before the ball is thrown in. As the ball carrier comes down, they will adjust their grip to a bind. Under the ref's view, PK against every time. I've played and reffed the game for 35 years and never, ever seen it given.

Dix, this is your worst argument ever, Rarely do I find a flaw in your argument. "There is no law against pre-binding" the flying wedge law could be no more specific, it uses bind in the law. There is one law against pre-binding, it is not an absolute.

Never the case in a lineout, where the teams start off 1m apart and by the time the ball is caught, there is no gap to exploit dangerously - unless one team wants there to be.

Think about this: The ball carrier has been grasped by his supporters even before the ball is thrown in. As the ball carrier comes down, they will adjust their grip to a bind. Under the ref's view, PK against every time. I've played and reffed the game for 35 years and never, ever seen it given.

Not applicable or transferable, pre-binding is allowed in L/O (isn't it?), and in case your describe mauls are formed immed. A different animal from original post, no maul.

It has been since HS civics class, but an appeal to tradition (35yrs of refereeing), is not a good argument. Only because you may have been doing it wrong for 35 yrs. I don't believe you have been, but when you pull that trump card it shows your argument is not strong.

I am prepared for tongue lashing, as it is my intent

 

[SimonSmith]

That's one (very unusual) interpretation, but one that brings with it all sorts of grief. I mentioned one element of that grief:



There are many others. Let's take just one. A maul occurs. The ball-carrying team (Blue) makes ground, and Red splinter away. That leaves 4 Blue players with no reds in front of them. The iRB (now World Rugby) has addressed this situation in a law clarification 9/2006:

1. During a maul the ball carrier and one of his team mates leave the maul.
a. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
b. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

Answers:
a) yes - it is no longer a maul
b) yes, otherwise it is obstruction.

Perhaps WR forgot to mention the automatic PK for the flying wedge - or perhaps (more likely) it's just not an issue.

That is when a maul has not already started.

If all red disengage, the maul is still in effect, so tackling a ball carrier would be collapsing said maul.

 

[The Fat]

Clarification 9/2006 specifically deals with when, during a maul, the ball carrier (assumed now to be at the back of the maul) and one team mate break away/leave the maul. We are now in open play as the maul has ended and therefore the ball carrier's team mate cannot remain in front of the ball carrier.

 

[Taff]

Clarification 9/2006 specifically deals with when, during a maul, the ball carrier (assumed now to be at the back of the maul) and one team mate break away/leave the maul. We are now in open play as the maul has ended and therefore the ball carrier's team mate cannot remain in front of the ball carrier.

Not sure what your point is here Fat. In the OP there was no maul as the opposition didn't bind on.

 

[beckett50]

Not sure what your point is here Fat. In the OP there was no maul as the opposition didn't bind on.

And this was dealt with by a WRB clarification at the start of the (Northern Hemisphere) season.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Clarification 7 2006

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling7-2006
Union / HP Ref ManagerSRU
Law Reference10
Date14 November 2006
Request
The SRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 10.2 Obstruction and
Law 10.4 Flying Wedge

Team A win their lineout and as the jumper returns to the ground his team mates bind onto him and stay and drive him forward. At no point do players from team B contest for the ball or bind on to any members of their own team or members of team A.

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball remains with the initial ball carrier who is at the front of the group of team A players and not preventing any player from team B tackling the ball carrier?

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball is transferred to a player in the middle of the group of team A players and preventing any player from team B from tackling the ball carrier?

Is this deemed to be a “flying wedge” if the ball is transferred to a player on the edge or at the back of the group of team A players and not preventing any player from team B tackling the ball carrier?

If the scenarios listed above are not deemed to be in the flying wedge category should they be considered obstruction?
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
In this situation, players of the defending Team B have not committed to
make any contact or tackle of the ball carrying Team A. Play should continue as the actions of the Team A players are not preventing Team B players from making a tackle. Subsequently if the ball is not held by the lead player of the group of Team A players, and a Team B player attempts to tackle the ball carrier and cannot, then a PK should be awarded against Team A for obstruction.


Odd ruling as it does not seem in concert with the following

15.2 When a tackle cannot take place
When the ball carrier is held by one opponent and a team-mate of the ball carrier binds on to that ball carrier, a maul has been formed and a tackle cannot take place.

 

[Taff]

Odd ruling as it does not seem in concert with the following.

I don't think it's odd NKW.

What they're saying is that if no maul has formed (first example) the BC is free to be tackled. If a maul has formed (second example) the BC can't be tackled.

That's the kind of Ruling I like. Simple and just confirms what I'd always expected anyway. Ie there's not much thinking required on my part. :biggrin:

 

[Pinky]

Talking by grasping BC below the waist should not create a maul.

 

[didds]

Talking by grasping BC below the waist should not create a maul.

... IF the tackler is the first defender to make any contact with the body of attackers.

I am sure that's what Pinky meant - I was just adding a bit more wotsit.

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I don't think it's odd NKW.

What they're saying is that if no maul has formed (first example) the BC is free to be tackled. If a maul has formed (second example) the BC can't be tackled.

That's the kind of Ruling I like. Simple and just confirms what I'd always expected anyway. Ie there's not much thinking required on my part. :biggrin:

Now that team A are bound, can they move forward without contact?

Why did they get bound in the first place? , to prevent a tackle by forming a maul which is what the ruling states they are not preventing a tackle. Yet they law says after a maul is formed a tackle cannot take place

 

[TigerCraig]

Now that team A are bound, can they move forward without contact?

Why did they get bound in the first place? , to prevent a tackle by forming a maul which is what the ruling states they are not preventing a tackle. Yet they law says after a maul is formed a tackle cannot take place

But its not a maul if only Team A are in it at commencement

Therefore Team B can either:

- challenge the ball carrier and bind to him above the waist: maul created
- tackle the ball carrier below the waist: tackle effected
- not contest
- slip around the back

While Team A can:
- keep moving up the park, so long as the ball stays in the possession of the front man
- slip the ball back which leaves them open to an "accidental" offside call as soon as Team B make contact

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

But its not a maul if only Team A are in it at commencement

Therefore Team B can either:

- challenge the ball carrier and bind to him above the waist: maul created
- tackle the ball carrier below the waist: tackle effected
- not contest
- slip around the back

While Team A can:
- keep moving up the park, so long as the ball stays in the possession of the front man
- slip the ball back which leaves them open to an "accidental" offside call as soon as Team B make contact

I'd say "you're right" but you wouldn't read any further

My description may be poor, but as Team A is set up , bound, and ball at front #1 can they move forward ? (I say "no", no driving forward at all) #2 with any contact from Team b (tackle attempt or not) a maul is formed.

Team A has prevented a tackle by creating a scenario that only a maul can result. First by law and second by physical difficulty of attempting to tackle a player who is supported on his feet by bound teammates holding him up.


I vaguely remember something about a tackle below the waist not creating a maul, but right now it is simply myth not justified by any law.
Why should the tackler be prevented by actions of other than the ball carrier from tackling in any method? The tackler should be allowed to administer a Courtney Lawes tackle.

By binding early w/o contact the tackler is prevented and that is the intent of binding early.

 

[RobLev]

I'd say "you're right" but you wouldn't read any further

My description may be poor, but as Team A is set up , bound, and ball at front #1 can they move forward ? (I say "no", no driving forward at all) #2 with any contact from Team b (tackle attempt or not) a maul is formed.

Team A has prevented a tackle by creating a scenario that only a maul can result. First by law and second by physical difficulty of attempting to tackle a player who is supported on his feet by bound teammates holding him up.


I vaguely remember something about a tackle below the waist not creating a maul, but right now it is simply myth not justified by any law.

Except this clarification.

Why should the tackler be prevented by actions of other than the ball carrier from tackling in any method? The tackler should be allowed to administer a Courtney Lawes tackle.

By binding early w/o contact the tackler is prevented and that is the intent of binding early.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Except this clarification.

THX roblev, this is 2003 and must be still applicable as it is on the IRB/WR website


The actions below are about a legal action by the #8 and #6. A B/C and one bound teammate, legal by law and not covered by flying wedge

The OP has teammates bound to B/C and meets at least that requirment of FW and these players are also moving forward also a criteria

This ruling does give us an interpretation of when maul is formed in bound teammate situation. Unfortunately it only discusses at knee level and doesn't ask it more open ended. At knee level and below would have been better, or at waist level and below, or at shoulder level and below would have forced the commitee to answer more accurately.

My contention is that more than one player bound to B/C prevents the tackle not only by its physical difficulty, but also by limiting a tackle to knee level(as per this ruling) and below. I also contend that more than one bound player is not permitted by law when this bound mass is moving forward.

The mass could wait for contact before driving, but the counter by defense is not to engage to difficult to defend mass.


NZRFU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 15 Tackle and Law 17 Maul:

The NZRFU is in receipt of Ruling 3:2003. The Union seeks further clarification on the interpretation implicit in Ruling 3. In order to bring further clarity to what is involved in forming a maul and collapsing a maul we would request answers to the following questions.

(1) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player drives in low and wraps his arms around the legs (knee height) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him. The #8 still in possession of the ball is brought to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(2) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, grasps his jersey (shoulder region) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and immediately brings him to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(3) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, drives into the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and binds on him in an effort to prevent their forward progress. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?


If the answer to 3.a.i. is yes, and the defender now drags the maul to the ground, is he:

(ii) Collapsing a maul?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Another counter by the defense to the L/O unopposed bound player premaul mass, is to allow it to move f wd past the line of touch and end L/O. Then from the side or from behind the mass attempt to get the B/C at the front and collect an obstruction call.

Or we as refs could end the dance before it starts, or even better we could allow this counter to get followed by a counter counter measure, then counter counter counter measure. A lovely circle of clarifications and rulings will ensue and we all know the end result.

The IRB/WR will reference rugby refs and NKW will get credit for the new law (which already existed, but nobody wanted to call for fear of getting made fun of) that states no more than one players may bind on an active B/C before contact. Law 10.4(FW)a

 

[Pinky]

... IF the tackler is the first defender to make any contact with the body of attackers.

I am sure that's what Pinky meant - I was just adding a bit more wotsit.

didds

Thanks yes indeed. And I meant tackling.