Line Out Maul Not Contested #2

[Not Kurt Weaver]

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

Thanks yes indeed. And I meant tackling.

I tend to agree as the only positive result for below waist contact would be brought to ground. However, I am unable to find anything that would indicate this does not create a maul if tackler is unable to achieve brought to ground.

I have been able to find a ruling on one player bound to B/C and tackler contact at knee level. I am not sure it applies in the OP case,

Teammates bound on each side effectively limit the target area of tackler. A tackle below waist level limits tacklers target are by about 2/5.
Wouldn't you agree since below shoulders and above waist would cause a maul. Some by binding pre contact we prevented a tackle somewhat by reducing tackle target area. The ruling that others have sighted reduces it to at knee level.

Additionally where would a tackler place his head at waist level tackle of B/C bound on either side. I would choose the side with the skinnest knee on bound player to reduce the likelihood of impacting the orbital bones surrounding my eye. In hindsight, i would choose the fatter thigh to help spread impact over more surface area.

Binding by 2 or more team mates significantly reduces tackle area, I would go as far to say it prevents the tackle. that is why teammates are binding to ball carrier.

Some where, there is a law thast prevents this. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[The Fat]

Ireland attempt to tackle the ball carrier in this clip. It shows how difficult it is to complete that tackle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pmcZr4gI8&app=desktop

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Ireland attempt to tackle the ball carrier in this clip. It shows how difficult it is to complete that tackle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pmcZr4gI8&app=desktop

Anyone care to biteon this one. PK to IRE offside in L/O, CJ missed it.

Fat THX for video, these guys are professionals surely they are not prevented from making a tackle. The ruling on Post #30 states that defnders are not prevented from making the tackle in this scenario. I must be wrong. The ruling is not odd at all.

 

[Taff]

I tend to agree as the only positive result for below waist contact would be brought to ground. However, I am unable to find anything that would indicate this does not create a maul if tackler is unable to achieve brought to ground.

To form a maul an opponent must bind on. Binding is defined and is pretty specific.

Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

Ie tackling the BC below the hips isn't "Binding" ... so no maul formed.

I know it's very fine margins and needs a very clear head, but nobody said this Reffing lark was easy. :biggrin:

 

[The Fat]

Taff,
I think you'll find it is HELD by an opposition player and a team mate of the ball carrier BINDS to the BC

 

[Taff]

Taff, I think you'll find it is HELD by an opposition player and a team mate of the ball carrier BINDS to the BC

But surely in that case the earlier ruling makes no sense.

 

[Dixie]

Taff,
I think you'll find it is HELD by an opposition player and a team mate of the ball carrier BINDS to the BC

You accurately quote the definition, but as ever with rugby laws, it is not quite so clear as that. By way of clarification, the definition goes on to say:

[LAWS]All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line.[/LAWS]

So in Taff's scenario, Blue 8 breaks off a maul and Blue 6 pre-binds. The question then is whether by tackling below the hips, White 10 forms a maul. Certainly Blue 8 is HELD, but White 10 is neither BOUND TO nor CAUGHT IN the melee. For me, the fact that he fails the clarification of the previous text confirms that the maul is not formed.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

You accurately quote the definition, but as ever with rugby laws, it is not quite so clear as that. By way of clarification, the definition goes on to say:

[LAWS]All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line.[/LAWS]

So in Taff's scenario, Blue 8 breaks off a maul and Blue 6 pre-binds. The question then is whether by tackling below the hips, White 10 forms a maul. Certainly Blue 8 is HELD, but White 10 is neither BOUND TO nor CAUGHT IN the melee. For me, the fact that he fails the clarification of the previous text confirms that the maul is not formed.

Pretty good argument, cept the for the f word is used specifically before your interptreted view of clarification.

Another interpretation of this clarification could that it specifies in order to participate that laying on of hands is not sufficient. As this clarification does not contain the f word.


So when when Taff's scenario occurs, what state of the game are we in when an attempted tackle below the waist occurs?

 

[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*

What is wrong with it?

That it was sent out twice?
Reminder from National Office, and as covered by Training Officer Ken Fraine during the March 30 meeting:
DEFENSE NOT FORMING A MAUL AT A LINEOUT (as shown in the video)
If the ball carrier is in the front (even with team mates bound onto the ball carrier):
The team may move forward.
Defenders may tackle the ball carrier.
If the ball is moved to the back:
The team in possession is required to get the ball out:
otherwise a scrum will be awarded for accidental offside, or
if they move forward they are liable to a PENALTY KICK against them for obstruction.
The lineout is not over if the ball is still on the line of touch
The lineout is over if the ball is moved away from the line of touch and defenders may come around to tackle ball carrier or play the ball.
WHEN A MAUL HAS FORMED
If defenders voluntarily leave the maul, the maul continues even if no more defenders are part of the maul.
If defenders fall off a moving maul the maul is over and the referee should instruct players to ‘use it’.
If defenders fall off a moving maul but the maul immediately moves into the in-goal due to momentum and the ball is grounded by attackers a try should be awarded.
If the maul legally goes to ground players are not required to roll away.
Also, the defenders (if they do not form a maul), MAY NOT LEAVE THE LINEOUT otherwise they are liable to be PENALIZED.
Like · Comment

 

[Dixie]

What is wrong with it?

...

The lineout is not over if the ball is still on the line of touch
The lineout is over if the ball is moved away from the line of touch and defenders may come around to tackle ball carrier or play the ball.

I wonder what they intend these lines to mean? They seem to suggest that the defence may not tackle the ball carrier while the lineout persists. This would certainly be untrue if the ball were at the front, and I don't think it would be correct if the ball were at the back (i.e. if the attackers had moved forward a bit so the point of the arrow is ahead of the LoT, and the ball is on it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I wonder what they intend these lines to mean? They seem to suggest that the defence may not tackle the ball carrier while the lineout persists. This would certainly be untrue if the ball were at the front, and I don't think it would be correct if the ball were at the back (i.e. if the attackers had moved forward a bit so the point of the arrow is ahead of the LoT, and the ball is on it.

Best I can figure, ball is offside line, it must leave LoT, since there is no engagement thus no maul to end L/O by moving beyond or past LoT, when the ball has been handed to back of bound mass L/O and away from LoT, there is no offside line

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Nevertheless, adaptation of Napoleon’s military strategy changed the
face of college football after that Harvard-Yale game of 1892. Players and
coaches. displaying an intense need for conquest and domination, embraced
military designs and applied them to football. With the flying wedge abolished
and teams no longer grated the privilege of concentrating a massive
moving force upon a single decisive point, President Jacob G. Schurman of
Cornell was moved to optimistically write: “In a few years I suspect the
current views on athletics will be looked upon as hallucinations: and we shall
all return to the good old watch words of self-respect, moderation. and the
greatest good to the greatest number.”28 He was wrong. More than a century
later, athletes and coaches are still learning well the lessons of warfare
grandly taught on the gridiron by Harvard and its flying wedge.


Journal of Sport History. Vol. 20. No. I (Spring 1993)

 

[Phil E]

I have absolutely no idea................what planet you are on??:wtf:

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I have absolutely no idea................what planet you are on??:wtf:

Trying to keep thread on New Post list

If we do not learn from past, the FW will appear and reappear in different forms. When we allow a bound team to move forward at a L/O, why not allow it at Pk? or FK?, Or Mark? , or off base of scrum?, or from behind first receiver, or off an inch drop at a 22, or off a quick tap,


The PK, FK, and Mark are kinda covered.


All we need is a law that states a B/C, cannot move forward when bound by 2 or more teammates. I'll be darned, there is such a law.

Why don't we enforce it? The only reason is fear. Fear of ridicule. I sure as hell don't want anyone to think I'm a jobsworth or that I am concerned about player safety and that I'm making up laws.

Rulings, clarifications, directives on this subject or filled with so many "ifs" standardization is impossible.


The lucky ones will get broken bones, History tells us the others will be known as plaintiff or patient. One very fortunate thing for rugby is there is no money to go after in a lawsuit. We will just call them patient or ward of the state.

 

[The Fat]

You accurately quote the definition, but as ever with rugby laws, it is not quite so clear as that. By way of clarification, the definition goes on to say:

[LAWS]All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line.[/LAWS]

So in Taff's scenario, Blue 8 breaks off a maul and Blue 6 pre-binds. The question then is whether by tackling below the hips, White 10 forms a maul. Certainly Blue 8 is HELD, but White 10 is neither BOUND TO nor CAUGHT IN the melee. For me, the fact that he fails the clarification of the previous text confirms that the maul is not formed.

Agreed

 

[Browner]

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

Such a day would first require 10.4(p) to be reworded to
a) widen the scope beyond FK/PK
b) rename the Law as "Wedge" ,

in removing the descriptive 'flying' it might help clarify that the speed of the Wedge isn't actually the key issue.

Then you would be right in seeking to reference this law.