Line out maul

[lawsons]

What am I missing?

Line out to blue. Red don’t engage. Blue bring the ball down and form their mail. This would happen immediately. Ball at the front.

Under the new one person latched law, I assume they must either delatch to one person prior to a tackler engaging or run the risk of being penalised?

Doesn’t this negate the maul from the line out ?

 

[chbg]

There has been some discussion elsewhere that it does not apply after a line-out. The Law definition of a Flying Wedge states, in the usual WR form: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

The get-out clause appears to be "either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play". Perhaps also in the example you cite, it is the opposition who engage them?

I'm not going to worry about it at my level until I am told to.

 

[Balones]

What am I missing?

Line out to blue. Red donÂ’t engage. Blue bring the ball down and form their mail. This would happen immediately. Ball at the front.

Under the new one person latched law, I assume they must either delatch to one person prior to a tackler engaging or run the risk of being penalised?

DoesnÂ’t this negate the maul from the line out ?

No because as a referee you will immediately shout ‘use it’ or blow for a scrum for accidental offside. For a ‘latch’ situation you would be lijely to penalise after contact has been made. (Not ideal I admit.)

 

[Dickie E]

No because as a referee you will immediately shout ‘use it’ or blow for a scrum for accidental offside.

OP says ball at front

 

[lawsons]

I see it that the ball catcher with 2, probably more people attached starts to rumble forward. A meter later the line out is over and the tackle comes in. Penalty to defending side. It’ll be down to when I decide the line out is over and how long I give them to detach because the tackler will be right there and only has to notionally show a tackle for the offence to occur.

 

[Flish]

I would suggest looking at the intentions of the flying wedge / pre-latching law trials to help, they are around safety in avoiding the combined force of multiple latched players impacting a single tackler, which is a situation that doesn’t exist in a line out, mostly down to distance. So it’s not a scenario I anticipate seeing or would look to penalise.

 

[Zebra1922]

I would suggest looking at the intentions of the flying wedge / pre-latching law trials to help, they are around safety in avoiding the combined force of multiple latched players impacting a single tackler, which is a situation that doesn’t exist in a line out, mostly down to distance. So it’s not a scenario I anticipate seeing or would look to penalise.

I’m not sure we should be interpreting why a law was brought into play in terms of how to referee it. This scenario would breach new laws on a flying wedge/pre bound players, so if they move down the pitch with players bound on either side of the BC, even with the ball at the front, this is against the laws and I will penalise with a penalty.

 

[Flish]

I’m not sure we should be interpreting why a law was brought into play in terms of how to referee it. This scenario would breach new laws on a flying wedge/pre bound players, so if they move down the pitch with players bound on either side of the BC, even with the ball at the front, this is against the laws and I will penalise with a penalty.

Why not?, they specifically publish what the aim of the trial is and what they're trying to achieve, so that information should help us manage the game in terms of both upholding the trial laws in the intended scenarios (Trial it, does it work etc), but trying to shoe horn it into other scenarios doesn't really help the trial, us, or the players.

Allegedly this has already been asked and answered higher up the food chain (it's intended to be used in open play only as I suggested) but I can't point you at an authoritative answer, so I'll be reffing the line out maul / not maul / obstruction / stepping off scenarios exactly as I did before.

 

[lawsons]

Why not?, they specifically publish what the aim of the trial is and what they're trying to achieve, so that information should help us manage the game in terms of both upholding the trial laws in the intended scenarios (Trial it, does it work etc), but trying to shoe horn it into other scenarios doesn't really help the trial, us, or the players.

Allegedly this has already been asked and answered higher up the food chain (it's intended to be used in open play only as I suggested) but I can't point you at an authoritative answer, so I'll be reffing the line out maul / not maul / obstruction / stepping off scenarios exactly as I did before.

Interesting as I have now been told by my society, to referee it as per the law and once the Linoout is over, ask them to detach ( if they are bound more than one) and if they don’t, with generous leeway given, penalise.

In addition hasn’t the flying wedge definition been removed, so you can’t use that anymore to explain other laws.

The situation of combined players vs one tackler does exist after a line out if they don’t compete, why is that safer than from a static ruck?

 

[Flish]

This is a very rare scenario, assuming the ball has stayed at the front (default line out maul setup means it probably hasn’t), the defending line has slid to the side to let them through (as opposed to left the line and been penalised) so we have a ‘not a maul’ with ball at the front, unapposed trundling forward? If that happened then sure, a call of use it now, or detach might be appropriate but I suspect we’ll end up with a lot of bemused players and a scrum to team going forward might be more empathetic - if it happens I’ll let you know how they react!

 

[lawsons]

Agree re confusion all round. The reason I ask is I was asked in my first game back after 18 months and was a bit lost on what to answer. Luckily they always competed. I’ve a team this week who always try to play silly bu**ers and I fully anticipate their coach thinking he’s found the competitive edge.

I think my answer is not to call line out over too quickly and hence give everyone time to sort out the situation.

 

[Phil E]

What am I missing?

Line out to blue. Red donÂ’t engage. Blue bring the ball down and form their mail. This would happen immediately. Ball at the front.

Under the new one person latched law, I assume they must either delatch to one person prior to a tackler engaging or run the risk of being penalised?

DoesnÂ’t this negate the maul from the line out ?

This came up at our training day with C M-K

Advice was that if Red don't engage, there's nearly always someone that steps back, so that's the first offence, leaving the lineout early.
If they do manage to part like the red sea without leaving the line out then the man at the front has one chance to detach or pass the ball away before getting pinged (it should only happen once).

Prior to the new latching law this ball at the front group of players was free to trundle down the pitch until the man at the front was tackled or a maul formed.

 

[crossref]

This came up at our training day with KM-K

Advice was that if Red don't engage, there's nearly always someone that steps back, so that's the first offence, leaving the lineout early.
If they do manage to part like the red sea without leaving the line out then the man at the front has one chance to detach or pass the ball away before getting pinged (it should only happen once).

Prior to the new latching law this ball at the front group of players was free to trundle down the pitch until the man at the front was tackled or a maul formed.

That makes a lot of sense to me.
That was Craig Maxwell Keys ? He is good at clarity

 

[Balones]

This came up at our training day with KM-K

Advice was that if Red don't engage, there's nearly always someone that steps back, so that's the first offence, leaving the lineout early.
If they do manage to part like the red sea without leaving the line out then the man at the front has one chance to detach or pass the ball away before getting pinged (it should only happen once).

Prior to the new latching law this ball at the front group of players was free to trundle down the pitch until the man at the front was tackled or a maul formed.

Did he say what type of ‘ping’? Penalty?

 

[Jz558]

This came up at our training day with KM-K

Advice was that if Red don't engage, there's nearly always someone that steps back, so that's the first offence, leaving the lineout early.
If they do manage to part like the red sea without leaving the line out then the man at the front has one chance to detach or pass the ball away before getting pinged (it should only happen once).

Ha ha, did he mention which side were likely to leave the line-out first? My money would be on the throwing side to ensure the maul is in place when the catcher returns to the deck but I guess he didn't mean that. Good job its Friday, my cynicism level is in need of a weekend reset

 

[Phil E]

This came up at our training day with KM-K

Advice was that if Red don't engage, there's nearly always someone that steps back, so that's the first offence, leaving the lineout early.
If they do manage to part like the red sea without leaving the line out then the man at the front has one chance to detach or pass the ball away before getting pinged (it should only happen once).

Ha ha, did he mention which side were likely to leave the line-out first? My money would be on the throwing side to ensure the maul is in place when the catcher returns to the deck but I guess he didn't mean that. Good job its Friday, my cynicism level is in need of a weekend reset

The throwing in side are allowed to leave the lineout to be in a position to receive the ball. See Law 29.18.d

[LAWS]Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may :
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]

Note: it doesn't say they have to actually receive the ball, just be in a position to do so.

 

[Phil E]

Did he say what type of ‘ping’? Penalty?

Penalty for leaving the lineout or penalty for a flying wedge/too many latchers/mini scrum

 

[crossref]

The throwing in side are allowed to leave the lineout to be in a position to receive the ball. See Law 29.18.d

[LAWS]Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may :
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]

.

that applies to both teams doesn't it ?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

The throwing in side are allowed to leave the lineout to be in a position to receive the ball. See Law 29.18.d

[LAWS]Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may :
d. Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. Sanction: Free-kick.[/LAWS]

Note: it doesn't say they have to actually receive the ball, just be in a position to do so.

That is a really badly written law. "providing they keep moving"! what does that mean? They can't stand still? I guess it is written on the assumption that one player will take up the traditional scrum half position but it doesn't actually say that.

 

[tim White]

It was to allow a "Peeler". We did have a spell of 'musical chairs' a few years back to confuse the opposition but we all came to believe that it looked silly, and it died a natural death