[Maul] Lineout - contrived offence?

[sotiras]

L7 game black win lineout just outside the opponents 22, form up around the ball in anticipation of trundiling it upfield with a maul, blue refuse to engage. No maul formed, referee awards accidental offside by Black - Blue scrum.

I guess he could have played the truck and trailer card, but to my way of thinking this was clearly a contrived offence by blue, who, by refusing to play (engage the maul) secured a scrum and thus the advantage.

Had I been whistling I'd have awarded FK Black for a contrived offence by Blue, but can find no justification for my thinking in Law.

Thoughts please?

 

[barker14610]

Tell Black to use it. If they get the ball out quickly, play on. I despise this tactic by team's who refuse to engage simply because they can't defend a maul properly

 

[Womble]

Tell Black to use it. If they get the ball out quickly, play on. I despise this tactic by team's who refuse to engage simply because they can't defend a maul properly

One of the best ways to defend a maul is to not let one form ! great tactic if used well

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

If black have formed up with the ball carrier at the front they have done nothing wrong. The ref should not have blown

 

[crossref]

If black have formed up with the ball carrier at the front they have done nothing wrong. The ref should not have blown

and if the ball carrier is at the back they must use it --- trundle forward and it's accidental offside.

 

[Bunniksider]

IRB (sic) clarification from September 2014

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

• if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, PK to attacking team;

• if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and creating space and not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
- if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to use it which they must do immediately...

- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction.

 

[Camquin]

Why does it matther which half of the field it is in?
Surely they mean team in possession and team not in possession.

If the people writing the clarification misue the terms they defined how do they expect anyone to understand the laws.
Camquin

 

[RobLev]

L7 game black win lineout just outside the opponents 22, form up around the ball in anticipation of trundiling it upfield with a maul, blue refuse to engage. No maul formed, referee awards accidental offside by Black - Blue scrum.

I guess he could have played the truck and trailer card, but to my way of thinking this was clearly a contrived offence by blue, who, by refusing to play (engage the maul) secured a scrum and thus the advantage.

Had I been whistling I'd have awarded FK Black for a contrived offence by Blue, but can find no justification for my thinking in Law.

Thoughts please?

Which Law says that if Black want to have a maul on their terms, Blue must provide players to make it a maul?

 

[didds]

One of the best ways to defend a maul is to not let one form ! great tactic if used well

hear hear.

didds

 

[Taff]

One of the best ways to defend a maul is to not let one form ! great tactic if used well

Exactly.

Play to your strengths, but try and avoid your weaknesses. If a team struggles to defend a rolling maul - don't form a maul in the first place.

 

[Dickie E]

- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction.

In the event that a scrum is awarded, what is its location?

a) on the LoT (assuming that is where the accidental offside first occurred)
b) 5 metres down field where the ref called "use it"
c) a further 5 metres downfield where the whistle is finally blown


If the answer is (c), what happens if the ref calls "use it" then the maul-thing goes in-goal and ball grounded by attacking team? Try or scrum cos they didn't use it? Or is scoring a try an example of using it?

 

[The Fat]

In the event that a scrum is awarded, what is its location?

a) on the LoT (assuming that is where the accidental offside first occurred)
b) 5 metres down field where the ref called "use it"
c) a further 5 metres downfield where the whistle is finally blown


If the answer is (c), what happens if the ref calls "use it" then the maul-thing goes in-goal and ball grounded by attacking team? Try or scrum cos they didn't use it? Or is scoring a try an example of using it?

I'll have a crack.
If the ball is moved to the back of the pack, the referee should immediately call "Use it!"
If they don't, the scrum for accidental offside would be on the LoT. The whole thing shouldn't get 5m further down field and definitely shouldn't make it to the in-goal.
Making forward movement as a pack after the ref has called "Use it", is not using it, plain and simple and is why it was unfortunate for Nigel Owens that he jumped the gun in the RWC with his "Use it" call and then allowed Australia to push forward again for the Pocock try.

 

[The Fat]

L7 game black win lineout just outside the opponents 22, form up around the ball in anticipation of trundiling it upfield with a maul, blue refuse to engage. No maul formed, referee awards accidental offside by Black - Blue scrum.

I guess he could have played the truck and trailer card, but to my way of thinking this was clearly a contrived offence by blue, who, by refusing to play (engage the maul) secured a scrum and thus the advantage.

Had I been whistling I'd have awarded FK Black for a contrived offence by Blue, but can find no justification for my thinking in Law.

Thoughts please?

And you would have been wrong.
The ref was correct in awarding the scrum for accidental offside if the ball was moved back from the front black player.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Why does it matther which half of the field it is in?
Surely they mean team in possession and team not in possession.

If the people writing the clarification misue the terms they defined how do they expect anyone to understand the laws.
Camquin

100% agree. A total lack of consistency in nomenclature.

This has been brought up about this particular clarification before. WR do themselves a disservice by having 12 year olds proof reading their publications.

 

[sotiras]

Interesting comments and I'll take the law clarification as read, but, and I don't want to create another debate, considering no maul has formed, where in law does the referee obtain the obligation to call "use it", other than as an advisory game management call?

As far as I understand "use it" does not apply to open play, same applies for uncontested "rucks" or more specifically non-rucks.

 

[crossref]

I don't want to create another debate, considering no maul has formed, where in law does the referee obtain the obligation to call "use it", other than as an advisory game management call?.

you have hit the nail exactly on the head : this call of 'use it' in what is a non-maul [ie we are in open play] is a brand new piece of Law created by the 'clarification' .

the other brand new thing introduced by the clarification is the idea that its 'accidental offside' if the non-maul starts to move forward, when the Law (prior to the clarification) would indicate a PK for obstruction.


the clarification is not a clarification at all, it was a change in the Law. (Sadly this is true of other clarifications as well)

 

[The Fat]

Interesting comments and I'll take the law clarification as read, but, and I don't want to create another debate, considering no maul has formed, where in law does the referee obtain the obligation to call "use it", other than as an advisory game management call?

As far as I understand "use it" does not apply to open play, same applies for uncontested "rucks" or more specifically non-rucks.

Not in the current Laws of The Game however, the "obligation to call use it" is part of the directive from the IRB (now WR) to referees as to how this game situation is to be refereed.
It may well make it into next year's Laws.

".......if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to use it which they must do immediately..."

 

[Dixie]

considering no maul has formed, where in law does the referee obtain the obligation to call "use it", other than as an advisory game management call?

As far as I understand "use it" does not apply to open play, same applies for uncontested "rucks" or more specifically non-rucks.

You are right - it is just a game management call. You could simply ignore it and immediately award the scrum for accidental offside, given that's what we normally do when people ahead of the ball carrier get in the way of the oppo's efforts to make contact. But WR has taken context into account and decided it is fairest to give the ball carriers an opportunity to avoid that consequence.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Why does it matther which half of the field it is in?
Surely they mean team in possession and team not in possession.

If the people writing the clarification misue the terms they defined how do they expect anyone to understand the laws.
Camquin

When we were informed of this at a Society meeting I questioned the use of attacking/defending as definitions for the sides involved in the scenario but was dismissed as a pedantic t**t with the sign off "you know what they mean".

Whilst I did raise it with my mischevious pedant head on and yes I did "know what they mean" the fact remains it is a concern the iRB/WR cannot draft clarifications using their own definitions correctly.

I have used the accidental offside for "truck and trailer" once since the clarification. Most sides I referee don't use the "no engage" tactic to avoid the creation of a maul.

 

[crossref]

When we were informed of this at a Society meeting I questioned the use of attacking/defending as definitions for the sides involved in the scenario but was dismissed as a pedantic t**t with the sign off "you know what they mean".

Whilst I did raise it with my mischevious pedant head on and yes I did "know what they mean" the fact remains it is a concern the iRB/WR cannot draft clarifications using their own definitions correctly.

I don't think it's pedantic - the phrase 'attacking team' is used quite often and the defined meaning of it isn't always intuitive -- so it's important for it to be used consistently.