[Maul] Lineout - contrived offence?

[TheBFG]

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

Thanks for the heads up :wink:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

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.

I know from discussions with other referees and players that "attacking team" is incorrectly used to mean "team in possession" on many occasions - probably more occasions than it's used correctly.

 

[RobLev]

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.

I would hope not; and that you would normally award a PK for obstruction.

 

[RobLev]

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.

Agreed; apply the Law as written, ignore the clarification, and award a PK for obstruction.

Or apply the clarification, tell the ball-carrying team to use it, and award a scrum for accidental offside if they don't.

In no case can you sanction the team not in possession for not forming a maul; there is no obligation in law to engage in a maul just because the other team wants you to.

 

[Womble]

Thanks for the heads up :wink:

Is it the Tor game your down for?

 

[thepercy]

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.

Though it can be confusing, "Defending Team" (defined in LoTG) and defenders (not defined) are different concepts.

 

[crossref]

I know from discussions with other referees and players that "attacking team" is incorrectly used to mean "team in possession" on many occasions - probably more occasions than it's used correctly.

and certainly attack coach, and defence coach is referring to who is in possession, not the part of the field you are in.

perhaps it's time for the LoTG to think of a different expression

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

and certainly attack coach, and defence coach is referring to who is in possession, not the part of the field you are in.

perhaps it's time for the LoTG to think of a different expression

Indeedy doody.

Attack coach and deeefence coach are probably the b@st@rd children of their American Football ancestors where attack and deefence are "team in possession" and "team not in possession" respectively.

 

[crossref]

so perhaps the LoTG should drop the terms attacking/defending altogether and refer to
- team in possession / not in possession
- team in own half / in opponents' half

which would be unambiguous.

 

[Pegleg]

and certainly attack coach, and defence coach is referring to who is in possession, not the part of the field you are in.

perhaps it's time for the LoTG to think of a different expression

Should the Laws refer to Pillars etc too? Just because coaches use terms does not mean there is a valid reason to adopt them generally.