LINEOUT to MAUL – DEFENCE

[Phil E]

This article talks about IRB directions to referees. Has anyone else come across these directions?

Lineout to Maul defence

LINEOUT to MAUL – DEFENCE

Many of you will be aware of a lineout tactic adopted at the recent Junior World Championship whereby the non-ball-winning team chooses NOT to make physical contact with the players of the ball-winning team, once the ball has been thrown-in and won. This means that no maul is created because only the players of one team are gathered around the ball carrier.

The IRB provided direction on how to referee this circumstance.
In order to provide clarity, please instruct all referees to rule as follows:

• If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by “leaving the line out as a group”, PENALTY KICK to team in possession.
• If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and “creating space” and they remain at the lineout, the following process would be followed:
• the ball-winning team would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – non-ball-winning players could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only).
• if they immediately hand it back to a player behind the front player, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.
• if they drive forward and the ball is in possession of a player behind the front player, the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than a Penalty Kick for obstruction.
• We believe that teams who are adept at mauling will very quickly make use of their options to their advantage and therefore non-ball-winning teams will be taking a massive risk if they choose not to compete and, therefore, create the initial maul.

The message to referees regarding the ball-winning team formation is:

• We need to ensure that the ball is not transferred from the Jumper to the back player before a maul is formed.
• We need to be FAR MORE vigilant on team-in-possession players “joining the maul ahead of the ball carrier and/or the last player on their own side of the maul” – we need to ensure team-in-possession players join from the back (just as we expect the non-possession team to do).

 

[TheBFG]

what about the players that "swim" up the side, have they missed a trick there?

 

[crossref]

I guess it's a question to the author of the article : when he says the 'IRB provided direction' was this is an official email he received? Or did he ask a senior person he happens to know for his opinion?

I'm guessing the latter - the text doesn't read at all like a copy of an official email.

 

[Phil E]

I guess it's a question to the author of the article : when he says the 'IRB provided direction' was this is an official email he received? Or did he ask a senior person he happens to know for his opinion?

I'm guessing the latter - the text doesn't read at all like a copy of an official email.

Maybe Ian can find out?

 

[Womble]

Anybody could have written that! Simple law knowledge IMO.

 

[crossref]

Anybody could have written that! Simple law knowledge IMO.

i agree. It doesn't read like an official IRB email

 

[Dixie]

Anybody could have written that! Simple law knowledge IMO.

Delighted that it's all simple! So help me out here, please:

If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by “leaving the line out as a group”, PENALTY KICK to team in possession.

What is meant by "leaving the lineout", given that it seems to extend to 10m from the LoT?

Equally, what happens if they don't drop back as a group, but only a few drop back while others remain at the LoT?

if they immediately hand it back to a player behind the front player, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.

Given that the oppo lineout has opened like a pair of curtains, there is no-one except possibly the receiver ahead of the attackers, and that receiver is not going to want to engage. What is the justification for the "use it" call? Where does that appear in law?

 

[OB..]

I don't like this very much. Apparently the aim is to make the defenders co-operate with the attackers in forming a maul. Why?

In previous discussion it has been assumed that leaving the lineout meant one metre or more, but peeling allows up to 10m. Muddle.

How can deliberately passing the ball back be classified as accidental obstruction?

 

[RobLev]

...
[*]if they drive forward and the ball is in possession of a player behind the front player, the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than a Penalty Kick for obstruction.
...

Why? It's far more clearly and obviously obstruction than it is accidental offside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This is not an email or memo from the iRB, nor is there any claim that it is. The only mention of the iRB is...

"The IRB provided direction on how to referee this circumstance."

...and this is simply a reference to the IRB Law Application Guidelines (Maul Working Group outcomes)...

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=1&language=ZH

...which states in the first paragraph....

The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks. (Match Officials were instructed to apply this from May 2009 - a DVD was circulated to all match elite match officials and Referee Managers.)

What then follows on the WRRA website is a summary, based on these guidelines, of how they expect the iRB's directions to be applied

The bit I like is this (my emphasis)...

The message to referees regarding the ball-winning team formation is:

1. We need to ensure that the ball is not transferred from the Jumper to the back player before a maul is formed.
   
2. We need to be FAR MORE vigilant on team-in-possession players “joining the maul ahead of the ball carrier and/or the last player on their own side of the maul” – we need to ensure team-in-possession players join from the back (just as we expect the non-possession team to do).

I wish elite referees would take note of this, because far too often, we are seeing the line-out jumper, his feet still off the ground, handing the ball back to a team-mate who is behind two other team-mates, making it impossible for their opponents to contest the formation of the maul.

 

[TigerCraig]

We just got the email from our society secretary; to quote his preamble:

"Dear All,

This has just been handed down from the ARU, which was handed down to them from the IRB."

 

[damo]

I received this from my REO a few weeks ago. I don't know how high up it goes, but it was said to apply to club and school rugby in the Waikato.

 

[crossref]

the plot thickens!

but it still doesn't read to me like an IRB email. The IRB don't write things like

•We believe that teams who are adept at mauling will very quickly make use of their options to their advantage and therefore non-ball-winning teams will be taking a massive risk if they choose not to compete and, therefore, create the initial maul.

The whole article reads to me not like an IRB missive, but perhaps one person's summary of what he was told on a training day ...

 

[Browner]

• if they immediately hand it back to a player behind the front player, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.

I don't think word use is helpful .... USE IT is normally followed by 5s to do so, this has all the beginnings of creating confusion on USE IT calls.
IF a call is required ( and rugby by referee instruction is an increasing pressure? ) then I'd rather a separate call was created, "don't block" ???

### In another thread (re: voluntary withdrawal from maul) "use it" was again being suggested as a solution , wrongly IMO. ###

It looks like someone has been lobbying that PK is too high a sanction, hense the downgrade.

 

[Mr.Christopher]

Just to be clear.... if the defending team doesn't engage at all.... no maul is formed, meaning there is no offside line, right?

If there is no offside line, can a defender run around the "pile-of-players-that-look-like-a-maul-but-aren't" and rip the ball from the back of the aforementioned "group of maul impersonators"?

 

[Dixie]

Just to be clear.... if the defending team doesn't engage at all.... no maul is formed, meaning there is no offside line, right?

If there is no offside line, can a defender run around the "pile-of-players-that-look-like-a-maul-but-aren't" and rip the ball from the back of the aforementioned "group of maul impersonators"?

Not quite - we are still at a lineout, so until the lineout ends the offside line is the ball (it having been caught).

 

[crossref]

Not quite - we are still at a lineout, so until the lineout ends the offside line is the ball (it having been caught).

... so he has to wait until the maul-like thing moves from the LOT .... but then if the ball is at the back the referee is going to blow for accidental offside, which is even better so wait for that.

 

[crossref]

I don't think word use is helpful .... USE IT is normally followed by 5s to do so, this has all the beginnings of creating confusion on USE IT calls.
.

is your objection because in this scenario you think they are being required to use it in less than 5 sec ? or that you don't think there is a time limit at all ?

 

[Phil E]

The problem for me is that if someone challenges your use of the phrase "use it" in that context, you have no law to back up your decision.

 

[didds]

Re: Artificial pitches

I took the objection to mean the ball carriers are being told to use the ball NOW, with teh call "USE IT".

But in another scenario, ie a ruck, "USE IT" means 5 seconds.

I agree its not really sensible to have the same call for two separate and different requirements.

didds