LINEOUT to MAUL – DEFENCE

[Dickie E]

There wasn't a maul.

of course there was. When white players went to ground a maul had been in existence for at least 5 seconds. CJ clearly awarded the penalty for collapsing the maul.

 

[Browner]

If that is the case, aren't England guilty of closing the gap by marching towrds the Irish goal line?

Eh?!?, really?!?

For me, "Closing the gap" is a pre-catch offence, post-catch the catcher is allowed to advance carrying the ball, surely ?? Least that's how I referee it.

Personally, I despise all this orchestrated stand off manouvering after a line out catch. Zzzzz
I'd rather see Law written to force a contest for possession. Uncontested Lineouts need to be filed away in the cabinet under "unbefitting the game" section ! :knuppel2:

 

[Dickie E]

Eh?!?, really?!?

For me, "Closing the gap" is a pre-catch offence, post-catch the catcher is allowed to advance carrying the ball, surely ?? Least that's how I referee it.

You are right & I've chosen my words incorrectly. My point is based on Laws shown below. If a team win the lineout, a maul doesn't form, they move the ball to the back of their gaggle, the gaggle moves forward as the ball remains on line of touch, then that team is breaking the law irrespective of obstruction issues.

[LAWS](c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if, after the ball has touched a player or the ground, that player steps in front of the ball, unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent. Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

(d) The referee must penalise any player who, intentionally or not, moves into an offside position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

 

[Browner]

...the gaggle moves forward as the ball remains on line of touch, then that team is breaking the law irrespective of obstruction issues.

But we've been directed to ignore those obstructions in favour of 'a use it instruction'

I still don't enjoy watching this 'non contest line dance' unravel.

 

[Taff]

... I still don't enjoy watching this 'non contest line dance' unravel.

Neither do I, but it does show that the players are using the law to their advantage and playing to their strengths.

 

[ddjamo]

Or did they all fall over the original white ball carrier who was also on the ground? Hard to tell in slo-mo let alone at full speed.


This part is not in line with 2014 instruction.
When O'Brien made contact he formed a maul, as defined in Law 17. Other Irish players joined in, O'Brien was on the ground and the advancing maul stumbled over him. He was penalised for causing the maul to collapse

According to the 2014 instruction, O'Brien was entitled to tackle the ball carrier and therefore his first contact could not be seen as forming the maul.

1) If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line
out as a group, then PK to attacking team.
2) 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:
a) Attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive downfield
(therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul,
or tackle the ball carrier only)
b) 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...
c) If they drove forward with the ball at the back (and did not release the ball), the
referee would award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than PK for obstruction.

fat - what is the source of the instructions? please post. thanks much!

 

[The Fat]

fat - what is the source of the instructions? please post. thanks much!

IRB Memo from July 2014 which I believe went to all unions.
My post was cut & paste from ARU Memo.
I did a quick search of WR website with no luck but if you google

irb Teams deciding not to engage the maul

you will find the memo repeated word for word from clubs and unions in Aus, NZ & even one link with it on RFU letter head

 

[ChrisR]

From Browner:

Personally, I despise all this orchestrated stand off manouvering after a line out catch. Zzzzz
I'd rather see Law written to force a contest for possession. Uncontested Lineouts need to be filed away in the cabinet under "unbefitting the game" section !

Browner, when a team catches the ball, forms a phalanx and moves the ball to the back how, exactly, is that a "contest for possession"?

There are more options at the lineout than 'maul and drive'.

 

[Pinky]

Two things, if the non-engagers back off, they may be leaving the LO before it is over.

If the ball is moved back before there is a maul, all the defenders need to do is to try and get to the BC and it will be a PK for obstruction or scrum for acc o/s. The latter happened in the premiership this week.

 

[RobLev]

Two things, if the non-engagers back off, they may be leaving the LO before it is over.

If the ball is moved back before there is a maul, all the defenders need to do is to try and get to the BC and it will be a PK for obstruction or scrum for acc o/s. The latter happened in the premiership this week.

It's obstruction whether they "try and get to the BC" or not. And trying to do so risks a PK for playing a man without the ball.

 

[SimonSmith]

It's obstruction whether they "try and get to the BC" or not. And trying to do so risks a PK for playing a man without the ball.

Not sure I agree.

i doubt anyone would get PKed for trying it.

and I can see referees taking the approach that unless you're trying to get the ball or ball carrier, you aren't being obstructed.

 

[OB..]

Two things, if the non-engagers back off, they may be leaving the LO before it is over.

Leaving the lineout is not defined. Personally I would have no problem with a half step to make clear they have not engaged. However the IRB seems to have ruled that any movement away constitutes leaving the lineout since they want the players to move sideways to avoid contact.

 

[OB..]

It's obstruction whether they "try and get to the BC" or not. And trying to do so risks a PK for playing a man without the ball.

Not sure I agree.

i doubt anyone would get PKed for trying it.

and I can see referees taking the approach that unless you're trying to get the ball or ball carrier, you aren't being obstructed.

The referee needs to judge if anybody was in fact obstructed (materiality). However requiring players to make contact to prove it seems a bad idea, encouraging pointless physical contact.

 

[Browner]

From Browner:

Personally, I despise all this orchestrated stand off manouvering after a line out catch. Zzzzz
I'd rather see Law written to force a contest for possession. Uncontested Lineouts need to be filed away in the cabinet under "unbefitting the game" section !

Browner, when a team catches the ball, forms a phalanx and moves the ball to the back how, exactly, is that a "contest for possession"?

There are more options at the lineout than 'maul and drive'.

The catch , by definition, ends the restart of play catching contest.
One team now has possession in the Lineout ( that hasn't ended) , the other team should be required to challenge for that not stand off looking at it ..... The whole inactivity picture is ugly and not what the game invisaged.

Eradicate through law change i say.