LINEOUT to MAUL – DEFENCE

[The Fat]

As I have said to Pinky - Ian's video evidence shows that that's not the way that showbiz rugby is refereed - and that's where the issue has arisen. And why the insistence on me risking a PK/YC by playing a player without the ball, when it's quite clear I can't get to the ball-carrier?

I think you have misunderstood my previous response.
I have seen Ian's videos of Matfield handing off before he comes back to earth and agree with his sentiments regarding the illegal formation of the maul in such situations.
I was simply responding to this statement,
"If the ball has already disappeared to the back of a phalanx of players, I'm not going to attempt the tackle, because you are going to say I was engaging in the maul".
All I am saying is that if the ball is already at the back, if you attempt to tackle (presumably by making contact initially at the front players of the group), you cannot be engaging in the maul as it is impossible for one to form. In such situations, I believe it should be a PK against the team with the ball for obstruction. The new laws suggest that the ball carrier's team will be given the opportunity to use it instead.

As for your last sentence, I'm saying PK the group of players, not you for playing a player without the ball. I'm not sure how you thought I was suggesting this.
I think we are basically on the same team with this one.

 

[RobLev]

I think you have misunderstood my previous response.
I have seen Ian's videos of Matfield handing off before he comes back to earth and agree with his sentiments regarding the illegal formation of the maul in such situations.
I was simply responding to this statement,
"If the ball has already disappeared to the back of a phalanx of players, I'm not going to attempt the tackle, because you are going to say I was engaging in the maul".
All I am saying is that if the ball is already at the back, if you attempt to tackle (presumably by making contact initially at the front players of the group), you cannot be engaging in the maul as it is impossible for one to form. In such situations, I believe it should be a PK against the team with the ball for obstruction. The new laws suggest that the ball carrier's team will be given the opportunity to use it instead.

As for your last sentence, I'm saying PK the group of players, not you for playing a player without the ball. I'm not sure how you thought I was suggesting this.
I think we are basically on the same team with this one.

Oops - sorry. If we are agreed that contact isn't necessary for an obstruction call, we're on the same page.

 

[Browner]

One of the main problems I have with this is that it is creating another/different 'use it' timespan.

Normally, use it = 5s
In this scenario use it = immediately ( given to mean 1s (+-) , not 4s )

Players need to know the difference between these two ' use it' instructions , so I'd offer that "Use Now" would be a better phrase as it differentiates between the two 'expectations' of time

?

 

[crossref]

why do you think this 'use it' means 1s.
I'd give them 5s -- for the reasons you say.

 

[Browner]

why do you think this 'use it' means 1s.
I'd give them 5s -- for the reasons you say.

you posted ..... (Source london society)

. - 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...

A 5s stand off in that instance would look awkward.

Im interpreting a different " use it" timespan....you're not ?

 

[crossref]

I agree with the issue you raise browner : the command 'use-it' means five seconds, so if the IRB want it quicker, they should have told us to use a different command.

my logic is
- the IRB are very specific about the command 'use it'
- but they aren't specific about the timescale 'immediately'

so I would use the command they told us, and interpret immediately to mean 5s, in line with the meaning of 'use it'

 

[ChrisR]

The IRB directive is incomplete. There are two questions not answered:

1. Has the lineout ended when a maul doesn't form and the ball is passed back from the catcher to a player joining behind him?

2. If the answer to 1. is "yes". In a non-maul, after the ball is passed back and the lineout is over, can players advance to tackle the BC at the back of the non-maul and/or get into the passing lanes from the SH?

If the lineout is deemed not to have ended when the ball is passed back Law 19.14(c) allows a defender in the lineout to step beyond the ball to tackle the BC. Does this include running around the flanks of the lineout as seen in another post long, long ago?

 

[Browner]

I agree with the issue you raise browner : the command 'use-it' means five seconds, so if the IRB want it quicker, they should have told us to use a different command.

my logic is
- the IRB are very specific about the command 'use it'
- but they aren't specific about the timescale 'immediately'

so I would use the command they told us, and interpret immediately to mean 5s, in line with the meaning of 'use it'

I understand your alignment thought process , but such a pregnant pause .... ( whilst the LineOut opposition stand and watch) , that's an unrealistic stand off, that would be viewed poorly IMO

" Use it - NOW! " will be my way of guiding the players on the differences. Until someone has 'sold' me on a better suggestion.

 

[Browner]

On a tangent point, when the opposition captain asks " Why is that accidental Sir, they caught/handed back/ and trundled forward blocking our access to the BC deliberately" ....... what is the best answer ? !!!!!

 

[RobLev]

On a tangent point, when the opposition captain asks " Why is that accidental Sir, they caught/handed back/ and trundled forward blocking our access to the BC deliberately" ....... what is the best answer ? !!!!!

"It isn't accidental in the real world, but the IRB wants us to say it is"?

 

[Browner]

What do we do in these situations??

1) Lineout catcher lands, teammates bind in a wedgemaul formation , but the ball can no longer be clearly seen by the referee , Has catcher still got it? The 1st latcher ( ie its in the middle somewhere ) ? Or has it made it to the tail gunner ?
Given that different considerations will need to be applied to each , what would you do? Other than hit the "use it" GOoJF shout !

2) Lineout attacking catcher lands, teammates bind in a wedgemaul formation the ball is shifted to the tail gunner. As a defending player sets off on his perimeter quest to tackle the tail gunner, the catcher sees this and gives a call whereupon the ball is then pushed back towards either the middle of wedgemaulthingy, or into the catchers possession again.
The tackler then tackles the tail gunner without TG having possession of the ball that is now still in this wedgemaulthingy ?

I guess I'm questioning the wedgemaul thing status, IF the ball is moved within it?

 

[Pinky]

1 Use it - they are hiding it behind players who are otherwise offside, so if they don't use it swiftly, then PK.

2 Swift PK against attacking as when they push the ball back in it is being played by someone in front of the ball carrier.

 

[Browner]

1 Use it - they are hiding it behind players who are otherwise offside, so if they don't use it swiftly, then PK.

2 Swift PK against attacking as when they push the ball back in it is being played by someone in front of the ball carrier.

Hmmnn, ??
Re: 1 , wouldnt use it failure then be deemed 'accidental offside' & scrum? ( or that just a RFU guidance?)

 

[Pinky]

Hmmnn, ??
Re: 1 , wouldnt use it failure then be deemed 'accidental offside' & scrum? ( or that just a RFU guidance?)

OK, use it and failure to use it is a scrum, but to fail to use it and keep it inside the "thing" I regard as offside, hence penalty. It would never be accidental offside for me as they are not "accidentally" offside. That might be a reason to award a scrum if neither a ruck nor a maul had actually been created, but it is not something I would use. Use it is my instruction to play the ball whilst the offside is still immaterial. Any delay and it has become material, so PK.

 

[didds]

if they expect the oppo to engage and form a maul, and in this frame of mind slip the ball... but the oppo don't engage... the ball is thus "accidentally" been placed there ie it is not a deliberate ply to obstruct access to the ball, but part of an anticipated 99% (if not 99.999999%) of the time piece of action.

didds

 

[OB..]

if they expect the oppo to engage and form a maul, and in this frame of mind slip the ball... but the oppo don't engage... the ball is thus "accidentally" been placed there ie it is not a deliberate ply to obstruct access to the ball, but part of an anticipated 99% (if not 99.999999%) of the time piece of action.

didds

The tactic occurs often enough these days that teams should be prepared to deal with it.
[LAWS]11.6(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside.[...][/LAWS]

That is not really what has happened here. It is obstruction. I find it hard to see it as accidental. If crossing occurs beause players messed up a play, it is still a penalty offence. Same thing here.

 

[didds]

i am not convinced that the average 3rd XVer would expect an opposition to not engage at a caught lineout, but I acknowledge the crossing analogy and accept the point made.

didds

 

[RobLev]

i am not convinced that the average 3rd XVer would expect an opposition to not engage at a caught lineout, but I acknowledge the crossing analogy and accept the point made.

didds

Is it so difficult to wait for the engagement before passing the ball back?

 

[Pinky]

if they expect the oppo to engage and form a maul, and in this frame of mind slip the ball... but the oppo don't engage... the ball is thus "accidentally" been placed there ie it is not a deliberate ply to obstruct access to the ball, but part of an anticipated 99% (if not 99.999999%) of the time piece of action.

didds

If they have slipped the ball back, then a maul cannot be formed if the opposition cannot bind on the BC, so I am still thinking penalty if their offsideness is material. 11.6(a) is where someone runs into a player in front, or kicks it forward and hits a team mate (for me at least)

 

[didds]

that's true pinky... but then there are plenty of mauls that have been illegally (or not!) formed in the past 40 years i've been involved with the game!

didds