LINEOUT to MAUL – DEFENCE

[didds]

as for can't they wait... of course they can. But its a sort of pavlovian thing. For "ever" "everybody caught and set and the oppo bound on a maul was created. it was the way things worked and people just got on with it. So the ball may well possibly have been smuggled away before the initial oppo bind arrived as a peeling supporter took the ball from the catcher on his way down. Nobody doubted it, everybody accepted it and we just carried on.

I mooted the stand back and run around ploy years ago here (or maybe RFU forums) and was told i was being silly and it woudn;t work. then Italy did it against england and it did and everyone said what a wizard wheeze it was. I'm not bitter.. ;-)

Now it is more common... but still not very common lets face it. Down amongst the dead men does anybody ever do it - how many of you guys reffing have had this in their games this season? And for any that have - how many times? In 4 months?

So in summary, yes teams could wait, and technically should wait, but in reality they haven;t, and maybe still don't, because everybody normally just gets on with what they have always done.

didds

 

[OB..]

didds - why is that an excuse for doing something illegal?

 

[Browner]

For "ever" "everybody caught and set and the oppo bound on a maul was created.

it was the way things worked and people just got on with it. So the ball may well possibly have been smuggled away before the initial oppo bind arrived as a peeling supporter took the ball from the catcher on his way down.

Nobody doubted it, everybody accepted it and we just carried on.

And then,
pro rugby union arrived and 'people were employed' to start microanalysing the laws to squeeze a marginal gain outta them , & the code has become so much more complicated , or maybe I've just become more aware??!??!

 

[crossref]

Now it is more common... but still not very common lets face it. Down amongst the dead men does anybody ever do it - how many of you guys reffing have had this in their games this season? And for any that have - how many times? In 4 months?
didds

Its never happened in one of my games ... (or if it has I didn't notice :wink

At my level I think that if a team was going to try it, they'd very likely be very unsure of how the referee would handle it, and discuss it in advance, to make sure he wasn't surprised/flustered.

 

[ChrisR]

Now it is more common... but still not very common lets face it. Down amongst the dead men does anybody ever do it - how many of you guys reffing have had this in their games this season? And for any that have - how many times? In 4 months?

I think the IRB response of "open up a gap" and "accidental offside" will make it less attractive.

So in summary, yes teams could wait, and technically should wait, but in reality they haven;t, and maybe still don't, because everybody normally just gets on with what they have always done.

If the ploy becomes more prevalent then we'll get a variety of responses from coaches that will expose the vulnerability of the tactic.

 

[didds]

undoutably... but until that time... and 3rd Xvs don't train, so aren't coached...

didds

 

[Browner]

Ireland v England

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pmcZr4gI8

Watch, discuss ( try and ignore the commentary!!) PoC " how long have we got" !!..... I like it Ha ha ha...

 

[ChrisR]

Why don't you just start a new thread?

 

[Dickie E]

SArefs have a good article here:
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-mexican-standoff/2830364/

I'm interested in the Irish player that gets pinged. As no maul formed he legally goes low on the White ball carrier. His tackle attempt is unsuccessful and he ends up under the feet of the White players as the maul forms and moves over him. I think up until then CJ is going to play on but then Green put on a push that moves the maul backwards and they all trip over the Green player. I guess just bad luck that man.

 

[OB..]

Even if a maul does not form after the tackle, the player on the ground is causing the England players to fall over. It may not be collapsing the maul (if there wasn't one) but he is not allowed to bring down players who do not have the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

Even if a maul does not form after the tackle, the player on the ground is causing the England players to fall over. It may not be collapsing the maul (if there wasn't one) but he is not allowed to bring down players who do not have the ball.

Law 17.2 says (my bold):

[LAWS](e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Do we think the Green player intentionally collapsed the maul?

 

[Browner]

Why don't you just start a new thread?

Thought it smarter if all "Lineout 2 Maul" discussions sat under one thread title.

 

[Browner]

Law 17.2 says (my bold):

[LAWS](e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Do we think the Green player intentionally collapsed the maul?

I think he went to tackle the ball carrier, CJ seems to suggest that after he engaged he then took too long so his tackle wasntva tackle it was then a maul collapse.

Perhaps CJ 'made the cap fit the head' on this one, although the first offence was probably green backing out of/leaving the lineout.

 

[The Fat]

I think he went to tackle the ball carrier, CJ seems to suggest that after he engaged he then took too long so his tackle wasntva tackle it was then a maul collapse.

Perhaps CJ 'made the cap fit the head' on this one, although the first offence was probably green backing out of/leaving the lineout.

According to the instruction from 2014, this was the 1st offence and is why The Blues were penalised against the Cheetahs in last week's Super Rugby game. It cost The Blues the game as the Cheetahs kicked the penalty goal to win by a point.

In the England v Ireland clip, England keep the ball at the front. Ireland, not wanting to engage and hopefully get a scrum, back away (i.e. leave the LO) instead of just opening up the space. England were smart enough to keep the ball at the front forcing Ireland to either tackle the ball carrier or engage to form the maul.
In this case, on the Smarts Scale, we have England 1 - Ireland 0

 

[The Fat]

SArefs have a good article here:
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-mexican-standoff/2830364/

I'm interested in the Irish player that gets pinged. As no maul formed he legally goes low on the White ball carrier. His tackle attempt is unsuccessful and he ends up under the feet of the White players as the maul forms and moves over him. I think up until then CJ is going to play on but then Green put on a push that moves the maul backwards and they all trip over the Green player. I guess just bad luck that man.

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.

 

[Dickie E]

In the England v Ireland clip, England keep the ball at the front. Ireland, not wanting to engage and hopefully get a scrum, back away (i.e. leave the LO) instead of just opening up the space.

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

 

[OB..]

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

Trolling again?!

- - - Updated - - -

Law 17.2 says (my bold):

[LAWS](e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Do we think the Green player intentionally collapsed the maul?

There wasn't a maul.

 

[The Fat]

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

General play. England has won the ball and providing there is not obstruction, apparently now known as accidental offside when it comes to non-mauls, can march merrily down field. Closing the gap/overstepping LOT are offences prior to the ball touching a player or the ground.

HOWEVER!!!

Having reviewedthe video in slow motion, it could be argued that the ball is actually handed back to white 8 before green leave the LO leaving 3 white players ahead of the ball.
View attachment 3191

For those arguing "bollocks" to that, we still have white player blue head gear ahead of the offside line before green back away

 

[Dickie E]

Trolling again?!

sticking your nose in where it isn't wanted again?!

 

[Dickie E]

General play.

How can it be general play? Green are restricted from leaving because the lineout isn't over :shrug: