Non contest linout - tackling the ball carrier

lawsons

Facebook Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
264
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
After one view what would you have given ?

I assume we'll see more of this at the world cup and as a result probably more in club rugby next season. Better get my head round all the permutations ?

Defending player gets his timing wrong - 5m's out - yellow car if maul beautifully formed ?

https://youtu.be/0vyK_iV2twY
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
PK to Gold.

Maul was formed the moment the Black player nearest the touchline held the Gold player
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Hmmmm

For me (after one quick look and a quick think)........
Defender crosses the line of touch before the ball has left the lineout.
However the first offence was (no maul having been formed) accidental offside (in line with clarification).

Defending scrum.

Edit: just watched it again. The defenders only make contact with the attackers at arms length, nothing resembling a bind, so no maul.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Edit: just watched it again. The defenders only make contact with the attackers at arms length, nothing resembling a bind, so no maul.


On review, I think you're right.

Also, its arguable whether the jumper waited until his feet were back on the ground before handing the ball back, so even of black did contest, the maul might have been formed illegally.
 

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
I can't see a maul formed. The ball has been moved off the line of touch so the lineout is over. Chiefs player was OK and the referee correct.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
On review, I think you're right.

Also, its arguable whether the jumper waited until his feet were back on the ground before handing the ball back, so even of black did contest, the maul might have been formed illegally.

IMHO he clearly didn't wait; and the lifters close in behind him, that is between him and the Black defenders, before he gets down. So: No maul - PK advantage Black for offside for the lifters, or for obstruction for the early handing back. When no advantage accrues, back for the PK.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
After one view what would you have given?
Honestly? PK to Gold.

The logic: The LO had not finished, so the ball is the offside line. If Gold had pushed beyond the LoT then the BC was fair game - but they hadn't.

Given that rolling / moving mauls are difficult to defend, I reckon we're going to see a lot more of these; so we'd better get our head round it before next season.
 
Last edited:

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
19.14(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


My understanding of this law is that a player may cross the LOT to tackle a player with the ball.

Since no maul formed (I don't count the laying on of hands) then I'd say "Play on!"
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Honestly? PK to Gold.

The logic: The LO had not finished, so the ball is the offside line. If Gold had pushed beyond the LoT then the BC was fair game - but they hadn't.

Given that rolling / moving mauls are difficult to defend, I reckon we're going to see a lot more of these; so we'd better get our head round it before next season.

The LO finished when the ball was handed back (Law 19.9(b) - third bullet point) - which was before the jumper's feet hit the ground.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
The LO finished when the ball was handed back (Law 19.9(b) - third bullet point) - which was before the jumper's feet hit the ground.
Are you sure RobLev?

19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout

(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.1234

This includes the following:
•When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
•When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
•When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. Nobody peeled.
•When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE
•When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. It wasn't even a maul
•When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE


... For me (after one quick look and a quick think)........ Defender crosses the line of touch before the ball has left the lineout. However the first offence was (no maul having been formed) accidental offside (in line with clarification).
Somehow, I've missed this clarification. Anyone got a link?
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout

(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.1234

This includes the following:
[..]
•When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends. - DOESN'T APPLY HERE. Nobody peeled.[...]
If they weren't peeling, how did they legally get to be in a position behind the jumper?
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Taff, the ball is handed to the receiver . It may not be specified but I think that is a law oversight.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
If they weren't peeling, how did they legally get to be in a position behind the jumper?
Taff, the ball is handed to the receiver . It may not be specified but I think that is a law oversight.
Mmmm. OK, I can see what you're driving at, but joining a maul isn't what I would have called a "Peel" if I'm honest. 19.12(b) seems to back up what I would class as "Peeling".

19.12 Peeling off
Definitions: A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.
(b) A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player’s line of touch to 10 metres from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended.

If a player joins a maul, he obviously can't keep moving, but I'm pretty relaxed about it.

Is this what the "clarification" says? :chin:
 
Last edited:

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
My gut feeling on the first view was the uncontested lineout clarification - ball transferred to the back so obstruction on the trundle forwards by gold.
 

ddjamo


Referees in Canada
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
2,912
Post Likes
135
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.
 

Crucial

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
278
Post Likes
79
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.

Seriously?

Nothing personal, but this is why the Maul is such a sore point in the game at the moment and causes so much controversy. The attacking side appears to viewers to be immune from sanction.

What the Hurricanes worked out quickly from GJs handling of the maul was that he was letting them get away with handing the ball back before the catcher touched the ground and the defence could touch him. Then the lifters were allowed to fall to the ground and create a blockade that made it near impossible for the defence to legally put any drive on the ball carrying pod. To engage the group with the ball raised a PK for side entry. The attacking side was then able to set up a flying wedge and pick whichever side they wanted to drive around. And you wonder why defensive teams try to get cute to stop the maul.
I have even recently seen defending players legally caught in the middle of the maul and coming through toward the ball be pinged after attacking players on one side unbind and leave them 'un-caught'.

At least WR have finally woken up and have agreed that they need to try and provide clearer guidance and better contestability before the RWC or the tournament will be focussed on kicks for touch, lineout drives and endless controversy.

Frankly I'm surprised that referees themselves have allowed this situation to develop.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think it's important to referee the maul as you would a tackle. That is as a distinct series of stages. If you get too focused of the details you won't see the big picture.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Seriously?

Nothing personal, but this is why the Maul is such a sore point in the game at the moment and causes so much controversy. The attacking side appears to viewers to be immune from sanction.

What the Hurricanes worked out quickly from GJs handling of the maul was that he was letting them get away with handing the ball back before the catcher touched the ground and the defence could touch him. Then the lifters were allowed to fall to the ground and create a blockade that made it near impossible for the defence to legally put any drive on the ball carrying pod. To engage the group with the ball raised a PK for side entry. The attacking side was then able to set up a flying wedge and pick whichever side they wanted to drive around. And you wonder why defensive teams try to get cute to stop the maul.
I have even recently seen defending players legally caught in the middle of the maul and coming through toward the ball be pinged after attacking players on one side unbind and leave them 'un-caught'.

At least WR have finally woken up and have agreed that they need to try and provide clearer guidance and better con testability before the RWC or the tournament will be focussed on kicks for touch, line-out drives and endless controversy.

Frankly I'm surprised that referees themselves have allowed this situation to develop.

100% agree. This has made it virtually impossible to stop a maul being formed and pretty much neuters any legal defence to the the maul.

I would like to see WR rule that the catcher must not even begin to hand the ball back until his feet are on the ground and the maul is actually formed.

Either that, or rule that if the catcher holds the ball out away from the LoT before the maul is formed, then the ball has left the LoT and the line-out is over. Opposition players would then be free to swarm though and come up from their 10m offside lines. I feel this would encourage jumpers to come to ground still holding the ball in (to prevent the line-out ending) and this would give the ball winning team an opportunity to legally; form a maul, and their opponent the same opportunity to legally sack it.
 
Last edited:

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
one view - play on.

second view - play on.

I would warn gold re obstruction but would not turn the ball over due to the set play/not engaging.

Which set play? The attackers' or the defenders'?
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I can understand why the non-ruck after a tackle and the non-maul at the lineout are a cause of consternation to referees.

They both add a level of complexity to an already complex scenario. However, both can be handled by adding a single checkpoint to the list. "Did the ruck/maul form?" The answer is binary, yes or no. Each brings into play a different set of laws and checkpoints.

What has to happen is referees becoming accustomed to the sequence and anticipating it instead of being caught off-guard. Meanwhile coaches will devise strategies to respond to what they get.

The worst response is what has happened in WR coming out with a half-baked directive for the non-maul. Let the game evolve. Change is good. Ruckitis is a plague. The predictable 5m driving maul is about as bad. Long live the innovators!
 
Top