Non contest linout - tackling the ball carrier

[ddjamo]

guys...I am commenting on that particular situation, based on a video that I watched for 30 seconds - I am not debating law or saying that everything was perfect in that scenario. the non throwing side chose not to engage and wanted to come around and make a tackle at the back - which they did.

turning the ball over that close to the line is serious stuff. not sure I would agree that this situation warranted a turn over pk or scrum.

is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.

 

[Taff]

...The worst response is what has happened in WR coming out with a half-baked directive for the non-maul.

Can someone please give us a link to this directive?

... is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.

Probably the same one mentioned earlier, which I'm trying to get hold of. There's nothing about it on the World Rugby website under Clarifications or Guideline.

 

[Ian_Cook]

guys...I am commenting on that particular situation, based on a video that I watched for 30 seconds - I am not debating law or saying that everything was perfect in that scenario. the non throwing side chose not to engage and wanted to come around and make a tackle at the back - which they did.

turning the ball over that close to the line is serious stuff. not sure I would agree that this situation warranted a turn over pk or scrum.

is there a clarification I have missed? if so - please post.

Can someone please give us a link to this directive?


Probably the same one mentioned earlier, which I'm trying to get hold of. There's nothing about it on the World Rugby website under Clarifications or Guideline.

This is all I can find so far

http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

 

[Taff]

This is all I can find so far. http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

Thanks Ian.

 

[OB..]

This is all I can find so far

http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

I note the following extract

We believe that teams who are adept at mauling will very quickly make use of their options to their advantage & therefore defending teams will be taking a massive risk if they choose not to compete with the initial maul.

This comes close to saying that defenders really should be made to play the attackers' game. It explains why the suggested approach is slanted in the attackers' favour: they can get a PK (for "leaving the lineout") whereas the defenders can only get a scrum (for "accidental offside" rather than a PK for obstruction).

 

[ChrisR]

From the link:

In order to provide clarity around the reaction to a defending team choosing not to engage in the potential maul from a lineout, all referees are advised to apply the law as follows:

If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the lineout drive by “leaving the lineout as a group”. Penalty Kick to team in possession.
If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the lineout, the following process should be followed:
attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
If they immediately pass it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.
if they drive forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.

Thank you for the link, Ian.

This is the half-baked directive. There are debatable flaws in the logic of this directive but my principal objection is its blatant purpose of determining how the game is to be played. As OB noted above it is biased toward the attacking side by making the penalty for the defenders not engaging far greater than the risk to the attacking side.

Consider this: Most mauls from lineouts occur within the range of a penalty goal. Giving up a scrum 5m from the defenders goal is not a game changing event. This exacerbates the discrepancy in sanctions.

Were the players of the game consulted in this decision? Were the coaches? This is a blatant attempt to manipulate the game to conform to an image of how it must be played. What a crock!

 

[didds]

does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

didds

 

[OB..]

does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

didds

Why should it? It's open play. A tackle does not form a maul.

 

[ChrisR]

does this mean that having "opened a gap" the A sinle defender cannot now tackle the front man/ball carrier

?

didds

In practice, yes. But not in law.

Here's the scenario:

Ball taken by the throwing (attacking) team, catcher brings it down but does not hand the ball back, lifters bind onto the catch as do others to form the phalanx. Ball is still in the catchers hands at the front.

Defenders, not wishing to engage to form a maul follow the directive and stay at the lineout but move to the side. There is now a huge gap for the opponents to advance through. The lineout laws are still in play until the ball moves off the line-of-touch, so players are prohibited from retiring to get a shot at the catcher. If they don't retire they'd have to go through the bound on lifters.

Law 19 becomes Catch 22.

How is demanding that an onside defender move out of the path of an advancing ball carrier be consistent with the principles of the game?

:shrug:

 

[Crucial]

The way defending teams are playing this is that they place a loose forward in the halfback position, open the gap and then as soon as the ball has moved off the line of touch the player in the halfback position flys in to tackle the ball carrier.

As the mauling team is now aware, it becomes a game of cat and mouse with things getting really complicated for the ref. If the BC passes the ball back through his bound players, instead of the 'halfback' coming in and (according to the directive) earning a scrum for accidental offside (how on earth is it accidental?), another player will come around and attack the back of the maul.

This, of course is a risky tactic as the ref is working off instinct and blows the whistle for offside.

In the example in this thread I would say that the Chiefs discussed their intent in these situations with GJ beforehand to get clarity. In previous games they have suffered from incorrect (instinctive) calls that have gone against them.

 

[Taff]

.... The lineout laws are still in play until the ball moves off the line-of-touch

But for the Lineout to be over, the ball has to leave the Lineout NOT the LoT.

The Lineout is obviously wider than the LoT; so even after the ball has been touched, until the ball leaves the lineout the ball is still the offside line.

 

[RobLev]

But for the Lineout to be over, the ball has to leave the Lineout NOT the LoT.

The Lineout is obviously wider than the LoT; so even after the ball has been touched, until the ball leaves the lineout the ball is still the offside line.

The Lineout in this sense is the two lines of players forming the lineout.

 

[didds]

Why should it? It's open play. A tackle does not form a maul.

that's what I am trying to ascertain OB. The directives talk about PKs for leaving the lineout en masse. it doesn't include the situation of a single defender "leaving the lineout" to tackle the front BC.

didds

 

[lawsons]

Many thanks for all your responses, seems we have some work to do as the result would be penalties and scrums both ways it seems.

Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?

 

[Crucial]

Call for the stretcher.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?

That is not a flying wedge....

[LAWS]Law 10.4 (p) Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge. A team must not use the ‘Flying Wedge’ or the ‘Cavalry
Charge’.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.
‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the
goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or
by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side
of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front
of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.[/LAWS]


...nonetheless, I agree with you that players binding onto a ball carrier and then charging forwards is potentially dangerous for both the ball carrier and anyone who tries to tackle him.

 

[ChrisR]

The term "Flying Wedge" invokes the image of a phalanx of players at high speed.

However, "driving forward" could be at pace or at plod.

The only thing for sure is "The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack" and "Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation."

Questions: Can a Flying Wedge start in any other manner other than a tap kick?

I'd say Yes, and the formation in an uncontested lineout is a Flying Wedge when it moves forward.

 

[ChrisR]

On another point ...

Law 19.14(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

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...

 

[RobLev]

On another point ...

Law 19.14(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

Note that this law refers to participating players. So the term "lineout" must refer to something other than the two lines of players waiting to catch the throw in. So "leaving the lineout" is not stepping away from the LOT.

Just a thought ...

I think the answer to that is 19.8(d):

[LAWS]When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.[/LAWS]

which I believe specifically refers to lineout players, not participating players.

And 19.12, dealing with peeling off, sets the conditions upon which a lineout player may leave the LoT - which would be unnecessary if there were no general prohibition.

 

[RobLev]

Many thanks for all your responses, seems we have some work to do as the result would be penalties and scrums both ways it seems.

Question. If the catcher lands with the ball, his team mates bind on and the opposition don't engage, but don't leave the line out. As the attacking pack advances down the field, with the ball carrier at the front, all bound on - can that become a flying wedge ?

Is there a safety issue where more than one players bind onto the ball carrier, before engaging a defender that we have to bear in mind ? you obviously see it commonly with the ball carrier and a support player bound behind him, being tackled by one defender.

In this situation you may have 8 forwards bound on to the ball carrier and the wing trying to tackle the ball carrier 5 m's down the field.

What do we do then ?

<smartarse>Ping the catcher's side, because there are 9 forwards in that formation (catcher plus 8 forwards bound on), implying they've got 16 on the field in total</smartarse>