non contested "maul"

[didds]

You don't need a twitter account to see the video (Ive tested it)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1509879228539543555

So - Presumably the ball is always at the front during the stand off. So what is to stop dark blue just moving forward and scoring/forcing grey to make contact and defend?

is it because this is now - even if moving very slowly - counted as a "flying wedge" - despite it not "flying" ?

I know we've been here before but cant find the original thread and this is a video for us to see etc).

Admins - by all means merge the threads if you can find the original

 

[Stu10]

I'm not sure about the technicalities of this exact situation, but surely the ref needs to tell them to use it!

I agree that if they move into the defending players it would be a flying wedge. Since a maul does not exist, the defender can just tackle the ball carrier (who should be at the front, otherwise it is obstruction).

Other thread

 

[didds]

"use it" - based on what law though?

its not a ,maul or a ruck that has come to rest... because there never WAS a maul to start with. The extreme analogy wold be a lone player ball in hand, standing still, with everybody else standing still (for whatever Chopperesque convoluted scenario) ... would THAT be a case of "use it" ?

I agree the ball HAS to be at the front in this clip - as otherwise we would surely have seen a defender "join" the mob to win a accidental offside and scrum.

And I concur a lone defender COULD therefore tackle the ball carrier. I am struggling to think of a reason why this wouldn't be attempted as it gives nothing away.

So we are back to "flying wedge". Which is how I rationalised the lack of movement forward by blue.
If that is how it is to be blown, and thus a slow walk forward is a flying wedge QED dangerous... merely playing devils advocate here - if ONE defnder joined that to create a maul that mob/maul cold NOW power forward at a rate of knots and not be dangerous as a result. Go figure!

didds

 

[chbg]

I believe that this actually occurred 3 years ago (according to Facebook), and hasn't been seen on the pitch since. Other things to worry about.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Boring rugby. Use it and get on with the match. I'd also argue that the ball isn't at the front as the catcher hands it to the number 7, even though he keeps his hands on it.

 

[didds]

if the ball is handed back why doesnt one defender engage and force a scrum turnover ?

and if its not been seen again, ever, anywhere for three years - why not/ what has been decided by the PTB that means this situation cannot ever be repeated ?

 

[Jarrod Burton]

if the ball is handed back why doesnt one defender engage and force a scrum turnover ?

and if its not been seen again, ever, anywhere for three years - why not/ what has been decided by the PTB that means this situation cannot ever be repeated ?

Would you - as a single defender - run in to try to make that scrum turnover not knowing what the referee is thinking around whether the ball is available or not? Make the mistake of thinking the ref will see it as handed back when they don't and that pre-bound non-maul is going to become a maul and rumble over you for a score.

 

[didds]

??? wouldn't you attempt a tackle eg around the knees?

that doesn't create a maul.

Unless we are suggesting that maybe some refs are so bad they may not be able to distinguish between a knee height tackle with an above the waist bind-hence-maul ?

Shurely shome mishtake ?


there is something else here in this clip that isnt making any sense.

 

[Stu10]

Does a flying wedge require forward movement?

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

" Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition." - this has happened, they have created a wedge formation before engaging the opposition, therefore is it a "flying wedge already", or must the attackers also engage the opposition? We all agree that a defender can tackle the ball carrier at the front, but there is a major risk of then having seven players collapse on top of you... the exact sort of accident-waiting-to-happen that supports the flying wedge being illegal.

@didds fairly questioned my suggestion that the ref should tell them to "use it"... this is a particular term with specific meaning; however, is there some game management that the ref can reasonably apply "encouraging" them to break up since they have formed a "wedge". Although it is open play, we don't want a situation where everyone stands still watching each other for 20 minutes.

 

[didds]

indeed Stu, and I was really playing a bit of devils advocate to tease a bit more out of anybody really. Being fair to everybody involved in that clip everybody was doing everything they were legally permitted to. If anybody was really "at fault" its the law makers for creating a situation where everybody is right and nobody is achieving anything.

As for the reasonable question "Does a flying wedge require forward movement?" I guess if the answer is "no" then that's a gimmee PK at every lineout catch and set - the oppo simply doesn't engage and now its a FW and a PK - or at least a PK advantage. Which now forces play into "off the top" and reduces the game's tactics and options. I wouldn't call that a positive move.

 

[Jz558]

indeed Stu, and I was really playing a bit of devils advocate to tease a bit more out of anybody really. Being fair to everybody involved in that clip everybody was doing everything they were legally permitted to. If anybody was really "at fault" its the law makers for creating a situation where everybody is right and nobody is achieving anything.

As for the reasonable question "Does a flying wedge require forward movement?" I guess if the answer is "no" then that's a gimmee PK at every lineout catch and set - the oppo simply doesn't engage and now its a FW and a PK - or at least a PK advantage. Which now forces play into "off the top" and reduces the game's tactics and options. I wouldn't call that a positive move.

I think you raise some really interesting points Didds but for me, the flying wedge is the formation not the speed of movement (refs with speed guns, whatever next?). World rugby changed the law to make pre-binding (with more than one other) illegal and must accept the consequence of this. I also dont think its a gimmee, I'd rather see sides playing what's in front of them than necessarily going through boring pre-planned training field moves as happens at 95%+ of lineouts.

 

[didds]

thats fine.

So you would expect what happened in that clip to be PK'd (advantage obvs etc) as soon as the huddle formed and the defenders stood back?

And would equally epxect that to happen every time this scenario occurs?

 

[Stu10]

thats fine.

So you would expect what happened in that clip to be PK'd (advantage obvs etc) as soon as the huddle formed and the defenders stood back?

And would equally epxect that to happen every time this scenario occurs?

I'm avoiding answering your question directly, and continuing my earlier position... if what happened in the clip is a penalty (advantage), would you not manage it as a ref telling them fix the situation quickly before it becomes material, rather than immediately putting your arm out for penalty advantage? (Maybe this is my age-grade attitude where I try to manage as much as I can rather than immediately use my whistle?)

 

[didds]

again - fair enough. BHut bascially what this is saying is

* catch
* set
* drive

is no no longer available as a tactic ever. because the defenders know if they do NOT engage the catchers MUST play the ball away.

This removes tactical choices from the game as a whole - which is not IMO on the whole a "good thing".

Whether one likes rolling/driving mauls as an attacking weapon or not, what this represents is a change in interpretation (the FW) now removes what was previously a valid, legal attacking choice. Nothing else has changed.

 

[Locke]

These are the USA Rugby GMGs concerning this phenomenon. They have chosen to allow the unengaged maul to move forward as a wedge as long as the ball stays with the front player.

 

[Mipper]

again - fair enough. BHut bascially what this is saying is

* catch
* set
* drive

is no no longer available as a tactic ever. because the defenders know if they do NOT engage the catchers MUST play the ball away.

This removes tactical choices from the game as a whole - which is not IMO on the whole a "good thing".

Whether one likes rolling/driving mauls as an attacking weapon or not, what this represents is a change in interpretation (the FW) now removes what was previously a valid, legal attacking choice. Nothing else has changed.

I think actually it means that, if anything, the catch/set/drive will still be available but possibly only from closer to the try line - which is certainly a good thing in my opinion.

it requires great team discipline not to engage at the lineout which is relatively achievable over most of the pitch, but on an attacking 5m lineout, the defending side has to be very careful. I have seen - twice in the same (level 5) match, the catcher land with the ball and force himself over the line, when the oppo decided to stand off.

if for example, the catcher lands with the ball, and makes for the line, then the defenders cannot continue to stand off right? They have to attempt to tackle, and the likelihood is that it will be a standing tackle (big guy on big guy, a meter apart), which can simply be turned into a maul. With most of defending team standing off even for a split second, thats only going to end up in a try.

 

[number11]

Rugby Australia's "Refereeing in Practice" guide addresses this kind of situation:

Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout

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.

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 should be followed:

1. The attacking team 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.)
2. If the attacking team immediately passes the ball back to a player behind the front player or at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to “Use it” which they must do immediately.
3. If the team drives forward with the ball at the back (and ignores the referee’s call to “Use it”), the referee should award a scrum to the defending team for “accidental offside” (rather than PK for obstruction).

The guide is available here: https://australia.rugby/participate/referee/laws (PDF).

 

[Stu10]

Both the USARR and RA say that the huddle can move forward (with the ball carrier at the front) and "defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier."

It is good that clear guidance has been provided, but IMHO this conflicts with the GLT intentions regarding the Flying Wedge.

Flying wedge​

The trial​

To sanction the three person pre-bound mini-scrum by redefining the flying wedge.

Primary intention​

To reduce number of events where the ball carrier and multiple support players are in contact (latched) prior to contact, and to protect the tackler who can be faced with the combined force of three opposing players.

The guidance from USARR and RA does NOT protect the tackler who can be faced with the combined force of three (or more) opposing players.

again - fair enough. BHut bascially what this is saying is

* catch
* set
* drive

is no no longer available as a tactic ever. because the defenders know if they do NOT engage the catchers MUST play the ball away.

This removes tactical choices from the game as a whole - which is not IMO on the whole a "good thing".

Whether one likes rolling/driving mauls as an attacking weapon or not, what this represents is a change in interpretation (the FW) now removes what was previously a valid, legal attacking choice. Nothing else has changed.

Is it feasible/reasonable to adjust the catch/set/drive scenario to include only one pre-latched teammate until contact is made with a defender? This would align with all the Aug 2021 GLT intentions and allow a catch+drive at the lineout.

 

[didds]

It would Stu indeed.

maybe thats what we need to see happen? But it will happen at the top first, cos nobody at grass roots is likely to trial something "unseen" with a ref who (WADR to that person) wont have seen it eoither and has had no guidance over what to do so the outcome is a lottery.

many years ago on this forum (or a predecessor) I mooted the "don't engage the lineout throwing team "mail", and run round the back and tackle the rear player with the ball idea.

i was roundly poo-pooed.

Guess what ? thats why community coaches dont try anything (well almost never) that "everybody" hasn't already seen before.

 

[Locke]

I agree that the choice by USARR and RA leaves open the opportunity for dangerous situations for tacklers who must bring down a ball carrier supported by multiple opponents. I find it worth noting that, from my reading, it does not conflict with the letter of the GLT regarding the flying wedge. From the definitions in the LOTG:

Global Law Trial
Flying wedge
An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

Law 9.22 Teams must not use the ‘flying wedge’.

The definition only lists PK, FK, and open play as the areas of the game where this applies. Maybe you were already referencing this Stu, when you said the guidance conflicts with the intentions of the GLT, which I largely agree with. I do think a situation in a line out at least should be inherently less dangerous as the team in possession will have no way to build up a head of steam unless the opponents allow them to. Opponents could easily plan before the line out, “if they try to maul from a line out in our 22, don’t engage, just tackle the ball carrier in front.” Not the easiest to referee, IMO, but the opponents should be able to prevent a dangerous situation simply by engaging the maul or tackling the ball carrier. Of course, inevitably, that will not be how it works out, at some point, haha.