Referees in England
- Mar 10, 2020
- Post Likes
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
The way I read the definition, it says a flying wedge usually happens from a penalty or free-kick or in open play, but it does not say a flying wedge can only happen from a penalty or free-kick or in open play.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
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.
I said the guidance conflicts with the intentions of the GLT because the USARR and RA guidance allows a situation where a defender tackles the ball carrier supported by 2 or more teammates bound onto him, and the GLT literally states the primary intention is to "protect the tackler who can be faced with the combined force of three opposing players." This is a clear conflict of intent.
(@Locke You put "intentions" in italics... that is not my interpretation of intention, the GLT actually has a paragraph titled 'Primary intention'.)