non contested "maul"

[Stu10]

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.

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 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'.)

 

[didds]

Id imagine just the one player making contact below the waist must be pretty easy to referee?

 

[Stu10]

Id imagine just the one player making contact below the waist must be pretty easy to referee?

Easy to referee, but not easy to stop 7 players falling on top of him.

 

[didds]

Easy to referee, but not easy to stop 7 players falling on top of him.

sorry Stu and Locke, I omitted the quote to which I was replying



"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, "

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Id imagine just the one player making contact below the waist must be pretty easy to referee?

Depending on where the tackler aims there would be a pretty high risk of a BC's knee getting blown out though. I can't see how WR would be able to justify protecting the tackler from potential high impacts but apparently not worry about a career ending knee injury to the BC from a cannon ball style tackle into a pre-maul.

 

[Phil E]

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.

The definition lists PK, FK and open play as the areas this USUALLY happens. That doesn't mean it can't be applied in other areas of the game.

Question: Have you got two (or more) players latched on either side of the ball carrier?
If it looks like a duck.....etc

 

[didds]

Depending on where the tackler aims there would be a pretty high risk of a BC's knee getting blown out though. I can't see how WR would be able to justify protecting the tackler from potential high impacts but apparently not worry about a career ending knee injury to the BC from a cannon ball style tackle into a pre-maul.

so what is the difference between that and a similar tackle in open play ?

 

[TigerCraig]

so what is the difference between that and a similar tackle in open play ?

Say a coach decided to have his defenders at 2 and 4 in the line out to crouch down in a gridiron 3 point stance, with eyes not on the ball but on the potential catcher opposite. The second the opposition catchers feet touch the ground whichever one is opposite him springs forward and belts him in the knees/shins to buckle him? That's certainly what I would coach my defenders to do if my scouting said the oppos had a good maul

 

[Stu10]

Say a coach decided to have his defenders at 2 and 4 in the line out to crouch down in a gridiron 3 point stance, with eyes not on the ball but on the potential catcher opposite. The second the opposition catchers feet touch the ground whichever one is opposite him springs forward and belts him in the knees/shins to buckle him? That's certainly what I would coach my defenders to do if my scouting said the oppos had a good maul

This is a very interesting observation to me... I coach and referee u15 rugby presently, in which lineouts are non-contested, therefore there is no point in even pretending to send up a jumper to compete in the air. Subsequently, I have encountered this exact situation on many occasions this season... literally the defenders are set like sprinters at the start of a 100m race, and smash the ball catcher in the legs or lower back as soon as he catches and is on the ground.

It doesn't look right, and I'm not sure I've ever seen this in adult rugby, but I don't see a conflict with the laws.

"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, "

Unless I'm mistaken, the laws do allow immediate tackling (sacking?) of the ball carrier in the lineout to prevent a maul being formed.

Depending on where the tackler aims there would be a pretty high risk of a BC's knee getting blown out though. I can't see how WR would be able to justify protecting the tackler from potential high impacts but apparently not worry about a career ending knee injury to the BC from a cannon ball style tackle into a pre-maul.

Great point... the flying wedge is potentially dangerous for the tackler and the ball carrier, and should not be allowed in all situations.

 

[Phil E]

This is a very interesting observation to me... I coach and referee u15 rugby presently, in which lineouts are non-contested, therefore there is no point in even pretending to send up a jumper to compete in the air.

Don't you think you should be putting jumpers up to a) practise putting jumpers up and b) practise what happens after you put them up and fail to secure the ball?
The whole point of the uncontested lineout is to practice these skills without any pressure, ready for next season when they are contested.

 

[TigerCraig]

Under 15 seems very late, we have lifting from U13

 

[didds]

Say a coach decided to have his defenders at 2 and 4 in the line out to crouch down in a gridiron 3 point stance, with eyes not on the ball but on the potential catcher opposite. The second the opposition catchers feet touch the ground whichever one is opposite him springs forward and belts him in the knees/shins to buckle him? That's certainly what I would coach my defenders to do if my scouting said the oppos had a good maul

yes. exactly. so whats the difference between that an a tackle at the knees from eg a ruck?

Your concern is valkid and commendable, but I dont see anybody showing concern regarding similar tackles in open play.

didds

 

[didds]

meanwhile as an aside... The smash on the lineout carcher as described isnt the best approach defensively maybe - as tyhat puts the ball carrier back towards his own side with the ball.

more effective in my experience was the grab below the waist, and pull the catcher backwards towards you own defnders and away from his support, tryihjg to expose the ball to an immediate jackle/grab by a defnder as its now closer to them than the catcher's team mates.

( a helpful nudge with the grabbers knee behind the catchers knee may apparently help here .. ;-) )

 

[TigerCraig]

yes. exactly. so whats the difference between that an a tackle at the knees from eg a ruck?

Your concern is valkid and commendable, but I dont see anybody showing concern regarding similar tackles in open play.

didds

Agree, but main difference is that the player being tackled can't dodge and is a sitting target for someone who can launch at their knee from 1m away

As a hater of the maul from lineout [and a lover of the maul pull down ELV) I don't have any sympathy though

I'm just surprised more teams don't do it

 

[didds]

Agree, but main difference is that the player being tackled can't dodge and is a sitting target for someone who can launch at their knee from 1m away

As a hater of the maul from lineout [and a lover of the maul pull down ELV) I don't have any sympathy though

I'm just surprised more teams don't do it

Agreed.

I did used to coach exactly this. But i did find that my squads either seemed reluctant to do it "in battle" or just forgot! And also werent very good at it!

 

[TigerCraig]

Agreed.

I did sue to coach exactly this. But i did find that my squds eoither seemed reluctant to do it "in battle" or just forgot! And also werent very good at it!

I also had some success when coaching my guys to just stand their ground shoulder to shoulder, not leave the lineout, not open a gap, but not bind - even to the extent of putting thei hands in the air and screaming "no bind, no maul" - we had already given ref a heads up, so quick calls of use it and very confused oppos who had automatically passed the ball back

 

[Locke]

The definition lists PK, FK and open play as the areas this USUALLY happens. That doesn't mean it can't be applied in other areas of the game.

Question: Have you got two (or more) players latched on either side of the ball carrier?
If it looks like a duck.....etc

Interesting, I read the word “usually” here as only applying to “happens near the goal line”. You can take out everything between the commas and have a complete thought that clearly states it’s only from PK/FK/open play. I don’t consider that an argument proving my point, just an explanation of part of how/why I’m reading it that way. The “usually” is part of the aside with “in the commas, so I interpret it to only apply to that clause (assuming that’s the correct term).

 

[Stu10]

Don't you think you should be putting jumpers up to a) practise putting jumpers up and b) practise what happens after you put them up and fail to secure the ball?
The whole point of the uncontested lineout is to practice these skills without any pressure, ready for next season when they are contested.

I don't disagree, but I can't change how other teams coach their players.

I disagree with defenders in a sprinter position ready to make a hit. However, I will concede that I've not seen a single team (ours included) all season lift a player in a non-contesting fashion in order to practise a lost lineout scenario. I suspect many coaches will accuse this of being a devious way to distract the catcher, and that it is not in the spirit of having a non-contested lineout.

Interesting, I read the word “usually” here as only applying to “happens near the goal line”. You can take out everything between the commas and have a complete thought that clearly states it’s only from PK/FK/open play. I don’t consider that an argument proving my point, just an explanation of part of how/why I’m reading it that way. The “usually” is part of the aside with “in the commas, so I interpret it to only apply to that clause (assuming that’s the correct term).

Has the ball carrier left the lineout after moving beyond the mark of touch, therefore the lineout has ended and it is open play? If yes, with your interpretation, pretty much as soon as the wedge moves forward it crosses the mark of touch and open play commences, therefore the flying wedge becomes a penalty offense.

It troubles me that we are discussing the use of commas to decide if a dangerous play is allowed or not.

 

[didds]

I will concede that I've not seen a single team (ours included) all season lift a player in a non-contesting fashion in order to practise a lost lineout scenario. I suspect many coaches will accuse this of being a devious way to distract the catcher, and that it is not in the spirit of having a non-contested lineout.

It wouldnt surprise me at all if refs agreed with that interpretation.

If coaches wanted to replicate defenders being out bof the game having lost a contested jump, a similar thing could be acheived by instead of jumping, just getting the "pod" to drop prone to the floor then get up again, in order to remove themselves from the immediate defence with no danger of being interpreted as contesting the throw/catch. Though it could be veering on danger as becoming trip ahzrds if the oppo drive where the playetrs are now prone.

maybe best the sort of thing pracftised at training rather than in a game perhaps.

 

[Volun-selected]

I really hope someone (ideally The Powers That Be) clarifies this.

Got collared on arrival yesterday by one of the coaches who wanted to clarify how I’d ref uncontested mauls at the lineout. He was under the impression that if the defense didn’t engage and just stood there then the other team couldn’t run into them, so allowing the defenders to create an impassable wall/fall victims of flying wedge just by standing still.

He was shocked that I didn’t agree with him as, as far as I was concerned, if the ball stayed at the front they could march down the the length of the pitch. If defense engage (or got grabbed, or just got plowed into by the advancing team) it was a maul, if his team moved more than a meter it was leaving the lineout and a PK, but they could tackle if they wanted. However, if the ball got moved back it was “use it” time. (I’m fortunate in that USAR have a specific callout of this shenanigan.)

Good news was that the look of absolute confusion from said coach was ended by him mumbling “ok, we won’t bother with that then..”

Job done - this time.