Not competing and then sacking

[RobLev]

No that's a "nothing" you've got one side set up in a wedge (maybe) and the other side just watching. The trick is for the ball carrier to hold on to the ball, when and if the defenders then make contact move it to the back :shrug:

I did misunderstand this then:

That said the "defending side" (side without the ball) must be careful not to touch the "maul" (catcher in the LO) as one finger tip and it's legal and therefore a player coming around to tackle the new ball carrier would be pinged

Like I have said, I reffed 50+ games last year it happened twice! There's bigger fish to fry :wink:

Would it have happened more often if you'd refereed it Ian's way? Just a thought...:biggrin:

That said I'd not thought of the "no leaving the LO option", one to watch for! :biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's not sporting and I don't like it :shrug: but appreciate there's nothing I can do about it

This is an attitude I just don't understand. You'd probably be happy enough for a team to not compete at a lost ruck, by simply defending and not contesting the ball, so why the different attitude at a maul. Why should a team who is being hammered at the maul formed from a line-out, be forced into taking part. What is wrong about coming up with a tactic to combat it.

Next thing you'll tell us is that chipping over the top or grubber kicking behind the defensive line to combat a very good rush defence is not sporting and you don't like it, and that instead, they should "man-up" and take the tackles behind the advantage line.

Not co-operating in forming a maul is a legitimate tactic to combat the opponent's superior maul, and it isn't that hard to do. All you need to do is have your line-out forwards run away from the point where the ball is thrown, remaining parallel to the LoT within 5m to 15m. When the ball crosses the lot the line-out is over and your team can swarm onto the ball carrier.

Opposition teams need to be aware of the tactic, and come up with the own plan to foil it.

 

[FlipFlop]

Ian - in that clip:
Lineout 1: 2 Italian players go beyond the 15m line before LO is over (PK offence) and almost all the others leave the lineout before it is over (FK offence). So not a legal tactic.

Lineout 2: Italian players leave the LO(before it is over (FK offence)

Lineout 3: Italian players leave the lineout before it is over (FK offence)

None of the 3 in the video are done legally.

Anyone who says - what about peeling. Read the definition of Peeling:

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.

I stick by my line of: Legitimate tactic - yes. Possible to do legally - Yes, but not easy. Likelihood of being done legally - extremely low.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - in that clip:
Lineout 1: 2 Italian players go beyond the 15m line before LO is over (PK offence) and almost all the others leave the lineout before it is over (FK offence). So not a legal tactic.

Lineout 2: Italian players leave the LO(before it is over (FK offence)

Lineout 3: Italian players leave the lineout before it is over (FK offence)

None of the 3 in the video are done legally.

Anyone who says - what about peeling. Read the definition of Peeling:

I stick by my line of: Legitimate tactic - yes. Possible to do legally - Yes, but not easy. Likelihood of being done legally - extremely low.

Now this is where I disagree with you. Because there is no maul formed, there is no issue with the last feet of the non-maul having to cross the LoT for the lineout to be over. The instant that the catcher offers the ball back toward his team-mates, the ball has left the LoT, and the line-out is over

IMO...

Line-out 1 - The line out is over at 0:04 on the clock when the catcher hands the ball back. The fact that the pseudo-maul now takes the ball back to the LoT is irrelevant, as its already left. At 0:04, the Italian players have not gone beyond the 15m

Line-out 2 - The line out is over at 0:35 on the clock when the player who received the ball from the catcher steps beyond the LoT (marked by the "N" in WINES on the advertising hoarding in the background. Arguably the Italian player who runs round the back is could be offside because he crosses the LoT at about the same time that the line-out was over. Remember that "closing the gap" only applies before the ball is thrown.

Line-out 3 - The line-out is over at 1:08 on the clock when the player who received the ball from the catcher steps beyond the LoT.

What does "leaving the line-out" mean?
Is it defined in Law?
Is taking half a step away for the LoT "leaving", or a whole step, or three steps. I have heard arguments that as long as a player stays witihn the area bounded by the 5m line, the 10m offside line, the 15m line and the LoT, he has not left the lineout.

 

[FlipFlop]

Ian - You seem to say the Lineout is over when the ball has moved 0.01mm off the line of touch. But are applying a much wider assessment for players.

I say - the ball must be beyond the lineout - as defined by when the 2 teams line up. Roughly a channel 1m wide, 10m long. If players step back towards their own line (or out of the 5-15m channel) before the ball is more than ~0.5m away from the the LoT (i.e. outside the channel above), then the lineout isn't (in my view) over. This definition of the lineout is supported by the diagram in the Laws of the Game.

And if you believe that definition of the 5m line - 20m offside line - 15m line - LoT is the lineout area, then why the need to define peeling. And the SH has to be 2m from the lineout, so would have to be behind the 10m offside line by 2m. And many other ways this definition is disputed.

As an extreme - the SH is not in the Lineout, and they are required to be 2m from the LoT. So at a maximum the lineout is 4m wide, 20m long.

As for the lineout ending when a player hands it back - law reference please? It ends (if no maul) when the ball (or a player carrying it) leaves the lineout. Law 19.9 (b) if you need a reference. This is what I have applied when deciding in your clip if the lineout is over. Has the ball left the lineout channel.

In all cases, I stand by - the ball is still in the lineout when the Italian players infringe. The lineout is not over.
Specifically in the first one they go beyond the 15m line very quickly (before ball brought to ground even - the very first overhead clip as the oppo land, the 2 Italians at the top - 1 is on the 15m line, the other beyond)

The second one - the tackle is made after the lineout is over, but is the Italian in front of the ball before? He doesn't head straight across the field - but towards the English try line - so probably offside, but very marginal. But the rest of the Italian Players have gone back over 1m - clearly out of the lineout. This before the lineout is over.

The final one - you lose the ball in the video. But as the catcher then leaves the "maul" from the front with the ball (showing the dangers of this play) it is likely it was never passed back . So a player was tackled without the ball (at the back of the "maul") by the Italian. And again - they all step back 1-2 paces (over 1m) - so leaving the lineout.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As for the lineout ending when a player hands it back - law reference please?

[LAWS]19.9 (b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.[/LAWS]
If the catcher hands the ball to a team-mate who has moved away from his position in his team's line at the LoT, then that team-mate is no longer at the LoT, therefore, the ball is no longer at the LoT, therefore, the line-out has ended.

[LAWS]19.9 (b) continued...
This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line
and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.[/LAWS]
The only way that a player is allowed to move away from the line LoT is if they are peeling (Law 19.12), therefore, a player who steps away from the LoT to receive the ball from the catcher IS peeling. Its the very definition of that act

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

The only exception to this is...

[LAWS]19.9 (b) continued...
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond
that line, the lineout ends.
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.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.[/LAWS]

But in the case in point, a maul does not form

 

[didds]

So - when does the ball leave the lineout when the catcher's phalanx of players around him is not joined by any defender to create a maul, and the ball is kept within that phalanx? that seems to the cruc of it.

I was under the impression its when the last foot of the phalanx passes the LoT (assuming the phalanx moves forward!)

Ian suggests that as no maul exists this cannot be the case.

??

didds

 

[FlipFlop]

didds - it is when the ball (or ball carrier) leaves the Lineout.

Ian is arguing that merely handing the ball to someone else fulfils this criteria. I am saying that the act of handing the ball to someone else doesn't mean it has left the lineout. Ian is therefore arguing that when you hand the ball to someone else, the lineout is over, I am disagreeing.

I have yet to see a law reference from Ian showing that the act of handing off the ball to someone means the ball is out. Even if that person is still in the lineout.

What Ian and I agree on: There is no maul (so last foot etc is not relevant). The ball is the offside line, and is the only relevant thing to the lineout being over. We just disagree on when it has "left the lineout".

 

[RobLev]

didds - it is when the ball (or ball carrier) leaves the Lineout.

Ian is arguing that merely handing the ball to someone else fulfils this criteria. I am saying that the act of handing the ball to someone else doesn't mean it has left the lineout. Ian is therefore arguing that when you hand the ball to someone else, the lineout is over, I am disagreeing.

I have yet to see a law reference from Ian showing that the act of handing off the ball to someone means the ball is out. Even if that person is still in the lineout.

I don't think Ian accepts that if the ball is passed back from the catcher, that the player to whom the ball is passed can still be in the lineout; and I can see his point - such a player is by definition behind the lineout. Handing it sideways across the pitch isn't the issue...

What Ian and I agree on: There is no maul (so last foot etc is not relevant). The ball is the offside line, and is the only relevant thing to the lineout being over. We just disagree on when it has "left the lineout".

 

[The Fat]

When the catcher turns and hands or passes the ball to a player behind him, the lineout has ended providing there was no maul immediately formed.

 

[Browner]

In concept if everyone stays in their original position yet start handing the ball along the lineout positions of 2 to 3-4-5 etc then that is within current law , and the defenders could stand and watch this if they chose, as there is no disadvantage of territory in doing so..(zzzzzzzzz)

However, hand it someone who has exited/peeled/received the ball outside of the original line and that means the LO is over.

In practice if the catcher drives forward or turns & backs himself into the opposition, then a maul will invariably be created unless the opposition have themselves stepped backward out of their Lineout position, =PK
If the catcher does this he is able to be sackled as a BC, if he passes the ball to a teammate joining behind took quickly then he's now obstructing.

I don't see this as a difficult issue, timing is everything and very few can get it right IME.

Not contesting carries no risk Provided you stay in the lineout .....just wait for the opposition to do something !

In the vunipola case, the opposition had shifted the ball before creating a bonafide maul, so the ball holder was being shielded after the LO was over...th4 obstruction occurred the moment BV tried to go after the ball which was in fact before he got to the BC ....for the simple reason that his shortest route was being blocked/obstructed.

 

[didds]

didds - it is when the ball (or ball carrier) leaves the Lineout.
...
What Ian and I agree on: There is no maul (so last foot etc is not relevant). The ball is the offside line, and is the only relevant thing to the lineout being over. We just disagree on when it has "left the lineout".

so basically until anyone can get any commonality/agreement, nobody actually knows when/if this defensive tactic can or can;t be used.

didds

 

[John3822]

Have to agree with Browner on this. In any event if this were a legitimate and workable tactic then teams would be using it. The only time I can recall any team using it was Wales U20 at the last Junior World Cup. Didn't go so well then and they aren't using it this year. Cetainly in the 40 odd games I did last year nobody tried it at all.

 

[didds]

well, possibly teams are waiting to find out what the consensus is! Clearly there is none..

didds

 

[Taff]

Taff, your first listed point is open to interpretation. If handing to a peeling player (i.e. one moving laterally behind you) constitutes the ball leaving the lineout, where is the justification for your absolute certainty that handing to a static player behind you doesn't?

If just handing the ball to a teammate meant the LO was over, then the LO law could be abbreviated to "If caught or tapped, the LO is over as soon as the catcher / tapper throws or hands the ball to a teammate". The fact that it says "When the ball leaves the LO" would suggest to me at least that it the ball must clearly and obviously leave the LO. If the ball is so close that it isn't clear whether it's in or not, I would say it was still in.

 

[RobLev]

Have to agree with Browner on this. In any event if this were a legitimate and workable tactic then teams would be using it...

Well, if The BFG's approach to it is widespread, one can see why it's not being used - and it's nothing to do with whether it's legal, but how/whether the referee will apply the Laws re obstruction and offside against the attacking team.

I see a pre-arranged creation of a maul formation, with no contact by the defence, but the ball handed back to the tail, as clear and obvious obstruction and offside. He would treat any contact by the defence with the BC as creation of a maul, and if even if by that stretched definition there is no maul created, he would only penalise for accidental offside, on the basis that the attacking team don't know that the defending team will avoid contact.I would say it's for the attacking team to avoid doing things that are only legal in a maul until there actually is a maul.

 

[RobLev]

If just handing the ball to a teammate meant the LO was over, then the LO law could be abbreviated to "If caught or tapped, the LO is over as soon as the catcher / tapper throws or hands the ball to a teammate". The fact that it says "When the ball leaves the LO" would suggest to me at least that it the ball must clearly and obviously leave the LO. If the ball is so close that it isn't clear whether it's in or not, I would say it was still in.

I don't think Dixie is saying that; he's saying that if the ball is handed to a teammate who is behind the lineout (hence his reference to a peeling player) then the ball has left the lineout and the lineout is over. Why would handing the ball back to someone positioned behind the BC and hence lineout not be a clear and obvious end to the lineout?

 

[ChrisR]

First a disclaimer. As a coach I agree with Ian that, in principal, a team should be free to apply any/all legal tactics to minimize an opponents strengths, including not forming the maul at a lineout. So the tactic described in the OP is a simple question of legality. Except, with a lineout, it's never simple.

Much of the problem stems from the lack of singular definitions. "Lineout" is both the event that restarts the match after the ball goes into touch and the lines of players each side of the line-of-touch. However, "Player participating in the lineout" include receivers, the thrower and his opposite. With that in mind I'd say that the lineout area extends from 5m to 15m and 10m each side of the line-of-touch. Unfortunately the Laws don't reference "lineout area" so "leaving the lineout" is always going to be in debate.

Law 19.14(e) states that "No player ... participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended." Clearly, "lineout" here means the lineout area, not the line-of-touch or the original positions of the players. Therefore, stepping away from the LOT to avoid forming a maul does NOT constitute "leaving the lineout".

Now we come to the critical part of the OP. Can a player run around and tackle the BC?

Law 19.14(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. (The ball is now the offside line unless a maul or ruck forms) My rewrite: A player starting in an on-side position may step in front of the ball (thus being in an offside position) to tackle the opponent with the ball.

So the tackler in the OP is within the law.

So, for the purpose of analyzing the OP, whether the lineout has ended or not isn't relevant.

 

[Dixie]

Now we come to the critical part of the OP. Can a player run around and tackle the BC?

Law 19.14(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. (The ball is now the offside line unless a maul or ruck forms) My rewrite: A player starting in an on-side position may step in front of the ball (thus being in an offside position) to tackle the opponent with the ball.

So the tackler in the OP is within the law.

So, for the purpose of analyzing the OP, whether the lineout has ended or not isn't relevant.

Overly simplistic, I'm afraid. It ignores this relevant bit of 19.14(c):

[LAWS]Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.[/LAWS]

So as he starts his attempt to tackle by running ahead of the ball, he violates this part

 

[Browner]

Much of the problem stems from the lack of singular definitions. "Lineout" is both the event that restarts the ¡match after the ball goes into touch and the lines of players each side of the line-of-touch. However, "Player participating in the lineout" include receivers, the thrower and his opposite. With that in mind I'd say that the lineout area extends from 5m to 15m and 10m each side of the line-of-touch. Unfortunately the Laws don't reference "lineout area" so "leaving the lineout" is always going to be in debate.

Aside from neither hooker in your example LO being within the area you've described !!???!!! The notion that the lineout extends 10 m either side of the LoT is bizarre.

There is a clear expectation that the lineout is two straight parallel lines at a right angle to touch 1m apart...... Its only the receivers and 'hookers that are excepted (perhaps they need relabelling ?)

Any inference that a Lineoutee can be considered as still part of the LO merely by keeping the ball within the " LO Area" is dismissed by me, certainly the union code isn't played that way....

If you can find any match EVER that sees the ball bobbling towards the flyhalf (having been knocked backwards by a lineout participant ) AND the referee deems it STILL IN the lineout, then I'll start supporting Wales!.

Until then. ..... The picture in 19.8 shows the receiver being 2m FROM the Lineout , and that's good enough for me.