[Maul] Not sure what to call this to be honest

[Cross]

This is a first for me

https://www.facebook.com/SuperRugbyXV/videos/1218432861588281/

 

[Balones]

This is a first for me

https://www.facebook.com/SuperRugbyXV/videos/1218432861588281/

Penalty to white. Red stepped out of the line.

 

[Balones]

This is a first for me

https://www.facebook.com/SuperRugbyXV/videos/1218432861588281/

Waste of time?

 

[beckett50]

Referee should call "use it" to white and if - after the 5 second delay - they don't then scrum to red.

I don't believe that Red have tapped out of the line, based upon the clip shown, as we don't see the defensive lie being set by the referee.

 

[Taff]

Penalty to white. Red stepped out of the line.

Same here.

... I don't believe that Red have tapped out of the line, based upon the clip shown, as we don't see the defensive lie being set by the referee.

There appears to be waaay more than a 1m gap between them, so Red must have left the LO before it was over. And right at the start, you can see Red take a step or 2 backwards.

 

[OB..]

What a pity nobody has bothered to define what constitutes "leaving the lineout".

What if white choose to rumble forward (assuming the player who caught the ball still has his hands on it)?

 

[didds]

Penalty to white. Red stepped out of the line.

I don;t think we saw enough of that to make that call. If Red only had 2 lineout players to start with, and they haven;t moved significantly off the line have they - no further than a peeling player to join a maul in a contested situation.

Mind you 7 v 2 whatever the situations seems possibly worthwhile.

This scenario was bound to happen one day.

You could see the same thing happening with the no-ruck tactic with the 9 leaving th ball on the floor and no oppo engaging the attackers to create a ruck.



didds

 

[didds]

Referee should call "use it" to white and if - after the 5 second delay - they don't then scrum to red.

why so? law reference? No maul or breakdown has occurred. This is just a lineout catch and everybody has stood still. Its effectively open play with some offside line caveats basically.. Its no different from the ball being passed to a centre who stands still and the opposition never tackle/engage with (unlikely though that scenario is). Or pass to a centre and a mail like shape similar to this set up with no opposition engagement. Its not a maul. its not a ruck. its not a scrum,. its just open play where nobody is engaging.

TBH I think the scrum call (based on what we have avaiiable to see is all the ref could do.

didds

 

[didds]

What a pity nobody has bothered to define what constitutes "leaving the lineout".

What if white choose to rumble forward (assuming the player who caught the ball still has his hands on it)?

presumably that would have forced red to have to engage (or at least attempt to tackle the ball carrier) - or let white score eventually presumably.

didds

 

[didds]

Same here.


There appears to be waaay more than a 1m gap between them, so Red must have left the LO before it was over. And right at the start, you can see Red take a step or 2 backwards.

I thought previous discussions along these lines had profferred the fact that a l/o player has 9.9999999999999m in which to roam around before he has left the lineout?

didds

 

[cccref]

According to Law

10.2 (b): Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.

You could give a FK.

However in this situation, time is running, they are not resuming after something (scrum, fk, pk, try, etc....).
You can apply 10.2(b) if you want i guess, it just says that a player must not waste time, it doesn't indicate if before or after something happens, just don't waste.
Personally i'd let'em do, hoping they understand how lame they are (both of teams).

You don't wanna play? Let's all stay here doing nothing :wait:

 

[didds]

but they're not intentionally wasting time. they are waiting for their opponents to make a call to which they will respond.

didds

 

[cccref]

but they're not intentionally wasting time. they are waiting for their opponents to make a call to which they will respond.

didds

they are intentionally doing nothing, i agree with you, this is can't be considered loss of time, i repeat: let'em do....they'll get eventually

 

[Pinky]

Why do you think the ref gave scrum to white? They were not going forward, but were perhaps the attacking team. I think the ref should have called "use it" to get the ball back into play. It looked really silly for white just to stand there, with their plan for a maul totally thwarted.

 

[oliver]

I think they're in red's half so they're the attacking team. Then it's just 20.4 (d).

Either way, white are stupid for not walking down the pitch and getting a few metres.

 

[ChuckieB]

Let them play and see how long before one side cracks with the crowd on their back!

In the event of unsporting behaviour who is at fault? My money is on 9 white!

 

[beckett50]

why so? law reference? No maul or breakdown has occurred. This is just a lineout catch and everybody has stood still. Its effectively open play with some offside line caveats basically.. Its no different from the ball being passed to a centre who stands still and the opposition never tackle/engage with (unlikely though that scenario is). Or pass to a centre and a mail like shape similar to this set up with no opposition engagement. Its not a maul. its not a ruck. its not a scrum,. its just open play where nobody is engaging.

TBH I think the scrum call (based on what we have avaiiable to see is all the ref could do.

didds

didds, check out the clarifications on the WR site. Was also in a series of training slides last year.

 

[winchesterref]

I've looked back through my slides, the clarifications, and the law application guidelines. No mention of "use it" or 5 seconds... whereabouts are you getting it from? Would be interesting to see it compared to mine.

Edit: that sounds more disbelieving than I intended - genuinely don't want to be missing some material I am meant to have seen, so would be good to know exactly where it is from

 

[Taff]

Why do you think the ref gave scrum to white?

Was the Ref indicating advantage or a scrum to White?

I think he was indicating advantage for Red leaving the LO.

 

[Cross]

OK, very silly question: before the ref blows the whistle, there is no maul. If a red player decides to go for the ball carrier, he is prevented from doing so by other white players (non bcs). Isn't that obstruction?