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

[didds]

ha ha ha!!



didds

 

[L'irlandais]

I have no idea what this means :shrug:

In Ireland a shrug usually means doubt, as in "Search me?"
In the context of this discussion, the Gallic shrug still communicates the "Search me?" But tinged with a smidgin of indifférence from the match referee, perhaps.
Care should be taken when using this smilie with our North Americian friends, as a New Yorker once told me, for him it only meant distain.
:shrug: (I have not yet figured out how they read distain into it, but there you go.)

 

[Phil E]

In Ireland a shrug usually means doubt, as in "Search me?"
In the context of this discussion, the Gallic shrug still communicates the "Search me?" But tinged with a smidgin of indifférence from the match referee, perhaps.
Care should be taken when using this smilie with our North Americian friends, as a New Yorker once told me, for him it only meant distain.
:shrug: (I have not yet figured out how they read distain into it, but there you go.)

The person I sent it to is listed as UK.
His sentence made no sense, to the point I was doubting English was his first language.
:wtf:

 

[L'irlandais]

:sarc: and there was me thinking you wanted clarification on the use of smilies.

 

[krnr]

Only if the players doing the obstructing are in front of the BC.

really?

[LAWS]10.1.c: [FONT=fs_blakeregular](c)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Blocking the tackler. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.[/FONT][/LAWS]

where're the words "in front of"?

to me its 20.4.d and, yes... reds could've try to tackle from camera view to get penalty for obstruction

 

[L'irlandais]

In the context of this discussion, we can see in the earlier uncontested line-out "maul" Red5 was roped into forming the maul as he attempted to tackle the ball carrier at the front. The second time the ball is passed to the rear, So should any of the White pack prevent Red5 from coming around to tackle the ball-carrier it would be obstruction.

 

[TigerCraig]

really?

[LAWS]10.1.c: [FONT=fs_blakeregular](c)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Blocking the tackler. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.[/FONT][/LAWS]

where're the words "in front of"?

to me its 20.4.d and, yes... reds could've try to tackle from camera view to get penalty for obstruction

To push this a bit further, say a red player grabs the white ball carrier around the legs - so not a maul. The bound on white teammates stop the ball carrier from falling to the ground. By standing where they are standing (and holding him up) they have prevented the ball carrier from "being held and brought to ground", ie "prevent(ed) an opponent from tacking a ball carrier" :biggrin:

 

[Taff]

really? .... where're the words "in front of"? to me its 20.4.d and, yes... reds could've try to tackle from camera view to get penalty for obstruction

But the question was about a Maul, not open play.

Red could not have "tried to tackle from the cameras view" because the LO hadn't finished, and until it has finished, the ball is now the offside line.

 

[ChrisR]

Taff, correct that the LO not ended and that the ball is the offside line but . . . .

see these two laws:

19.10(k) Defending at a lineout. A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the lineout may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.
A player who gains possession of the ball in a lineout without jumping may be tackled
immediately.
In both cases , these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
19.14(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if , after the ball has touched a player or the ground , that player steps in front of the ball ,unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent.
Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Does the part in red prohibit running around the maul to get to the BC?

 

[ChuckieB]

Taff, correct that the LO not ended and that the ball is the offside line but . . . .

see these two laws:

19.10(k) Defending at a lineout. A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the lineout may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.
A player who gains possession of the ball in a lineout without jumping may be tackled
immediately.
In both cases , these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
19.14(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if , after the ball has touched a player or the ground , that player steps in front of the ball ,unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent.
Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Does the part in red prohibit running around the maul to get to the BC?

If the ball carrier is at the front, the opponent should have access to make a tackle. He cannot contrive an offside by going round as this would make him offside. His only option is thus to attempt the tackle from his side of the ball.

If the bc is not at the front then, of course, bc's own players are offside anyway and it is then a moot point.

So the natural extension to the question is, what about TigerCraig's scenario or, perhaps more commonly, where BC's own teammates bind even before contact with bc by an opponent. It doesn't have to happen at a lineout pretty much every pick and go in the modern game. How are we tending to deal with that? Technically a reasonable tackle attempt is thwarted and it can't be a maul as maul laws imply the opponent is in contact with the ball carrier first. Surely this must have been covered before?

.......and what does this really mean? "In both cases, these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed". How can you form a maul without some form of tackle attempt anyway?

 

[krnr]

But the question was about a Maul, not open play.

Red could not have "tried to tackle from the cameras view" because the LO hadn't finished, and until it has finished, the ball is now the offside line.

surely enough. Imagine, i'm a player in defending 2m slot. When this pre-maul is bound, i'm at about 45 degrees to that structure, right? Can I approach to them to tackle from the straight line without curving so to enter "through the gates"? Absolutely can, since there're no gates. Am I leaving the LO? No. Is anybody preventing me to tackle BC? at least #18, or maybe even his left partner. Obstruction.

 

[L'irlandais]

To be honest this topic has come up each year since (perhaps 2009) the Italians sought a solution to their underpowered defense at line-out time. Lineout-over-after-uncontested-maul, for example. But there are many more examples in the archive, you will surely find an answer to that scenario, if you take the time to browse.

In the context of this discussion, Red5 attempted (first half) to tackle the ball-carrier at the front, but was prevented from doing so and eventually roped into creating the maul. With the ball at the rear in the second half stand off, Red5 should have gone around to tackle the ball-carrier at the rear, thus putting the attacking pack offside, bound as they are in front of their ball-carrying team-mate. As has already been mentioned several times now the "stand-off" came about because the (professional) players are unsure of the laws. Red5's reluctance come from an entirely different scenario, but he didn't recognize this, due to poor tactical awareness on his part. They create situations to get around the LoTG and then turn to the ref for guidance when they've confused themselves. The Elite game (and Elite coaches) have a lot to answer for. It is one thing to help evolve the game of XV, another thing entirely to subvert (perhaps I mean "to undermine") the Laws as they currently stand.

Anyhow, not wishing to hijack this thread, I think first offense is still Red leaving the Line-out. Penalty to white.
But then again, the scrum, introduction White was a good/equitable call, put on the spot as he was.

 

[TigerCraig]

It does once again raise the interesting point of (assuming we are happy about red not "leaving the lineout") why the referee needs to do anything?

If all 30 players are happy to stand around doing nothing for 40 minutes, then why should the ref intervene - other than maybe to mention it in the match report for the union to possibly take action as regards a "contrived result" ?

 

[didds]

A thought just struck me... if the white phalanx WALKED forward towards the goal line and tghus towards the waiting defenders, would any of you then call "flying wedge"?

(For me its not, but I'm not the guy with the whistle).

didds

 

[crossref]

It does once again raise the interesting point of (assuming we are happy about red not "leaving the lineout") why the referee needs to do anything?

If all 30 players are happy to stand around doing nothing for 40 minutes, then why should the ref intervene - other than maybe to mention it in the match report for the union to possibly take action as regards a "contrived result" ?

in other situations where a moment of stasis occurs (ball at back of ruck, ball at back of stationary scrum or maul), the referee will call 'use it' --- so that a game of rugby can break out.

this is also a 'use it' moment

 

[didds]

in other situations where a moment of stasis occurs (ball at back of ruck, ball at back of stationary scrum or maul), the referee will call 'use it' --- so that a game of rugby can break out.

this is also a 'use it' moment

not under any law reference it isn't though.

yet.

didds

 

[TigerCraig]

in other situations where a moment of stasis occurs (ball at back of ruck, ball at back of stationary scrum or maul), the referee will call 'use it' --- so that a game of rugby can break out.

this is also a 'use it' moment

Ok. But under what law? We don't have a ruck, maul or scrum. We are in general play. No different to if noone chases a kick and the fielding fullback just stands there looking at the ball laying at his feet.

 

[Rich_NL]

A thought just struck me... if the white phalanx WALKED forward towards the goal line and tghus towards the waiting defenders, would any of you then call "flying wedge"?

(For me its not, but I'm not the guy with the whistle).

No, it's not dangerous. Might be pinged on obstructing a tackle if the defenders tried, though.

 

[Phil E]

in other situations where a moment of stasis occurs (ball at back of ruck, ball at back of stationary scrum or maul), the referee will call 'use it' --- so that a game of rugby can break out.

this is also a 'use it' moment

If the ball was at the back it would be a use it moment and you would expect them to pass it away; but the ball is at the front so how do they use it without moving it back and probably committing an offence? I think its unreasonable to ask them to use it when its at the front which is why the referee gave a scrum.

All the other instances you quote the ball is at the back.

 

[didds]

No, it's not dangerous. Might be pinged on obstructing a tackle if the defenders tried, though.

the ball is at the front obviously to avoid such. Rather like it was in the other clip from earlier in the game when they scored.

My view wrt flying wedge is the same as yours - its not "flying" .

didds

- - - Updated - - -

If the ball was at the back it would be a use it moment and you would expect them to pass it away; but the ball is at the front so how do they use it without moving it back and probably committing an offence? I think its unreasonable to ask them to use it when its at the front which is why the referee gave a scrum.

All the other instances you quote the ball is at the back.

Exactly.

didds