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

[didds]

Going back to that second video
http://video.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/pro...e-narbonne-vannes-16-24_vid966163/video.shtml

and the earlier try at 45 seconds in that video...

it looks like red set up with only three lineout players so its a deliberate stactic from the off. There is a BIG gap at the lineout to start with which is clearly permitted by the ref.

View attachment 3548

After white win the ball unnopposed, red stay pretty much still. a couple of very very small shuffles backwards - maybe a foot ? I think you'd be hard pushed to claim that as "leaving the lineout", its minimal.

As a tactic it seems to be pectacularly poor - once white realise what is happening (which they did immediately). In terms of the second (and original clip we saw here) white hold all the aces but choose to do nothing with them. The only reason I can think of for not walking forwards and forcing red into contact/attempted tackle, is that once the ball is off the LoT this _maybe_ provides an option for red to run to the side and claim obstruction as a bound on player is between them and the ball carrier ... but I'm entirely convinced of that so I'll leave that open to you guys

UPDATE: I may have given red a disservice here. If their entire reason for this tactic was to avoid a maul-from-a-lineout then they have succeeded.

cheers

didds

 

[ChrisR]

ChuckieB. The problem with your post #99 is this: If the photo is of three Gold players (the middle one has the ball?) who have broken (splintered) off a previous maul then the original maul has ended. General play has begun and the lead Gold is in an offside position.

You may be correct in that by going straight to the ball carrier the Blue player has not caused the lead Gold to obstruct but I wouldn't complain if the referee saw otherwise.

Also, by engaging the BC above the waist (OB's convention or is it law?) the Blue player has started a new maul unless he brings the BC to ground immediately.

 

[ChuckieB]

ChuckieB. The problem with your post #99 is this: If the photo is of three Gold players (the middle one has the ball?) who have broken (splintered) off a previous maul then the original maul has ended. General play has begun and the lead Gold is in an offside position.

You may be correct in that by going straight to the ball carrier the Blue player has not caused the lead Gold to obstruct but I wouldn't complain if the referee saw otherwise.

Also, by engaging the BC above the waist (OB's convention or is it law?) the Blue player has started a new maul unless he brings the BC to ground immediately.

No problem with my post. I suggested they had splintered into a new maul and a new maul began when red attacked the ball carrier and not the player in front of him. The working group declared this legal and obviously didn't take the potential obstruction/ offside into consideration. I certainly have sympathy for any ref that did.

 

[Taff]

..... There is a BIG gap at the lineout to start with which is clearly permitted by the ref.

View attachment 3548

After white win the ball unnopposed, red stay pretty much still. a couple of very very small shuffles backwards - maybe a foot ? I think you'd be hard pushed to claim that as "leaving the lineout", its minimal.

I think you'd be hard pushed to claim they were properly in the LO in the first place.

Another foot backwards is only "minimal" because they were so far out of position to start.

 

[didds]

I think you'd be hard pushed to claim they were properly in the LO in the first place..

I wouldn;t disagree with that to be fair.

The ref however deemed it OK, so having accepted they were fine where they were the shuffle of maybe a foot more was effectively redundant.

I'm not saying its right. But the ref allowed a situation whereby they really couldn't be done for leaving the lineout once they'd started that far apart. That gap is huge!

didds

 

[Taff]

I wouldn;t disagree with that to be fair. The ref however deemed it OK, so having accepted they were fine where they were the shuffle of maybe a foot more was effectively redundant. I'm not saying its right. But the ref allowed a situation whereby they really couldn't be done for leaving the lineout once they'd started that far apart. That gap is huge!

An ideal example of when to use ATP I would have thought.

1. Ask. "Red. Step in please - we need just a 1m gap"
2. Tell. "Red. We've spoken about this already. 1m gap please."
3. Penalise. FK on the 15m line. Red only have themselves to blame. :biggrin:

 

[didds]

Yes. Except obviously the ref in that game did not see a problem with it and permitted it.

So there was no ATP to apply - in his opinion.

Didds

 

[ChrisR]

ChuckieB, this is your post #99:

This is observably a splinter from the first maul. Blue, out of easy view, has literally just looked to attack the ball carrier (arrowed), not the player (the guy in the top knot) in front of the ball carrier and it has been declared legal, i.e. that the ball carrier may be bound in by other players involved in the maul (and without in this instance his own player being penalised for any obstruction).

However, had blue perhaps attacked the player with the top knot there could very well be a better case for obstruction. It's that fine line of what you do as a player and what you see as a ref in the moment!

I'm just trying to get to the gist of your post. I'm not sure what you are saying to be "declared legal". That the defender is legally attempting to tackle the man in the middle? That this now constitutes a new maul?

What isn't legal is the first Gold player who is obstructing unless he has possession of the ball.

 

[beckett50]

Yes. Except obviously the ref in that game did not see a problem with it and permitted it.

Didds

Perhaps because the referee was marking the DEFENSIVE line at each line out and Red had not moved off this mark that he had set.

 

[ChuckieB]

ChuckieB, this is your post #99:

This is observably a splinter from the first maul. Blue, out of easy view, has literally just looked to attack the ball carrier (arrowed), not the player (the guy in the top knot) in front of the ball carrier and it has been declared legal, i.e. that the ball carrier may be bound in by other players involved in the maul (and without in this instance his own player being penalised for any obstruction).

However, had blue perhaps attacked the player with the top knot there could very well be a better case for obstruction. It's that fine line of what you do as a player and what you see as a ref in the moment!

I'm just trying to get to the gist of your post. I'm not sure what you are saying to be "declared legal". That the defender is legally attempting to tackle the man in the middle? That this now constitutes a new maul?

What isn't legal is the first Gold player who is obstructing unless he has possession of the ball.

It is a splinter from the first maul. At the time it splinters, it is just the gold players bound and the blue player is not yet attached.

When the blue player then joins he attacks the ball carrier and not "top knot boy".

I think many would use this as a case as "top knot boy" is creating a credible obstruction and liable for penalty. Blue however was able to attack the ball directly and chose to do so and not the "offending" gold player.

I saw this one as a reasonably close example to the OP, i.e. where there was a player (gold) already bound on in front of the ball carrier at the formation of a "second" maul (if you choose see it as a second maul). The working group saw nothing wrong with this even though others might reasonably suggest he was actually obstructing access to the bc.

They declared the binding of the gold bc legal and it seems they never considered the position of his teammate in front of him. It could have been that the considered it but decided the blue was able to attack the ball without obstruction. In original post it was the #9 red doing the same, i.e. getting to the bc, while 7W was potentially deemed bound on in front of the bc but not obstructing. It's hypothetical as it is a discussion only we are having and it didn't happen on the pitch.

It's not perfect but I thought it might help to show that such things do pass sometimes.

 

[didds]

Perhaps because the referee was marking the DEFENSIVE line at each line out and Red had not moved off this mark that he had set.

well I was looking at the position of the AR to indicate the LoT - but I suppose the AR might have moved if the throwing team had backed off? Very unlikely I would have thought - but you guys would know more than I about if ARs follow the thrower to where he wants to throw from.

whichever way you want to cut it the ref allowed such a large initial gap and so a shuffle of a foot was not going to realistically indicate "leaving the lineout". Whatever - as OB has pointed out - that may actually mean anyway.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

well I was looking at the position of the AR to indicate the LoT - but I suppose the AR might have moved if the throwing team had backed off? Very unlikely I would have thought - but you guys would know more than I about if ARs follow the thrower to where he wants to throw from.

whichever way you want to cut it the ref allowed such a large initial gap and so a shuffle of a foot was not going to realistically indicate "leaving the lineout". Whatever - as OB has pointed out - that may actually mean anyway.

didds

Stepping off any initial line, whether imaginary or set by the ref, sends additional signals of a no contest attempt on the part of the defence. As the lineout drive, as repulsive as it might be to some, is a permitted and legitimate part of the game (if handled properly) I am now potentially more inclined to favour a penalty to the catching side as the stepping back is at least observable as an initial action. I will now interpret that as leaving the line. If they don't step back but just hold their ground but not tackle or engage the bc it will be for the attacking side to sort themselves correctly to ensure they themselves don't infringe .

If we then have both teams not infringing, I think I am more than happy to let things play out as I would be interested to know who was going to crack first and under what circumstances. And then a great story to recount afterwards!

I think in this case if the referee hadn't determined some infringement, as he obviously didn't call it, unless there was something else he saw that we haven't, then I think he should have allowed play to continue.