[Maul] Question on driving maul at a lineout ??

[Blindside]

About six months ago attended a WRU level one coaching course. Ive been involved in coaching for 30 as head coach at a decent though not great level (Chapionship in Wales) am currently quite heavily involved with Jnr rugby so decided to do my level one.

Anyway this is the question, i expressed my views on the course and the ref taking it totally disagreed, so it appears ive been coaching it wrong ?

Lineout, opposing side step back from countering the drive and do not engage. Two lifters bind on the jumper as he lands but the jumper is the lead player (lifters do not lead). The jumper on landing does not transfer the ball but other players bind and drive on the trio. The ball is still in possession of the jumper it is not transfered he is the lead player. They proceed downfield in that formation though no maul is formed as no defenders have engaged. Penalty yes or no ??

 

[tewdric]

Penalty for what? Play on as far as I can see. The relevant law is 18:37:

The lineout ends when:

The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
leaves the lineout; or
enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
goes beyond the 15-metre line.
A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
The ball becomes unplayable

 

[Blindside]

He was claiming that as the ball was being driven in a maul formation and as the opposition was not engaged it was illegal, truck and trailer, my opinion was that as the ball was in possession of the lead player and even though a "scrum style formation" had been built without opposition involvement it was legal as the ball had not been transferred.

Just a thought (he did not mention it). Can a flying wedge only be formed/penalised from a free kick/penaty because this has all the characteristics except for origin?

 

[mcroker]

There was a 2014 clarification in law on teams not engaging in a maul following a line-out. In summary - in the scenario you describe (ball still at the front) - play on...

Can’t find it on the WR site - but here’s a reference to kentrefs https://www.kentrefs.co.uk/law-clarifications/#toggle-id-6

Truck and trailer is usually used to describe the situation where the ball-carrier detaches from the back of a maul (ending the maul) and then rejoins (which is accidental offside)

 

[OB..]

Lineout, opposing side step back from countering the drive and do not engage.

Picking up this point, most people argue that stepping back from the line is illegally leaving the lineout. IMHO that is an overly legalistic judgement. They should legally be allowed to refuse to form a maul without having to give the opponents a free rein to charge down field.
(A one man tackle is, of course, legal if no maul forms.)

 

[mcroker]

The clarification linked above would agree with you

 

[didds]

About six months ago attended a WRU level one coaching course. Ive been involved in coaching for 30 as head coach at a decent though not great level (Chapionship in Wales) am currently quite heavily involved with Jnr rugby so decided to do my level one.

Anyway this is the question, i expressed my views on the course and the ref taking it totally disagreed, so it appears ive been coaching it wrong ?

Lineout, opposing side step back from countering the drive and do not engage. Two lifters bind on the jumper as he lands but the jumper is the lead player (lifters do not lead). The jumper on landing does not transfer the ball but other players bind and drive on the trio. The ball is still in possession of the jumper it is not transfered he is the lead player. They proceed downfield in that formation though no maul is formed as no defenders have engaged. Penalty yes or no ??

No. The ball carrier is available to be tackled. Unless you wish to get pedantic about npot being able to be taxckled from 45 degrees on "his" side maybe.

However - cue the arguments/debates regarding flying wedges for the next 15 pages.


didds

 

[Blindside]

Thank you.

I thought id lost the plot.

 

[Dickie E]

ball stays at front - play on.

ball legally transferred to back - they must use it. If they don't, scrum, ball carrying team's feed.

 

[Blindside]

If its transferred and driven its a penalty.

 

[mcroker]

If its transferred and driven its a penalty.

See 2014 clarification...

[LAWS]if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction[/LAWS]

 

[Taff]

Picking up this point, most people argue that stepping back from the line is illegally leaving the lineout. IMHO that is an overly legalistic judgement. They should legally be allowed to refuse to form a maul without having to give the opponents a free rein to charge down field.

The participating LO players can always stay in the line and move forward or back to avoid creating a maul; they don't have to leave the LO.

ball stays at front - play on. ball legally transferred to back - they must use it. If they don't, scrum, ball carrying team's feed.

That's how I understand it. As I see it, in a nutshell there are only 3 options:

1. Opposition stepping out of the LO - PK for leaving the LO early.
2. Opposition create a legal gap (see above reply to OB) and the ball is at the front - "Play On"
3. Opposition create a legal gap and the ball is at the back - "Use it" and possibly accidental offside if the BC runs forward into his own player.

 

[Blindside]

See 2014 clarification...

[LAWS]if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction[/LAWS]

My apologies you are correct, thanks.

 

[Dickie E]

See 2014 clarification...

[LAWS]if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction[/LAWS]

so who gets the scrum feed?

 

[Taff]

so who gets the scrum feed?

The non-offending side.

Sorry, but it makes no sense to reward the ball carrying side for an accidental offside. If there's an accidental offside, there's a scrum and the non-offending side get the put in.

 

[Phil E]

so who gets the scrum feed?

Fishing for something?

 

[mcroker]

Fishing for something?

This would be why I didn’t respond. Although I notice the laws also don’t specify who gets the feed for an accidental offside. However still not biting...

 

[Dickie E]

Fishing for something?

just the answer

 

[didds]

if the clarification/laws dont actually spell this out its just another example of how despite a rewrite the laws are still a shambles.

Q: what wolpuld everybody on the pitch and watching expect?

There's your answer.

And aside from barrack room lawyers and other smart arses on the pitch, nobody would expect a scrum to the side that just created the accidental obstruction.

And FWIW while the laws/clarification do not say its the non effending team, neither do they say offending team...

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Sorry to revive this.

Home team conceded 2 tries today trying to not compete at a 5m to oppos.

First one, red catch transfer and don't move, green don't engage. I call "use it". They do, break off back and score. It's last play of first half. Green skipper quizzes me at half time and I am approached by coach. I asked him to go away telling him I've given the captain an explanation. Unbelievably they do it again 10mins into 2nd half. Red catch, don't transfer and break out the front and score.

Green are pissed with me.

Anyway after game coach seeks me out to talk about the lineout/maul non-compete. I talk him through the clarification saying it was from before last World Cup 2015.

Anyway a couple of points of concern.

Clarification is nowhere to be found on WR website - my explanation was almost verbatim from Kent refs website above. I recall going through clarification at a Society meeting.

Green assured me referees had given them a PK for adopting the same tactic - not sure what oppos did - assuming oppos infringed as per Kent refs then it should be scrum.

Another bloke who earwigged on my conversation with coach said there were 4 refs sat with him who said I was wrong and it should have been a PK to green. Then we're into realms of me saying "well they're wrong, and I'm right" so I gave up.

I genuinely wanted to help green sort it out and told them I'd send them the clarification but now I'm a bit stuck.

So. I think I'm right, green think I'm wrong, matey and his 4 ref mates think I'm wrong and depending on who refs them later and if they pull the non compete and are rewarded then that'll confirm it.

Why is the 9th Sept 2014 Clarification not on WR? It's all a bit shit.