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

[Dickie E]

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=upto&clarlaw=17&clarification=34

does part 3 of the attached help?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=upto&clarlaw=17&clarification=34

does part 3 of the attached help?

Rob

Link just goes to WR home page - the one with language buttons.

 

[Dickie E]

Rob

Link just goes to WR home page - the one with language buttons.

Hit the English button and see what happens, or have a look at clarification 9 of 2006

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Hit the English button and see what happens, or have a look at clarification 9 of 2006

As I read it Clarification 9 from 2006 is not the same and makes no mention of a scrum for accidental offside as the "clarification" from 2014 does.

 

[crossref]

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.

Unfortunately it wasn't a clarification, it was an email -- and it was never published on the WR website

Here's a previous thread where someone asked where it was....

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19425-Stepping-out-of-the-Lineout

the only place you can send your coaches to is rugbyrefs.com

 

[Dickie E]

As I read it Clarification 9 from 2006 is not the same and makes no mention of a scrum for accidental offside as the "clarification" from 2014 does.

Agreed but at least it gives a basis that Red haven't done anything illegal.

 

[menace]

LLP

This is in the Oz Game Management Guidelines:
Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group,
then PK to attacking team.
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and
creating space, and not leaving the line out, the following process should be followed:
o The attacking team would need to keep the ball with the front player if they were to drive down-
field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle
the ball carrier.)
o If the attacking team immediately passes the ball back to a player behind the front player or at the
rear of the group, the referee would tell them to "Use it" which they must do immediately.
o If the team drives forward with the ball at the back (and ignores the referee’s call to “Use it”), the
referee should award a scrum to the defending team for "accidental offside" (rather than PK for
obstruction).

Found here: https://australia.rugby/participate/referee/laws


I know we are down under and it may not convince your rogue coach...but it's not as if we are a nation going totally against WR!

 

[crossref]

Versions are on several different sites aroind the world ... (With slightly different wording !)

https://www.google.com/search?q=•+I...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[Balones]

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.

Clearly the responses on here confirm that you are correct. What concerns me is that other referees have been penalising with a PK. It sounds to me that an urgent ‘refresh’ is required at your next society meeting (plus communicating via whatever means your society has because I realise few officials actually attend meetings) so that consistency is achieved. If you still want the club concerned to be brought up to speed that perhaps your society secretary could make contact. At the last resort give the club the RFU Laws contact details.

 

[crossref]

but is the 2014 email, that WR never put on their website still valid ? How would we know ?
Certainly that's what I am using, but I am an old fart.

 

[Zebra1922]

but is the 2014 email, that WR never put on their website still valid ? How would we know ?
Certainly that's what I am using, but I am an old fart.

Does it matter? Walking through the scenario you still get to the same conclusions as the email. Ball at the front, ball carrier available to be tackled, play on.

Ball transferred back but no engagement, thesis possibly the only area where the. email might differ from the law. In law you might immediately blower accidental offside, in the emails long as they don't move downfield you give them the opportunity to use it. Move downfield- accidental offside. Do not use it immediately- accidental offside.

Player leaving the line out to not form a maul - there is a layabout leaving the line out, just apply it.

So regardless the clarification I think the laws cover the scenarios.

I'm interested in what these 4 refs believe was the offence leading to a penalty?

 

[chbg]

I'm interested in what these 4 refs believe was the offence leading to a penalty?

We shall never know!

 

[crossref]

Does it matter? Walking through the scenario you still get to the same conclusions as the email. Ball at the front, ball carrier available to be tackled, play on.

Ball transferred back but no engagement, thesis possibly the only area where the. email might differ from the law. In law you might immediately blower accidental offside, in the emails long as they don't move downfield you give them the opportunity to use it. Move downfield- accidental offside. Do not use it immediately- accidental offside.

Player leaving the line out to not form a maul - there is a layabout leaving the line out, just apply it.

So regardless the clarification I think the laws cover the scenarios.

I'm interested in what these 4 refs believe was the offence leading to a penalty?

That's the point of the email .. if you form a "maul" with ball at back and move forwards, the Laws suggest a PK for obstruction. The email says no, we will call it accidental offside.


(The other thing that is in the email but not the Law is calling use it .. in Law that only happens in rucks scrums mauls. Here we have a use it call in open play)

 

[didds]

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.

Whether you were right or wrong on the day, more fool them for conceding a second try in a similar manner!

didds

 

[didds]

LLP

This is in the Oz Game Management Guidelines:
Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group,
then PK to attacking team.
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and
creating space, and not leaving the line out, the following process should be followed:
o The attacking team would need to keep the ball with the front player if they were to drive down-
field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle
the ball carrier.)
o If the attacking team immediately passes the ball back to a player behind the front player or at the
rear of the group, the referee would tell them to "Use it" which they must do immediately.
o If the team drives forward with the ball at the back (and ignores the referee’s call to “Use it”), the
referee should award a scrum to the defending team for "accidental offside" (rather than PK for
obstruction).

Found here: https://australia.rugby/participate/referee/laws


I know we are down under and it may not convince your rogue coach...but it's not as if we are a nation going totally against WR!

... and is clear and concise, with clear outcomes, and its easy to follow. Full marks.

didds

 

[didds]

Clearly the responses on here confirm that you are correct. What concerns me is that other referees have been penalising with a PK. It sounds to me that an urgent ‘refresh’ is required at your next society meeting (.

If of course they have been doing so and this wasn't a tiny bit of fabrication to strengthen their hand at the time of discussion etc . ;-)

didds