[Line out] Quick throw in after penalty kick

[Taff]

Really? What were the teams, I would love to see a video of that

I don't remember the teams, but I think it was in the highlights on Scrum V but it's not on the iPlayer yet.

White had a PK and kicked to touch near the corner. The ball bounced into touch; nobody else touched it. White were up quick, grabbed the ball and took a QTI to a White player coming up at speed. You could tell by their faces that Black were caught napping thinking "WTF?"

 

[Pegleg]

Glasgow Vs Ulster it was the score that took the game to 9-15. Clever play by Ulster. Around 19 mins on the highlights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0760b7y/scrum-v-sunday-20152016-27032016

 

[didds]

except that's only 50% of the suggested tactic. Its not a PK kicked to a waiting teammate standing in touch slightly behind the line of PK ie onside.

It is a QTI taken to a team mate at speed but the try above is just rubbish defending. Following a long upfield kick and chase.

didds

 

[Taff]

except that's only 50% of the suggested tactic. Its not a PK kicked to a waiting teammate standing in touch slightly behind the line of PK ie onside.

I can't see what they're gaining by standing in touch.

 

[crossref]

I can't see what they're gaining by standing in touch.

speed and surprise: he can catch the PK and immediately execute a QTI

 

[thepercy]

I can't see what they're gaining by standing in touch.

I think they gain, ball in hand by catching it, and making sure that the QTI is on.

 

[Pegleg]

There hast obe some form of chase so the tactic will be a hybrid. As in this case.

 

[Dickie E]

A flying wedge is illegal. You could probably set up something similar to a flying wedge.

as per a cavalry charge, only illegal at a PK and near to defenders' goal line. Not illegal in general play.

 

[RobLev]

as per a cavalry charge, only illegal at a PK and near to defenders' goal line. Not illegal in general play.

Surely a QTI isn't general play? And that's when a cavalry charge or flying wedge *usually* happen, not essential elements of the infringements.

 

[didds]

as oft discussed here, whilst the laws specifically outloaw flyiug wedges and cavalry charges, the overall law of dangerous play still exists when not close to the line.

As it is if that hadn;t been a QTI in the link above but a tap penalty, wouldn;t that have been a (one man) cavalry charge?

didds

 

[MrQeu]

Standing in touch or standing a foot from the line, what's the difference? He can run straight to the landing point. Albeit to catch and throw-in the kick should be kinda like a garryowen and no defender should be waiting on the touch line to try and keep the ball in play.


PS: We see cavalry charge-like and flying wedge-like situations every so often at rucks, but they're never penalised.

 

[Pegleg]

Standing in touch or standing a foot from the line, what's the difference? He can run straight to the landing point. Albeit to catch and throw-in the kick should be kinda like a garryowen and no defender should be waiting on the touch line to try and keep the ball in play.


PS: We see cavalry charge-like and flying wedge-like situations every so often at rucks, but they're never penalised.

.

The bold bit is critical. The law book outlaws Cavalry charges and Flying Wedges not "-Like". That is for us to judge.

 

[crossref]

Standing in touch or standing a foot from the line, what's the difference? He can run straight to the landing point..

In the move I envisaged he IS the landing point -- the PK goes sideways directly to a team mate in touch (who is just behind the mark to avoid being offside). He catches the PK and immediately executes a QTI to someone travelling at speed. The whole thing pre-planned.

 

[Pegleg]

That could be done,certainly near to the opponents line it woudl be a good tactic.

The tactic as done in the video is more speculative and probably less deliberate. Although is could be a try. Long kick into space toward the touch line. Two possible outcomes "hoped for":

1; the attacker regathers the ball and keep it alive.

2; the ball goes into touch and is kept alive via a QTI.

A reasonable - 2 positive outcome - idea.

 

[crossref]

I think the tactic in the video was more speculative-- let's chase EVERY PK to touch, and sooner or later we'll get an opportunity to take an unexpected QTI. there are probably scores of chases before it paid off.

It's like chasing EVERY PK at goal, do it enough times and eventually there will be a rebound off the posts to catch.

 

[OB..]

as per a cavalry charge, only illegal at a PK and near to defenders' goal line. Not illegal in general play.

The Law does not really define these plays.[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]The [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]type of attack[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]usually[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.[/FONT][/LAWS]Ditto Cavalry Charge.

When the IRB decided these tactics should be stopped, they added a prohibition on the Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge to Law 26 - Foul Play in 1996. The explanation of the terms appeared in the Notes that were a feature of the Laws before the 2000 re-write.

The Notes have been dropped, but the wording was retained. It is not that of a formal definition, and should not be treated as such. In practice it is still just a guideline to referees that these situations are to be automatically treated as dangerous play. "Usually" certainly implies it can be illegal elsewhere on the pitch.

 

[Pegleg]

I think the tactic in the video was more speculative-- let's chase EVERY PK to touch, and sooner or later we'll get an opportunity to take an unexpected QTI. there are probably scores of chases before it paid off.

It's like chasing EVERY PK at goal, do it enough times and eventually there will be a rebound off the posts to catch.

And that in itself is a tactic. You follow up kicks because is make good tactical sense to do so. With a Kick to the corners you have several positive outcome that are possible:

A lineout well placed for a catch and drive.
Preasure on the defence with little room to move if you miss touch.
The possibility of a QTI if the defence is not awake.


A well placed kick with several positive outcomes = a pretty good idea (other things being equal).

 

[ChrisR]

In the move I envisaged he IS the landing point -- the PK goes sideways directly to a team mate in touch (who is just behind the mark to avoid being offside). He catches the PK and immediately executes a QTI to someone travelling at speed. The whole thing pre-planned.

Then why not tap and spin the ball wide? I assume the plan is only when close to the ops goal or else you'd be giving up some yardage.

 

[crossref]

Then why not tap and spin the ball wide? I assume the plan is only when close to the ops goal or else you'd be giving up some yardage.

yes, you'd use it when you are v close to the oppo line - 5-10m - so when the kicker lines up to tap very gently into touch, the oppo aren't remotely suspicious to see the the hooker standing there, apparently waiting to take the line out everyone is expecting ..... but in reality ready to execute this unexpected move!

the further the PK is from the touchline, the better the move as there is unlikely to be many defenders near the touchline

 

[Shelflife]

What about 6.a.5.d A ref gives permission to the players to leave the playing area.

While normally the hooker or person taking a QTI wouldn't need permission to leave the pitch, I would suggest that leaving the pitch in order to have the ball played to you in order to gain an advantage would come under this law.

Id be slow to encourage moves like this.