Scotland's first try

[Decorily]

So the pass off the top wasnt the ball leaving the lineout, lineout over, and now open play is in place?

didds

In my opinion the player who caught the ball was still in the lineout and therefore the ball hadn't left the lineout so lineout not over. The next actions were a successful attempt to form a maul similar to any other lineout maul formation.

 

[Jz558]

How can the formation possibly be classified as a "successful attempt to form a maul"? The ball was caught by Blue 5 approx a metre from the 5 metre line and no Australian player engaged the formation until it had moved the other side of the 5 metre line. Even if you accept that 5 was still in the lineout (which is perfectly reasonable), a bound formation of 4 Scottish players moved forward with no Australian forwards in contact. Last season that would have been a try, ball at the front of the formation which moved forward, this seasons law changes mean that is no longer the case and, even if you dont think thats a flying wedge (which I do), then the prebinding alone is illegal.

 

[Decorily]

It is simply the forming of a maul from a lineout.....nothing more!

 

[Arabcheif]

Ok so according to this criteria....

• 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.
• [FONT=webbelliscup, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended. [/FONT]Sanction: [FONT=webbelliscup, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Penalt[/FONT]y

[COLOR=#BC252D !important]
[/COLOR]The LO hasn't ended the catcher or the ball hasn't left the LO. The ball or player hasn't went back passed 5m line or beyond the 15m line. None of the other criteria for ending a LO have been met either

[COLOR=#BC252D !important][/COLOR]BUT, I'd still say it was a pre bind. I don't think the ball was passed back till after the contact so that part is fine, just the pre-latching.[COLOR=#BC252D !important]
[/COLOR]

 

[Jarrod Burton]

• Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no lineout player may leave the lineout until it has ended. Sanction: Penalty

So the play was illegal - the receiver position was already taken by the 9(?) and the 7 left the LO to a position behind the pre-bound players.

 

[Arabcheif]

My previous post was specifically to answer the question about whether the ball had left the LO at the point it was passed back to the pod at the front. It's already been established that this (player waiting for the jumper to come back down) is never really penalised... at least at the top level. Int, Pro 12, NRC etc. Even at the level I play and ref at (although it is uncommon).

I agree, and believe I've said so in a previous comment that I'd question that but seems that it's permitted at that level. With that being said, I agree that the try shouldn't have stood. The pre-latch would've been reason enough for me. But if the top level refs have been advised as per one of the other comments then this seems to be fine from a LO. The issue is that there's no guidance for grassroots refs if this is the case. And if I saw it in one of my games, I'd call it.

Also there was not one successfully ended LO in that match.

 

[Zebra1922]

My previous post was specifically to answer the question about whether the ball had left the LO at the point it was passed back to the pod at the front. It's already been established that this (player waiting for the jumper to come back down) is never really penalised... at least at the top level. Int, Pro 12, NRC etc. Even at the level I play and ref at (although it is uncommon).

I agree, and believe I've said so in a previous comment that I'd question that but seems that it's permitted at that level. With that being said, I agree that the try shouldn't have stood. The pre-latch would've been reason enough for me. But if the top level refs have been advised as per one of the other comments then this seems to be fine from a LO. The issue is that there's no guidance for grassroots refs if this is the case. And if I saw it in one of my games, I'd call it.

Also there was not one successfully ended LO in that match.

I think your second paragraph is the most important here. It doesn;t matter what may or may not have been communicated to top level referees. Nothing has been communicated to us, therefore this is illegal and I will penalise it if I see it.

As ever WR does itself (or us) any favours with secret law interpretations for the professional gam.

 

[SimonSmith]

I prefer to sit back and think that, much as the Russian Linesman in '66 had a two word phrase ("remember Stalingrad"), Romain just went *gallicshrug* "eh, not C&O, Auld Alliance"

 

[Jarrod Burton]

The pre-latch would've been reason enough for me.

The pre-latch and trundle/drive is the most dangerous part of this move. The only realistic way of stopping it this close to the line is to hit the legs of the "maul" early. This means players in prone positions making contact with knees and legs, substantially increasing the risk of either a head knock or flexed knee injury and a collapsed maul. At the professional level there seems to be community acceptance of this increased risk of injury and those guys are much more resilient than in the weeds. At my level blokes need to go to work Monday and I've seen enough career (rugby and real life) ending knee injuries to want to remove these extreme impact parts of the game.

 

[crossref]

how about this one

https://www.facebook.com/med.zzo02/posts/1339551829586042

 

[didds]

Just to get this straight in my head then...

had the OP "move" been constructed from a tap FK/PK it woud have been a flying wedge/pre latching and illegal.

But becasue it was a pass "within" a lineout its not?

correct ?

 

[crossref]

Just to get this straight in my head then...

had the OP "move" been constructed from a tap FK/PK it woud have been a flying wedge/pre latching and illegal.

But becasue it was a pass "within" a lineout its not?

correct ?

that's a very popular view. I don't really buy into it - flying wedge law is about safety , it can't be dangerous at a FK but safe at a LO

pr-latching slightly different, there is an examption around the line out jumper to allow a maul to be formed

But- once the line out jumper passes the ball, surely the lineout is over? Don't think you are allowed to pre-latch to the pass receiver (as here)

 

[Flish]

I have been assured that the line out issue is an unintended consequence, but as yet have had no official correction so a bit stuck. Luckily the only times it’s come close they’ve moved the ball back too so got a use it then a scrum when they didn’t and the other was age grade where kids had been coached to run away so they got a warning about leaving the line out

 

[Jz558]

that's a very popular view. I don't really buy into it - flying wedge law is about safety , it can't be dangerous at a FK but safe at a LO

pr-latching slightly different, there is an examption around the line out jumper to allow a maul to be formed

But- once the line out jumper passes the ball, surely the lineout is over? Don't think you are allowed to pre-latch to the pass receiver (as here)

My understanding also from society refs on here is that the guidance that has been given is that if a side go into a maul formation having caught the ball at a lineout and the opposition dont engage (and dont leave the line out) then a warning should be given to play the ball away and that formation cannot trundle down the field. So whether the ball in the OP left the lineout or not, no pre-formed formation can move towards the goal line unopposed. Is this correct?

 

[didds]

that's a very popular view. I don't really buy into it - flying wedge law is about safety , it can't be dangerous at a FK but safe at a LO

pr-latching slightly different, there is an examption around the line out jumper to allow a maul to be formed

But- once the line out jumper passes the ball, surely the lineout is over? Don't think you are allowed to pre-latch to the pass receiver (as here)

well thats entirely my understanding - but see the thread above to see that others say i am wrong etc


looks like a duck, sounds like a duck. Quack.

 

[Rich_NL]

But- once the line out jumper passes the ball, surely the lineout is over? Don't think you are allowed to pre-latch to the pass receiver (as here)

The LO is over when the ball leaves the LO, no? The LO is not well-defined, but the second receiver looked very much to be a part of it.

 

[didds]

The LO is over when the ball leaves the LO, no? The LO is not well-defined, but the second receiver looked very much to be a part of it.

bgut in so doing, a flyring wedge was formed. But apparebntly its lega;l because the ball didnt ;pleave a lineout

wierd.

sounds like a law making cock up to me. ie law makers hadnt considered this a "thing"

 

[irishref]

Since the law trial clearly defines the flying-wedge as happening from a PK, FK or open play - it doesn't count during a lineout. Which is logical because how could you then ever have a maul from a lineout, the lifters are in contact with the catcher before the ball is in their possession.

So the question would seem to be: was the lineout over after the initial catcher passes the ball to the second pod?

Applying the law to the letter is getting us nowhere in this discussion, so I'd go for the realpolitik answer - on TV we often see players dropping into the receiver channel to give themselves a bit of momentum to hit the maul with a bit more force and it's never penalised.

So try stands but WR need to clarify the point about when a lineout ends.

 

[Decorily]

.....but WR need to clarify the point about when a lineout ends.

What bit of the current law/wording is not clear in terms of when the lineout ends?

 

[Rich_NL]

What bit of the current law/wording is not clear in terms of when the lineout ends?

It would help if it even started with a useful definition of what is meant by the lineout. It's currently not much better than "a lineout is a set piece for throwing in. Called a lineout. Good luck". In fact, it only covers players *waiting to receive the ball". It's worse than useless.

Hence all the discussion about peeling, when is the lineout formed, how far out is still in the lineout, what counts as leaving the lineout, etc.

Once you've properly established what "the lineout" is, you can decide whether the ball has left it.