Scotland's first try

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,458
Post Likes
1,754
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Getting into a language argument with OB, this is going to be fun ?‍?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,943
Post Likes
1,807
sigh, ob- another one for you to look up!

The law says a player may "leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball,"

what does that mean?

it means with the intention to.
(and no it's NOT legalese! it's natural english)

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/so+as+to


or - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/so-as
or https://7esl.com/so-as-to
or really, any dictionary of your choice
So you are saying that if the ball is not passed to him, he becomes illegal?

Suppose the catcher is unable to make a clean catch and pass, but only just manages to knock the ball back to the scrum half. Is the peeler then illegal?

You are over reading the provision. It does not say "so as to receive the ball". And it is NOT written in legalese.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
So you are saying that if the ball is not passed to him, he becomes illegal?

Suppose the catcher is unable to make a clean catch and pass, but only just manages to knock the ball back to the scrum half. Is the peeler then illegal?

You are over reading the provision. It does not say "so as to receive the ball". And it is NOT written in legalese.
It just means what it says, with intention of receiving it. Of course he may not get it

Otherwise what is to stop all seven players stepping 2m out of the line out ?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,943
Post Likes
1,807
It just means what it says, with intention of receiving it. Of course he may not get it

Otherwise what is to stop all seven players stepping 2m out of the line out ?
Then there wouldn't be anyone left to catch the ball!

The law says nothing about intention, nor is intention a necessary interpretation.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
Then there wouldn't be anyone left to catch the ball!

The law says nothing about intention, nor is intention a necessary interpretation.
but OB, on the contrary,the Law specifically mentions intention "So as to"

see post above --

 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,943
Post Likes
1,807
but OB, on the contrary,the Law specifically mentions intention "So as to"

see post above --

Intention to be in a position to catch the ball. In other words it limits quite where he can go. It is NOT the same as implying he MUST be used to catch the ball (if possible).
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
Intention to be in a position to catch the ball. In other words it limits quite where he can go. It is NOT the same as implying he MUST be used to catch the ball (if possible).
Ok, so we agree the law DOES refer to intention. Good. (No apology necessary ?)

In the case of the Scotland try, this was a (rather clever) planned move. So we happen to know the players intention

He didn't leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball

He left the lineout so as to be in a position to smack into the back of the flying wedgy thing ...
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
130
Post Likes
34
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
If we accept that the ball was not transferred back prior to contact (which is the way I see it) then in my opinion the move was legal. The lineout had not ended as the ball was passed from the jumper to another player still in the lineout and then should be treated as any other attempt to form a maul.
The definition of a flying wedge says it occurs from a penalty, free kick or open play.....this scenario fits none of those.
It was still a lineout and an attempt to form a maul with the ball at the front and the ball carrier tackelable.
Its still a flying wedge - aside from the belief apparently amongst the lawmakers that it can only ever happen at a FK/PK apparently - presumably becasue only then is it dangerous for sopme bizarre reason

I appreciate I am in a minority of one here.

Having read the whole thread, watched to video several times, checked the laws, GLTs and definitions, I am of the opinion it was a flying wedge (though more trundling than flying).

The GLT page describes the FW as a "three person pre-bound mini-scrum", which is what we have here. Here is the definition

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

For me "which usually happens" provides guidance and context, but is not defining or limiting; therefore a FW may also occur in other circumstances. The middle sentence is the only part of the definition that is important IMHO, and accurately describes what Scotland did in the OP.

I suppose there is room for differing interpretation of the definition depending on how you interpret the commas in the first sentence...
- An illegal type of attack either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play, which usually happens near the goal line.
- An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play.
Which part of the sentence is critical and which superfluous? If you want to take the first interpretation, then we come back to the discussion as to whether the lineout was over and it was open play at the moment that the first defender engaged the ball carrier... I think contact was made about 3-4 meters from the goal line, with the ball carrier having gone beyond the line of the defenders in the lineout, therefore he has left the lineout and it is open play. The FW may have been formed within the lineout (up for debate), but it had then moved into open play at the point that the first defender engaged the ball carrier (in my opinion).

Although this is more a trundling wedge than a flying wedge, I agree with the points made by @Jarrod Burton that the best/only way to stop this is to tackle the ball carrier low (which I think is legal since a maul has not yet formed), but then you've created something similar to a collapsed maul which I think we all agree is dangerous, and a reason why this should not be allowed.
 
Last edited:

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
130
Post Likes
34
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
1642597200442.png

This is when the flying wedge hit the first defender... I don't see how anyone can say the lineout is not over... this is clearly open play, therefore the definition of the flying wedge can be applied following any reasonable interpretation of the FW definition.
 
Top