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.