[Law] Spot the error?

[didds]

I could be very wrong but I think I spotted a glaring error in this chap's article?

https://sport500.co.uk/if-referees-...lready-in-place-rugby-would-be-a-better-game/

As in Launchbury doesn't have to be bound on, as he is caught in the maul and thus is legal.


didds

 

[Phil E]

Yes your right.
A player can be caught in the middle of a maul (usually the 2nd row directing the traffic or trying to reach the ball carrier with both hands). In those circumstances he doesn't need to bind in the conventional way.

 

[didds]

cheers Phil for the confirmation.

A bit worrying then that such a basic point was not understood by "President of the RFU for the 2013-14 season, having been a member of the RFU Council for 20 years. He coached England age-group teams for more than a decade and had a couple of stints coaching Bristol Rugby "

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Important point here. Not being bound in doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of causing an obstruction if he was the winner of the ball in the first place!

As likely winner of the ball in the line out, and if subsequently caught up in a maul, should he choose to pass/feed that ball back through the maul, as the laws allow, he can hardly be bound at the same time he initiates the move. Unless he is Doc Ock, of course!

As such it can't subsequently be obstruction anyway!

Only obstruction offences that can generally arise are for an uncontested lineout (no maul) being primary obstruction, which is an obvious risk, i.e. a ball being passed back directly to a supporting player or as we have also seen, players binding to their own player trying to protect access to the ball which itself is obstruction, as defending players are forced to come round to play the ball!

 

[VM75]

It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout :shrug:. Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

Any thoughts ?

 

[menace]

It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout :shrug:. Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

Any thoughts ?

To ensure that the forward pack controls the set piece so a smarmy shitty back that feels they have to be involved in everything doesn't screw up the maul formation?

P.S - watch Brumbies rolling mauls from the past 3 seasons and the success of conversion....that's why. :wink:

 

[Ian_Cook]

I could be very wrong but I think I spotted a glaring error in this chap's article?

https://sport500.co.uk/if-referees-...lready-in-place-rugby-would-be-a-better-game/

As in Launchbury doesn't have to be bound on, as he is caught in the maul and thus is legal.


didds

While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.

 

[ChrisR]

It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout :shrug:. Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

Any thoughts ?

I agree that it's a risk to possession but lineouts are pretty secure and if you lose it on the ops 5m they are under such pressure that they'll likely give it straight back to you.

The positive aspect of the LO is as a base for structured variety although (yawn) most end up as mauls. It is a high percentage play.

 

[didds]

While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.

then why single out Launchbury in a lineout? This is true of any maul. I apprecite that deliberate midfield mauls are rarely set thgese days (CF Launchbury v Italy, early 2nd half !" LOL)

I don;t disagree with Ian;'s points generally... but this is hardly new .

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.

.......but he can't just "wish away" the laws because it drives different behaviour based on your whereabouts on the pitch.

 

[ChuckieB]

I did see an instance in one of yesterday's super rugby games of the player handing it over the top of, rather than back through, the bodies to the person bound at the back. He was penalised?