Stepping out of the Lineout.

[Taff]

I'm having a bit of a brain fart here. Can someone please give me the link the WR clarification regarding players stepping away from the LO in an attempt not to form a maul.

I have seen it recently. Do you think I can find it now that I need it? :redface:

 

[Phil E]

Let me just put this out ready for Crossref............

 

[crossref]

Let me just put this out ready for Crossref............

Phil can have a pop at my soap box, but he can't helpfully give you a link to the guidance, because the guidance hasn't been published anywhere has it? it was just an email cascade, wasn't it?


Here's a previous thread, which quotes the wording, and in which we discuss the incorrect use of the phrase 'attacking team' and whether or not that's important, given we all can work out what they really meant.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19342-Lineout-contrived-offence&highlight=accidental+offside

obviously taff, if anyone challenges you on your reffing of this scenario, you can point them to rugbyrefs.com for the definitive answer :tongue:

 

[Taff]

Thanks Crossref. That's where I'd seen it. Strange that it's marked as a "clarification" but it isn't in the clarification section of WR's website, even though it's one that most of us will come across (and can easily get caught out by) regularly.

IRB (sic) clarification from September 2014

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

• if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, PK to attacking team;

• if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and creating space and not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
- if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to use it which they must do immediately...

- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction.

 

[crossref]

Who knows what authority that has now, the more time passes the less authority it must have. I wonder if it was cascaded outside England.
If you google you can find people have loaded up a copy of a memo from the RFU with this text, but I haven't found it with the irb logo or any other union

 

[Chris_j]

I'm having a bit of a brain fart here. Can someone please give me the link the WR clarification regarding players stepping away from the LO in an attempt not to form a maul.

I have seen it recently. Do you think I can find it now that I need it? :redface:

It was never a full clarification. Came out of a WR reaction to the tactics first introduced in the 2014 U21 World Cup. Seems to have been adopted widely and not only by the RFU

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/22/2015 Laws/Game Management Guidelines 2015.pdf


http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

 

[thepercy]

So way off topic, but just started reading Aussie GMG ^^^ and...

• Double crutch binding by locks, and crutch binding on props by flankers is illegal (PK).

What does this prohibit?

 

[crossref]

It was never a full clarification. Came out of a WR reaction to the tactics first introduced in the 2014 U21 World Cup. Seems to have been adopted widely and not only by the RFU

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/22/2015 Laws/Game Management Guidelines 2015.pdf


http://www.arra.org.nz/maul-clarification-no-contest-offered/

Interesting that both the Australian RU and the Auckland Referee Association made some changes to the wording.

 

[Pegleg]

There is a clear reason why the "clarification" was issued.

The speed with which the ball is caught in the Line out, the coming back to ground, the forming of the maul (or not) and the handing of the ball back happens so quickly it is very difficult for the side in possession to realise that no maul has formed in that split second.

So the IRB / WR wanted us to show a little empathy or feel for the game and grab the "gottcha" Penalty. So we tell the ball carrying side that there is no maul and the get the ball away and to not advance when the "offside" would become penaliseable.

Read this in context with the Offside in general play ( I know this is offside in the line out!) where a player in an offside position is NOT penalised unless he does certain things. If he makes his offside MATERIAL (if you like) SO too here. Get the ball away and there is no real material effect so play on. Fail to listen and we deal.

We have people on here not wanting Free kicks for numbers offences when a side can count (unless the throwing in side arrives late) remember we give time to adjust! Yet here where the side has so little time to see they are "illegal" people want the PK againt the ball carrying side for obstruction / offside, OR a PK against the non ball carrying side for not forming a maul (Yet there is no offence of not doing what your opponents want or expect.) for "contriving an offence.

 

[crossref]

pegleg I don't think this advice is unpopular, I think it was well received.

what's wrong is that the IRB haven't published it anywhere -- it should be a
Law Application Guideline, in this section here http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

then everyone would be able to find it, we'd have the same wording in every location, and perhaps more consitently applied

 

[Phil E]

So way off topic, but just started reading Aussie GMG ^^^ and...

• Double crutch binding by locks, and crutch binding on props by flankers is illegal (PK).

What does this prohibit?

erm.........at the risk of being flippant...

It Prohibits:

1. Double crutch binding by locks
2. crutch binding on props by flankers

 

[Camquin]

Given the amount of notice referees take of of the other posts there, surely that would mean it nobody paid it any heed.

The correct thing surely is to issue a new version of the law book every year - actually including the clarifications and guidance,rather than just changing the date and the pictures.

 

[Phil E]

Given the amount of notice referees take of of the other posts there, surely that would mean it nobody paid it any heed.

The correct thing surely is to issue a new version of the law book every year - actually including the clarifications and guidance,rather than just changing the date and the pictures.

They do issue a new book every year, and it has light green highlighted sections for changes and updates.
Clarifications are periodically incorporated into the law book.

 

[crossref]

I'd rather have it on-line than in a book, and I'd like the on-line site to be optimised for mobile. Best of all in an app.

At the very least I'd wish they'd give us a PDF that was legible on a phone. that would be a start.

 

[FlipFlop]

• Double crutch binding by locks, and crutch binding on props by flankers is illegal (PK).

Prevents a flanker binding to the prop in the same way a lock does, i.e. between the legs. It is a power bind, and is illegal (flankers must bind to 2nd rows).
Also prevents Locks binding to Hooker in the same way. Again about power. Illegal for the same reason - locks need to be bound to locks.

 

[RobLev]

There is a clear reason why the "clarification" was issued.

The speed with which the ball is caught in the Line out, the coming back to ground, the forming of the maul (or not) and the handing of the ball back happens so quickly it is very difficult for the side in possession to realise that no maul has formed in that split second.

So the IRB / WR wanted us to show a little empathy or feel for the game and grab the "gottcha" Penalty. So we tell the ball carrying side that there is no maul and the get the ball away and to not advance when the "offside" would become penaliseable.

Read this in context with the Offside in general play ( I know this is offside in the line out!) where a player in an offside position is NOT penalised unless he does certain things. If he makes his offside MATERIAL (if you like) SO too here. Get the ball away and there is no real material effect so play on. Fail to listen and we deal.

We have people on here not wanting Free kicks for numbers offences when a side can count (unless the throwing in side arrives late) remember we give time to adjust! Yet here where the side has so little time to see they are "illegal" people want the PK againt the ball carrying side for obstruction / offside, OR a PK against the non ball carrying side for not forming a maul (Yet there is no offence of not doing what your opponents want or expect.) for "contriving an offence.

My objection to the clarification was that it is not "very difficult for the side in possession to realise that no maul has formed in that split second"; or, better perhaps, that that is not the issue. The side in possession doesn't actually care about when or whether the maul has formed when they pass the ball back, because they don't take their timing from that. They take their timing from the arrival of the catcher on the ground. If they do that - and it is impossible to argue to the contrary - they take the risk that the defending side won't try to tackle the catcher. They might get lucky and avoid being offside or obstructing ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but the hundredth isn't a gotcha penalty, it's a penalty that results because they are carrying out a move that is illegal as conceived; and is only legal as executed if the opposition co-operate.

Why you believe that the protection afforded to the hindmost player and scrum-half by the mass of bodies obstructing potential tacklers from the opposition line-out is not material, I don't know. Can you explain that?

 

[Taff]

... Double crutch binding by locks, and crutch binding on props by flankers is illegal (PK). What does this prohibit?

It's not "prohibiting" something - it's ensuring that the 2nd Rows and Flankers comply with a specific law that all non-FR players must be bound onto a 2nd Row with at least 1 full arm.

 

[Dixie]

So way off topic, but just started reading Aussie GMG ^^^ and...

• Double crutch binding by locks, and crutch binding on props by flankers is illegal (PK).

What does this prohibit?

It's not "prohibiting" something - it's ensuring that the 2nd Rows and Flankers comply with a specific law that all non-FR players must be bound onto a 2nd Row with at least 1 full arm.

- and that a bind involves that arm grabbing the Lock above the waist. Note that the only reason a Lock can "bind" to a prop in this way is because he is using his free arm to do so - i.e. the arm that isn't complying with the binding obligations of law 20.3.

It's unhelpful guidance, because it implies that a crutch might reasonably be found on the field of play for a player to bind onto. I suggest that any referees encountering any player in possession of a crutch on the FoP after kick-off should remove them both - player and crutch. If, however, the referee finds his attention drawn to any of the 30 crotches on the person of the players, best practice is not to draw further attention to them in any way.

 

[Pegleg]

My objection to the clarification was that it is not "very difficult for the side in possession to realise that no maul has formed in that split second"; or, better perhaps, that that is not the issue. The side in possession doesn't actually care about when or whether the maul has formed when they pass the ball back, because they don't take their timing from that. They take their timing from the arrival of the catcher on the ground. If they do that - and it is impossible to argue to the contrary - they take the risk that the defending side won't try to tackle the catcher. They might get lucky and avoid being offside or obstructing ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but the hundredth isn't a gotcha penalty, it's a penalty that results because they are carrying out a move that is illegal as conceived; and is only legal as executed if the opposition co-operate.

If your a ref that wants to play "Gotcha" then good luck to you. They bind immediately so that a maul is formed (yes with opposition cooperation - Are not they all?). If they don't they get tackled. It seems to me you are looking for reasons to blow your whistle.

Why you believe that the protection afforded to the hindmost player and scrum-half by the mass of bodies obstructing potential tacklers from the opposition line-out is not material, I don't know. Can you explain that?

If they get the ball away as soon as asked then there is very little material in it. even if they do not bind on there is still a wall of players blocking the non ball carrying side. Are you suggesting we ping them for obstruction?

 

[Pegleg]

pegleg I don't think this advice is unpopular, I think it was well received.

what's wrong is that the IRB haven't published it anywhere -- it should be a
Law Application Guideline, in this section here http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

then everyone would be able to find it, we'd have the same wording in every location, and perhaps more consitently applied

Totally agree with your paragraph 2. Cleary, some of the posts show that this clarification is far from well recieved.