Stepping out of the Lineout.

[RobLev]

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.

One, i'm not a referee. Two, my whole point is that it isn't a gotcha penalty. The attacking side is, by design, acting illegally. They are, as soon as the catcher reaches the ground, binding on and passing the ball to the back of the proto-maul, irrespective of whether there is actually a maul. It's not "mistiming"; it's not "a misjudgment". It is a deliberate act, which relies upon the other side rendering their illegal actions legal. If they keyed the binding etc from the moment that the opposition engaged, then that's fine - but they don't. Why? Because timing it the way they do gives them an unfair advantage in any maul that follows, because they are (illegally) formed up and ready to go when their opposition isn't.

If they get the ball away as soon as asked then there is very little material in it.

If they get the ball away as soon as it reaches the back, maybe possibly - but if they have to be asked to use 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?

No, because if they don't bind on they're not actually acting illegally. If, however, they stand there with arms linked preventing access through the line, I'd have thought you'd think about it. Wouldn't you?

 

[OB..]

I would like to see the onus on getting it right placed squarely on the team wanting to form a driving maul. I would like to see the defenders given a realistic choice of actions. At present we seem to have neither.

 

[Pegleg]

One, i'm not a referee. Two, my whole point is that it isn't a gotcha penalty. The attacking side is, by design, acting illegally. They are, as soon as the catcher reaches the ground, binding on and passing the ball to the back of the proto-maul, irrespective of whether there is actually a maul. It's not "mistiming"; it's not "a misjudgment". It is a deliberate act, which relies upon the other side rendering their illegal actions legal. If they keyed the binding etc from the moment that the opposition engaged, then that's fine - but they don't. Why? Because timing it the way they do gives them an unfair advantage in any maul that follows, because they are (illegally) formed up and ready to go when their opposition isn't.



If they get the ball away as soon as it reaches the back, maybe possibly - but if they have to be asked to use it...

No, because if they don't bind on they're not actually acting illegally. If, however, they stand there with arms linked preventing access through the line, I'd have thought you'd think about it. Wouldn't you?

For God's sake of course I think about it. Do you? Rugby is a dynamic game split second timing is all around. THe referee has to make sense of it all without pinging all the time. So the ball comes down and is transfered but no bind is made we (again with split second timing) call "use it" / "no maul" or similar. and the game goes on. IF they don't we will deal with it.

Thankfully, on this occasion, WR have more of a feel for the game than you.

 

[Wedgie]

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.

World Rugby have the Law Book in an app on Apple's App Store - works well on the iPhone. I would check if it was on Android Google Play, but #1 son is back from Uni and everything that is not nailed down in the house is either missing or out of charge. I had to go to the supermarket this morning to get milk before I could have as cup of tea.... [/RANT OFF]

 

[OB..]

So the ball comes down and is transfered but no bind is made we (again with split second timing) call "use it" / "no maul" or similar. and the game goes on.

If the defenders bind, then I have no problem with the exact timing - they have to be pretty quick to be effective, and a maul gets formed.

What if the timing is obvious? Defenders stand clear and the ball is transferred nonetheless. Clearly no maul. WR has decided to undermine this type of defence.

 

[crossref]

World Rugby have the Law Book in an app on Apple's App Store - works well on the iPhone. I would check if it was on Android Google Play, but #1 son is back from Uni and everything that is not nailed down in the house is either missing or out of charge. I had to go to the supermarket this morning to get milk before I could have as cup of tea.... [/RANT OFF]

it's not on android (the world's most popular smartphone platform).

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

everything that is not nailed down in the house is either missing or out of charge. I had to go to the supermarket this morning to get milk before I could have as cup of tea.... [/RANT OFF]

Welcome to my World......

View attachment 3378

 

[ChrisR]

As I've posted before I truly dislike the solution proposed by WR. However, as a coach, there is an answer to the non-maul:

Simply delay passing the ball back from the catcher until the opponents engage. Which they will if the lifters bind and the trio advances. Now, the opps may tackle the catcher as a BC but if they don't bring him to ground quickly then a maul will have formed.

 

[crossref]

As I've posted before I truly dislike the solution proposed by WR. However, as a coach, there is an answer to the non-maul:

Simply delay passing the ball back from the catcher until the opponents engage. Which they will if the lifters bind and the trio advances. Now, the opps may tackle the catcher as a BC but if they don't bring him to ground quickly then a maul will have formed.

that's not an 'answer', it's exactly what WR want you to do (either that or pass the ball out and way)

it reminds me of that slogan "beat the unfair plastic bag tax! take your own bag!"

 

[Pegleg]

If the defenders bind, then I have no problem with the exact timing - they have to be pretty quick to be effective, and a maul gets formed.

What if the timing is obvious? Defenders stand clear and the ball is transferred nonetheless. Clearly no maul. WR has decided to undermine this type of defence.

So the ref shouts "Use it" or "No maul" and works from there. It really is very simple.

 

[OB..]

So the ref shouts "Use it" or "No maul" and works from there. It really is very simple.

My objection is that the attacking team are allowed to get away with a clear bit of obstruction. by calling it "accidental" offside. That means they don't have to bother to get the timing anywhere near right.

 

[Pegleg]

Of course they do. OK it is only a Scrum but they lose their possession. It's deemed accidental because of the timing issue. If it is handed down before the jumper lands it is still a PK.

 

[ChrisR]

If it is handed down before the jumper lands it is still a PK.

Please explain.

 

[OB..]

Of course they do. OK it is only a Scrum but they lose their possession. It's deemed accidental because of the timing issue. If it is handed down before the jumper lands it is still a PK.

But I postulated the case where there is no timing issue - the case where the defenders make it clear they do not intend to form a maul.

 

[RobLev]

Of course they do. OK it is only a Scrum but they lose their possession. It's deemed accidental because of the timing issue. If it is handed down before the jumper lands it is still a PK.

One reason I'm not keen on watching soccer is because of the continual low-level cheating which is allowed to happen because "that's the way the game is played nowadays".

The way that you advocate the line-out be played and refereed, in this respect, grates on exactly the same spot. It is deliberate cheating by the side with the throw, which they get away with most of the time. I see no reason why when they don't cheat well enough they should be let off with a scrum at the spot of the offence, rather than defending a line-out 30m closer to their own line. It's not accidental - the "timing issue" is entirely deliberate, and is deliberately cheating.

 

[Chris_j]

About the time this came out I was sent to a level 7 v level 9 seconds. L7 didn't have a first team game and the backs were almost to a man first team. They didn't have a front row so started with uncontested scrums. L9 have only one style of play "stick it up yer jumper" as most other teams in former mining villages do.

First lineout l7 stepped sideways and called as one for the no maul. To avoid a blood bath I suggested to the l9 team that if any line out player from the oppo got "bound in" at a lineout then maul formed. Ignored a bit of through the line pulling in and got a good game out of the potential nightmare. L7 won but L9 stayed in the game. Most happy at the end for a good run out.

 

[Phil E]

Isn't it called an accidental offside because in this situation the players at the back of the non-maul can't tell if the defenders have engaged the maul or not?
There is an intention to maul the ball, it is not a deliberate tactic to obstruct. So give them the benefit of the doubt and give give them a chance to use it.

 

[RobLev]

Isn't it called an accidental offside because in this situation the players at the back of the non-maul can't tell if the defenders have engaged the maul or not?
There is an intention to maul the ball, it is not a deliberate tactic to obstruct. So give them the benefit of the doubt and give give them a chance to use it.

It's not the players at the back of the "maul" who are offside; it's the players at the front who've passed the ball back knowing, of course, that the defenders haven't engaged.

Quite apart from the fact that if you know an act is illegal unless certain conditions are met, you cannot justifiably complain when penalised that you didn't know they weren't met.

 

[RobLev]

It's not the players at the back of the "maul" who are offside; it's the players at the front who've passed the ball back knowing, of course, that the defenders haven't engaged.

Quite apart from the fact that if you know an act is illegal unless certain conditions are met, you cannot justifiably complain when penalised that you didn't know they weren't met.

Remember also that, even if they keep the ball at the front, if they drive forward bound together without the defenders engaging that is illegal as a flying wedge.

 

[ddjamo]

Quoting himself......