Stepping out of the Lineout.

[ddjamo]

Quoting himself......

Yes, I see that

 

[RobLev]

Yes, I see that

Ésprit d'escaliers.

 

[OB..]

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.

The decision to move the ball back is taken by the catcher, not the players at the back.

 

[RobLev]

What I dislike about the "clarification":

[LAWS]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;[/LAWS]

The relevant law is 19.14(e)

[LAWS]No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.[/LAWS]

If this applies to defenders leaving the lineout to avoid engaging in a mual, it must, in equity, equally apply to players from the team in possession who leave the lineout to bind onto the catcher. the "peeling-off" exception does not apply to them.

[LAWS]• 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);[/LAWS]

But trundling off downfield even with the ball at the front is defined as dangerous play as a flying wedge; Law 10.4(p). The reference in that Law to it often happening at a PK or FK close to the opponents goal-line is descriptive only. The danger comes from trying to tackle the front player of a formation; it matters not what led to that formation's existence.

[LAWS]- 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.[/LAWS]

The offside is not accidental. The players who are offside knew exactly what they were doing when they placed themselves in an offside position.

 

[OB..]

Roblev - I agree.

Moreover on 19.14 (e), the law allows players to change places in the lineout (19.8 (k)), which means one of them has to step sideways. 19.8 says they must keep the 1m gap, so he has to step out of the lineout, yet a similar movement in avoiding forming a maul is deemed a penalty offence.

 

[Pegleg]

Leaving the line out is very different to changing position. We also allow players to peel. The difference should be very obvious.

 

[RobLev]

Leaving the line out is very different to changing position. We also allow players to peel. The difference should be very obvious.

We allow players to peel "to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate". The difference between that and leaving the lineout to form a flying wedge should be very obvious.

 

[Pegleg]

Noone is leaving to form a flying wedge. If your going to try and be clever get the basics right.

Wast of time continuing this thread I'm out. Sorry if you consider this rude but when people will not discuss fact by make stuff up it really is tiresome.

 

[RobLev]

Noone is leaving to form a flying wedge. If your going to try and be clever get the basics right.

Wast of time continuing this thread I'm out. Sorry if you consider this rude but when people will not discuss fact by make stuff up it really is tiresome.

OK. Humour me. Why is the rest of the lineout binding onto the ball-carrier and then the whole formation advancing not forming a flying wedge?

Alternatively, explain how lineout players leaving the lineout to bind onto the catcher, with no intention of taking the ball themselves, fits the definition of peeling?

Note that I'm not calling a huff and leaving in it, or accusing you of making stuff up by describing their action as peeling.

 

[OB..]

Leaving the line out is very different to changing position. We also allow players to peel. The difference should be very obvious.

The point is that what constitutes leaving the lineout in not defined. WR have decided that any move from the original straight line must be construed as leaving the lineout. I find that a bad idea, because it unbalances attack and defence.

 

[RobLev]

OK. Humour me. Why is the rest of the lineout binding onto the ball-carrier and then the whole formation advancing not forming a flying wedge?

Alternatively, explain how lineout players leaving the lineout to bind onto the catcher, with no intention of taking the ball themselves, fits the definition of peeling?

Note that I'm not calling a huff and leaving in it, or accusing you of making stuff up by describing their action as peeling.

Pegleg appears to have kept his word and refused to take this any further. Can anyone else explain why this isn't a flying wedge? See my first para above and my previous comment:

But trundling off downfield even with the ball at the front is defined as dangerous play as a flying wedge; Law 10.4(p). The reference in that Law to it often happening at a PK or FK close to the opponents goal-line is descriptive only. The danger comes from trying to tackle the front player of a formation; it matters not what led to that formation's existence.

which I hope explain why I think it is.

 

[thepercy]

Pegleg appears to have kept his word and refused to take this any further. Can anyone else explain why this isn't a flying wedge? See my first para above and my previous comment:



which I hope explain why I think it is.

Ok i'll bite.

Because they are not "flying". Presumably Non-flying wedges are not dangerous and nor illegal.

Players can peel as dummy runners. Also, forming a maul from a lineout is an accepted part of the way rugby is played.

 

[RobLev]

Ok i'll bite.

Thanks.

Because they are not "flying".

Not yet...

Presumably Non-flying wedges are not dangerous and nor illegal.

Doesn't the danger arise from the fact that while the ball-carrier can be tackled (if tackled low), tackling the ball carrier by the legs at the front of a formation of 800kg+ of forwards, even if it's only trundling, is fraught with exactly the same danger as collapsing a maul?

Players can peel as dummy runners.

Indeed; but players leaving the lineout to bind onto the ball-carrier aren't peeling as dummy runners.

Also, forming a maul from a lineout is an accepted part of the way rugby is played.

True; the defending side have the option of taking their part in forming a maul by grasping the ball-carrier - but there is no compulsion on the defending side to do so. Indeed, if the attackers have got the jump on them by leaving the lineout to bind onto the ball-carrier, there is a significant disincentive to do so.

 

[TigerCraig]

Doesn't the danger arise from the fact that while the ball-carrier can be tackled (if tackled low), tackling the ball carrier by the legs at the front of a formation of 800kg+ of forwards, even if it's only trundling, is fraught with exactly the same danger as collapsing a maul?.

My understanding is that the danger is in the 10m runup the wedge gets at a PK or FK. They don't get this in other phases

 

[RobLev]

My understanding is that the danger is in the 10m runup the wedge gets at a PK or FK. They don't get this in other phases

I've seen this mentioned in other discussions on this forum; but in the specific instance chosen to illustrate the Law - a PK or FK close to the line - the wedge doesn't get anything like a 10m run-up. A PK close to the line is taken 5m out; and the defenders are at the goal-line. The defenders can move once the ball is tapped; and will move faster individually than the wedge, which has to wait for the kicker to turn and bind to him. At best then they get 2-2½m before the defenders get to them, which is no more than at many other phases.

 

[didds]

Indeed; but players leaving the lineout to bind onto the ball-carrier aren't peeling as dummy runners.

and this is nothing new. For the answer as to why this is permitted you'd have to go back at least 50 years to ask trhe refs of yesteryear why its allowed.

Rather like throwing the ball forward to kick it, and scrum halves digging the ball out of rucks with hands, tap tackles which never wrap, and ball carriers running into contact and playing a player without the ball... its presumably merely an accepted convention?

TBH i'm more intrigued as to how/why it took so long for sides to work out this defensive tactic.

Idid suggest it here well before the Italians did it against England... and was told it wouldn;t work ;-)


didds

 

[collybs]

I've seen this mentioned in other discussions on this forum; but in the specific instance chosen to illustrate the Law - a PK or FK close to the line - the wedge doesn't get anything like a 10m run-up. A PK close to the line is taken 5m out; and the defenders are at the goal-line. The defenders can move once the ball is tapped; and will move faster individually than the wedge, which has to wait for the kicker to turn and bind to him. At best then they get 2-2½m before the defenders get to them, which is no more than at many other phases.

But if the attacking side form 3 groups of 4 or 5 players, all of which run up from 15 metres behind the pk taker (who moves the kick back 7 or 8 metres the groups have some speed when they take the pass and even more when they meet the defenders who have to stay behind the line until the kick is taken

 

[crossref]

TBH i'm more intrigued as to how/why it took so long for sides to work out this defensive tactic.

Idid suggest it here well before the Italians did it against England... and was told it wouldn;t work ;-)


didds

you didn't say it in the right voice

my clever idea, which I have described here before to much derision, is to kick a PK (slightly backwards) into touch, directly to a waiting team mate, who takes a QTI to a team mate coming through at great speed.

 

[RobLev]

But if the attacking side form 3 groups of 4 or 5 players, all of which run up from 15 metres behind the pk taker (who moves the kick back 7 or 8 metres the groups have some speed when they take the pass and even more when they meet the defenders who have to stay behind the line until the kick is taken

That combines the best aspects of the flying wedge and the cavalry charge.

 

[RobLev]

Originally posted by Pegleg
Leaving the line out is very different to changing position. We also allow players to peel. The difference should be very obvious.

We allow players to peel "to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate". The difference between that and leaving the lineout to form a flying wedge should be very obvious.

Pegleg has drawn my attention to the fact that I misunderstood his original post as equating the position of peelers to those leaving the lineout to form a "maul"; my misunderstanding was unintentional, but I apologise to him for it, and withdraw my comment above.