The soccer style wall

[RugbyDoc]

Not seen this in rugby since the 1970's. at U13 national cup one side form a line with ball carrier in middle facing away from opposition then two runners cross behind with one taking the ball to confuse other team . Don't ask me why the other team didn't run up to wall and try and compete for ball be I think it took them by surprise . I felt that if they had competed for the ball then the ref would've pinged for obstruction but without trying to attack this wall then play continued

 

[crossref]

I have seen this sort of wheeze at U12 and U13.

to me it's all about the coaches showing how clever they are : look at me! I can devise a move so clever it confuses, um, thirteen year old opponents.

yes, well.

 

[davidgh]

This crops up from time to time in Surrey Minis. Needs pinging the minute it appears.

No need for an attack for it to be obstruction. The minute the ball goes behind the wall - ping

 

[Taff]

... Needs pinging the minute it appears. No need for an attack for it to be obstruction. The minute the ball goes behind the wall - ping

So turning your back to an opponent is against the law?

Law reference?

 

[Dixie]

This crops up from time to time in Surrey Minis. Needs pinging the minute it appears.

No need for an attack for it to be obstruction. The minute the ball goes behind the wall - ping

Drivel!

Ruck. Ball emerges from the rear. Immediately ping the obstructing ex-ruckers? I think not.

 

[Simon Thomas]

for many seasons now the soccer wall described, and I remember from the 70s and 80s has not been allowed by the CB in Hampshire in any Youth matches and guidance was issued accordingly - not sure how recently ? (Jenks you recall seeing anything ?)
Maybe 10 or so seasons ago an U16 - 15 ? ish player in such a wall was badly injured by a defender running into his turned back with a dropped shoulder.

I would advise any of our Society or Club referees in Hampshire to blow immediately if such a wall is formed, quick quiet word with coaches, and get the PK / FK taken properly.

Justified purely on duty of care, health & safety, and child welfare grounds but if anyone really wanbted a Law reference I would use obstruction in open play.

 

[Dixie]

if anyone really wanted a Law reference I would use obstruction in open play.

OK - let's try that.

[LAWS]law 11 Definitions: As the match progresses players may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be
penalised until they become onside again.

In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.

Law 11.1: (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised. [/LAWS]

Prior to the tap, the wall is onside. As the ball disappears behind the wall, they become offside. The oppo, meanwhile, is still 8m away. Can we really call that the wall is interfering with play? Because it certainly isn't subject to the 10m law or moving forward towards the ball. If we ping this, then of course we need to ping the miss-pass that travels behind the dummy runner. We must be consistent - this is, after all, how the miss-pass was reffed in the 1970's, though the norms appear to have changed now.

[LAWS](b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.[/LAWS]

Obstruction requires not only that an opponent is there to be obstructed, but also (contrary to davidgh's earlier post) that he actually is obstructed. If merely being ahead of the ball is problematic, all forwards are to be pinged as soon as scrums, rucks or mauls end with a backs move. We must be consistent here.

So this is not capable of being reffed in isolation; adopt this line and you need to sacrifice either perfectly normal and universally-accepted tactics as illegitimate, or else sacrifice your reputation for consistent refereeing.

 

[TheBFG]

Simon, I can't remember a time when i've disagreed with you, but as Dixie said "drivel"

Banning that is like banning a lot of backs moves which invlove dummy runners.

If anything a "memo" should have gone out telling coaches their players need to tackle correctly, i.e. no shoulder charges!!!! :norc:

 

[OB..]

So this is not capable of being reffed in isolation; adopt this line and you need to sacrifice either perfectly normal and universally-accepted tactics as illegitimate, or else sacrifice your reputation for consistent refereeing.

Like letting the scrum half dig the ball out of a ruck, or a player release the ball forward to kick it?

 

[Decorily]

OK - let's try that.

[LAWS](b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.[/LAWS]

Dixie, ....."must not take part in the game"............

Would you not consider the players in the wall to be taking part in the game given that the move to use them to hide the ball carrier/ ball/play was planned and is definately material to the outcome?

 

[Dixie]

OK - let's try that.

[LAWS](b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.[/LAWS]

Dixie, ....."must not take part in the game"............

Would you not consider the players in the wall to be taking part in the game given that the move to use them to hide the ball carrier/ ball/play was planned and is definately material to the outcome?

Only if I were prepared also to accept that a miss-move in the backs, where the ball goes behind the dummy runner, is subject to the same rules only worse, the dummy being much closer to the opposition.

 

[Decorily]

Surely you are not comparing like with like. An accidental 'miss-move' is one thing but a preplanned move to confuse the oppo and gain an advantage is something else entirely.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Simon, I can't remember a time when i've disagreed with you, but as Dixie said "drivel"

Banning that is like banning a lot of backs moves which invlove dummy runners.

If anything a "memo" should have gone out telling coaches their players need to tackle correctly, i.e. no shoulder charges!!!! :norc:

BFG - not my decision so you are not disagreeing with me. It was the CB who issued the guidance and I am following their safety / duty of care / child welfare advice.

I vaguely recall a debate at the time that it was mostly club referees involved and so it needed strict guidance. One point I know we did discuss is exactly what you said about the correct tackle not a shoulder charge, and so it should be pinged, but that CB wanted preventative not after the event. The injury was very serious (badly bruised kidney I think) and caused a lot of trouble for the CB at Youth levels from the parents and player's club - it may even have been the CB Youth Committee that proposed the guidance.

In adult rugby not a problem - but a tactic that disappeared around the same time as a laced leather ball. Dixie will remember those, as he caught one now and again out on the wing.

 

[Dixie]

a tactic that disappeared around the same time as a laced leather ball. Dixie will remember those, as he caught one now and again out on the wing.

Dropped every one! I blame the dubbin.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Dropped every one! I blame the dubbin.

now you mention it - I had forgotten about that.

It used to be a prefects' detention award at school - dubbin the 1st XV match balls. Hands used to stink for days afterwards.

 

[RobLev]

Only if I were prepared also to accept that a miss-move in the backs, where the ball goes behind the dummy runner, is subject to the same rules only worse, the dummy being much closer to the opposition.

I tend to follow the Shankly view of claims that players are not offside because they aren't intefering with play; if they aren't interfering with play, what are they doing on the pitch.

Why do you see a dummy runner, whose fnction is to not take a pass while fooling the opposition into believing he is, and who incidentally ends up between the opposition and the ball for a fraction of a second, as more liable to penalty than the players standing in a wall of which the two apparent functions are to (i) hide from the opposition where the ball is going (not fool them with the ball in plain sight, as in a miss-pass) and (ii) to get in the way of any attempt to get to the ball carrier?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Hands used to stink for days afterwards.

As they did after most of the tasks the Prefects got you to do!

 

[crossref]

one reason why this tactic is effective at U12s is that it surprises and confuses the opposition.

the other reason can be that it surprises and confuses the referee. An U12 game is likely reffed by a dad. some of the dads will be very experience society refs (just yesterday I saw a Level 10 LSRFUR ref doing an U12 game), but others will be dads who took up the whistle very recently, have done their ELRA 2, but haven't reffed anywhere near the 100 games (or whatever) that it takes for you to have seen most things and cease being routinely surprised.

 

[Browner]

So we're clear then. It's not illegal, it's a local CB guidance - that operates beyond LoTG. I'm sure we see similar in tournaments ....example = 'no hand offs' at U13 despite Law allowing them. My personal view is the CB shouldn't get involved, if it's such an issue they should campaign to have it covered in ELRA or the RFU to endorse their concerns inside Age Grade RFU regulations. Local changes aren't the way forward, I've seen neighbouring CB's have different rules on the same subject, & it causes mass confusion for cross border matches

 

[Browner]

So we're clear then. It's not illegal, it's a local CB guidance - that operates beyond LoTG. I'm sure we see similar in tournaments ....example = 'no hand offs' at U13 despite Law allowing them. My personal view is the CB shouldn't get involved, if it's such an issue they should campaign to have it covered in ELRA or the RFU to endorse their concerns inside Age Grade RFU regulations. Local changes aren't the way forward, I've seen neighbouring CB's have different rules on the same subject, & it causes mass confusion for cross border matches

If the RFU ruled that no person could referee 'contact matches' unless he was ELRA, then there you have your control point. Clubs would follow suit, with the added benefit of more 'dads' starting off on the proper-ref bottom rung of the ladder. win win me thinks ?