U’15s lineout …. In the spirit of the game or not ? ….. how to defend it ??

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
yes - but... IF its called!

And IF it would be. then in essence the inability to not contest a catcher on landing sets up a mexican stand off. the catching team cant bind and drive ... -> flying wedge.

So now the ball ALWAYS has to be passed away... so that doenst help develop mauling.
we can pontificate tyhat that may not be such a bad thing, but Im not concinced removing otherwise standard tacticalk accepted practycies is a good idea.

Others' MMV!

We've had this discussion before in another thread... I'm sticking to my previous position, if following the laws strictly, the ball carrier plus one latcher can initiate the maul (or run through the gap), then when contact is made by defenders everyone can join in.

I do believe the catcher in the lineout should be switched on to keeping hold of the ball and heading up the pitch... for example in OP scenario 2, if the defenders stay in the lineout but move aside to leave a hole, the ball carrier at the front should take advantage.

I also think this relates to a different thread that I created in which a visiting team were leaving the line early, before the hooker threw, and had a 4 man maul pre-bound and ready to drive before the catcher had even come down... I would have penalised it, but the ref on the day let it go.

Related, I left my own team dismayed last week when we won a lineout 5m out, they formed up for a maul and moved the ball to the back and started to trundle, but the defence parted ways and let them go through and over the try line before I even realised what had happened... I brought it back for accidental offside.
 
Last edited:

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Rugbyboot, I don't follow how there can be a hard solid defensive drive and not advancing at the same time.

re 1 remember that he catcher has to return to ground before he can be sacked.

re 2 this is a negative tactic and really I would not do anything until such time as the ball carrying side do something that involves the defenders, so no accidental offside unless the opponents try for example to stop the forward movement. If the ball is at the front they can tackle the ball carrier, if the ball is not at the front they will get accidental offside, but only if they engage.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
155
Post Likes
73
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
We've had this discussion before in another thread... I'm sticking to my previous position, if following the laws strictly, the ball carrier plus one latcher can initiate the maul, then when contact is made by defenders everyone can join in.

I do believe the catcher in the lineout should be switched on to keeping hold of the ball and heading up the pitch... for example in OP scenario 2, if the defenders stay in the lineout but move aside to leave a hole, the ball carrier at the front should take advantage.

I also think this relates to a different thread that I created in which a visiting team were leaving the line early, before the hooker threw, and had a 4 man maul pre-bound and ready to drive before the catcher had even come down... I would have penalised it, but the ref on the day let it go.
Absolutely agree with all of this Stu.

My uncertainty remains though as it’s a slightly different scenario. In that there is no maul (as the defenders are not engaged v we have all seen this happen I’m sure) and the catcher does not hold onto the ball but instead passes it back to a teammate.

Not as referee but I have seen a game last season where the defenders tried this tactic, and won a scrum through accidental offsid. They tried it a second time, and the catcher scored a try😂
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
So I am still not certain that this is right. I am very happy to be proved wrong however, but first follow my logic.

Firstly, there is no maul.
Secondly, there is no lineout because the ball has been passed from the catcher to another player.

Therefore the hooker is not offside as long as, obviously, he waits until the ball is moved and therefore the lineout is over.

I have to say that I am not a fan of this tactic, and especially not at U15, but I can’t get past the two elements of no maul, lineout over.

what am I failing to understand here?
Has the ball left the lineout? I think this is the definition that is unclear here.
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
155
Post Likes
73
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
Has the ball left the lineout? I think this is the definition that is unclear here.
Correct, that is the issue. I would say that it has left the lineout.

Obviously if a maul is formed then the ball being passed to the back does not mean it has left the lineout. But with no maul, I don’t see how it can still be part of the lineout.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,672
Post Likes
1,936
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So I am still not certain that this is right. I am very happy to be proved wrong however, but first follow my logic.

Firstly, there is no maul.
Secondly, there is no lineout because the ball has been passed from the catcher to another player.

Therefore the hooker is not offside as long as, obviously, he waits until the ball is moved and therefore the lineout is over.

I have to say that I am not a fan of this tactic, and especially not at U15, but I can’t get past the two elements of no maul, lineout over.

what am I failing to understand here?

I don't agree there is no lineout.
It's not been passed in the true sense of the word, its been handed to another player who is bound to the first player, both are still at the line of touch. Neither the ball or the player in possession of it have left the lineout.

The lineout ends when :
a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball :
i. leaves the lineout; or
ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or
maul move beyond the mark of touch.
c. The ball becomes unplayable.
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Rugbyboot, I don't follow how there can be a hard solid defensive drive and not advancing at the same time.

re 1 remember that he catcher has to return to ground before he can be sacked.

re 2 this is a negative tactic and really I would not do anything until such time as the ball carrying side do something that involves the defenders, so no accidental offside unless the opponents try for example to stop the forward movement. If the ball is at the front they can tackle the ball carrier, if the ball is not at the front they will get accidental offside, but only if they engage.
If the ball is at the back and they have not yet done something to involve the defenders, at this stage you should be telling them to use is.

 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I don't agree there is no lineout.
It's not been passed in the true sense of the word, its been handed to another player who is bound to the first player, both are still at the line of touch. Neither the ball or the player in possession of it have left the lineout.

The lineout ends when :
a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball :
i. leaves the lineout; or
ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or
maul move beyond the mark of touch.
c. The ball becomes unplayable.

I'm more than happy to go with this simply to avoid things getting stupid!!!
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
155
Post Likes
73
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
I don't agree there is no lineout.
It's not been passed in the true sense of the word, its been handed to another player who is bound to the first player, both are still at the line of touch. Neither the ball or the player in possession of it have left the lineout.

The lineout ends when :
a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball :
i. leaves the lineout; or
ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or
maul move beyond the mark of touch.
c. The ball becomes unplayable.
Well we do seem to be stuck on this one.

I must agree that if the player with the ball, whether the catcher or someone whom he has passed/handed/delivered the ball to, is still on the line of touch, then it is still a lineout. Absolutely.

My question revolves around the scenario whereby the catcher moves the ball to another player who is not on the line of touch, let’s say for arguments sake, the hooker who has joined his team mates in the expectation of forming a maul, whereby the ball is moved as far away from the jumper - and the expected opposition as possible, sometimes a metre or more away from the line of touch.

As a ref I would be very happy to say that this is still a lineout, but I just don’t see that this is supported in the law.
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Absolutely agree with all of this Stu.

My uncertainty remains though as it’s a slightly different scenario. In that there is no maul (as the defenders are not engaged v we have all seen this happen I’m sure) and the catcher does not hold onto the ball but instead passes it back to a teammate.

Not as referee but I have seen a game last season where the defenders tried this tactic, and won a scrum through accidental offsid. They tried it a second time, and the catcher scored a try😂
Apologies @Mipper my post was a reply to @didds regarding a pre-formed maul turning into a flying wedge, but I didn't originally quote him, and some additional posts appeared between to cause confusion.
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Well we do seem to be stuck on this one.

I must agree that if the player with the ball, whether the catcher or someone whom he has passed/handed/delivered the ball to, is still on the line of touch, then it is still a lineout. Absolutely.

My question revolves around the scenario whereby the catcher moves the ball to another player who is not on the line of touch, let’s say for arguments sake, the hooker who has joined his team mates in the expectation of forming a maul, whereby the ball is moved as far away from the jumper - and the expected opposition as possible, sometimes a metre or more away from the line of touch.

As a ref I would be very happy to say that this is still a lineout, but I just don’t see that this is supported in the law.
This may come down to how you sell it and conviction with your decision! I am happy with the explanation by @Phil E above with regard to all players being bound, the front players are still in the original line, and the ball has been transferred and not passed. It it were a maul then the lineout would still be live (Law 18.37.b), therefore you might extend this logic to say bound players remain part of the lineout.

I think you can explain this with confidence in the bar after... while I agree the laws do not clearly support this position, neither do they clearly state the lineout is over in this situation.

From a management perspective, I think any other approach will lead to chaos (ie defenders running around the back). Also, from a management perspective, be quick to instruct the attacking to team to move the ball away when you see this.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
11,134
Post Likes
1,331
So I am still not certain that this is right. I am very happy to be proved wrong however, but first follow my logic.

Firstly, there is no maul.
Secondly, there is no lineout because the ball has been passed from the catcher to another player.

Therefore the hooker is not offside as long as, obviously, he waits until the ball is moved and therefore the lineout is over.

I have to say that I am not a fan of this tactic, and especially not at U15, but I can’t get past the two elements of no maul, lineout over.

what am I failing to understand here?
I suppose the crux here is whether refs will view the not-a-maul with the ball moved to the back as the ball is passed to that rear player.
Because as empirical evidence so to speak we see currently and normally across other age groups/seniors that refs still call backlines to remain 10m back when the ball is caught and a maul is formed and the ball is at the back of the maul, but the maul hasn't yet moved past the LoT. ie the ball "has been passed" but the lineout is not yet over. Somebody who knows what they are talking about will be along eventually but at the moment Id suggest that is where your logic is breaking, as for whatever reasons having a block of bound players with the ball moved to the rear is not viewed as passing the ball away from the lineout. I would however concur that the fly in that ointment is the fact it actually isn't (yet) a maul so its not necessarily still part of the lineout!
 

Mipper


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
155
Post Likes
73
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
I suppose the crux here is whether refs will view the not-a-maul with the ball moved to the back as the ball is passed to that rear player.
Because as empirical evidence so to speak we see currently and normally across other age groups/seniors that refs still call backlines to remain 10m back when the ball is caught and a maul is formed and the ball is at the back of the maul, but the maul hasn't yet moved past the LoT. ie the ball "has been passed" but the lineout is not yet over. Somebody who knows what they are talking about will be along eventually but at the moment Id suggest that is where your logic is breaking, as for whatever reasons having a block of bound players with the ball moved to the rear is not viewed as passing the ball away from the lineout. I would however concur that the fly in that ointment is the fact it actually isn't (yet) a maul so its not necessarily still part of the lineout!
Yes that is the fly in the ointment that is problematic for me.

in all honesty, reflecting on the note from Stu, I can certainly sell the idea of the ‘pre maul’ being part of the lineout. However, my difficulty is that I don’t see that it is backed up in law, and it is likely that anyone doing this has had a good look at the laws.

By the way, passing the ball to the back of the maul, is not the same and the backs do need to stay back 10 until the whole maul passes the line of touch. So technically it is still part of the lineout. This thankfully is clear in the laws.
 

RUGBYBOOT


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
40
Post Likes
1
Under RFU Regulation 15 Appendix 9, Para 6(a): "The lineout will be uncontested at U15." So if the throwing-in team have not moved to the next phase of play then there should be no contesting. The lineout is over when: the ball is moved off the line of touch (generally passed or tapped backwards); or when the team in possession offer to form a maul. It could also be over if they take the ball forward off the line of touch (but I haven't seen it), or knock-on!

It appears to me that you are coaching your players to contest the line-out. Not good for me at this age group.

This season, as a Society referee, I have refereed 4x U15 (school Vase & club) and 3x U14 matches. All of the teams have agreed with my interpretation.
Mmmmmm I’m not sure about that. When you say ‘contested’ surely this refers to in the air or what’s the point of this age grade progression ??
 

RUGBYBOOT


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
40
Post Likes
1
So I am still not certain that this is right. I am very happy to be proved wrong however, but first follow my logic.

Firstly, there is no maul.
Secondly, there is no lineout because the ball has been passed from the catcher to another player.

Therefore the hooker is not offside as long as, obviously, he waits until the ball is moved and therefore the lineout is over.

I have to say that I am not a fan of this tactic, and especially not at U15, but I can’t get past the two elements of no maul, lineout over.

what am I failing to understand here?
I know what you mean, I’m not saying I’m a fan of it, but I just wanted to know ‘exactly’ what the law book thought of it. For me i agree that he can go round in this scenario…… until I read the next feed 😂
 

RUGBYBOOT


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
40
Post Likes
1
So having read all these responses I confess to still being slight confused….. not hard !!

I do think that when, for example the jumper
( who doesn’t jump ) catches the ball with 2 feet on the ground and is not bound to anyone HE CAN BE TACKLED. I totally disagree that he can’t happen at U15 level.

If he catches the ball and the rest of his pack form a pre maul with ball at the back and they remain STATIONARY, AND no defensive player is bound to them, then the line out is still LIVE and the call would be ‘use it’….

However, as soon as that ‘pre maul’ moves forward and engages with a defensive player that’s accidental offside - scrum to defence …..
but…. If the defensive side do not engage the hooker can, at this point of it moving forward, go round and tackle the ball carrier …..
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
If the bunch of players with ball at the back move forward at all, it's accidental offside (they don't need to engage with defenders)

So the whistle should have gone already before you hooker starts running round the back

This whole not engaging tactic is deprecated in the guidance and the best you can get from it should be a scrum for accidental offside
 

Stu10

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
420
Post Likes
195
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
So having read all these responses I confess to still being slight confused….. not hard !!

I do think that when, for example the jumper
( who doesn’t jump ) catches the ball with 2 feet on the ground and is not bound to anyone HE CAN BE TACKLED. YES

If he catches the ball and the rest of his pack form a pre maul with ball at the back and they remain STATIONARY, AND no defensive player is bound to them, then the line out is still LIVE and the call would be ‘use it’…. YES

However, as soon as that ‘pre maul’ moves forward and engages with a defensive player that’s accidental offside - scrum to defence ….. YES
but…. If the defensive side do not engage the hooker can, at this point of it moving forward, go round and tackle the ball carrier ….. NO

Some say you should do whatever you can get away with, but the hooker going round the back is not getting away with it if I'm holding the whistle. I recommend to leave the ref to manage the situation (use it or accidental offside). If you really want to get technical, the offside line is created by the ball, and I can't visualise how you can get round the back of a "maul" to make a tackle on the back player without crossing that offside line. Furthermore, if someone on your team does engage and create a maul, that hooker is definitely offside and getting pinged.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,628
Post Likes
1,755
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If the bunch of players with ball at the back move forward at all, it's accidental offside (they don't need to engage with defenders)

So the whistle should have gone already before you hooker starts running round the back
that's not my understanding. AFAIK the ref is supposed to call "use it" and they have 5 sec (?) to play the ball away. The logic is that they shouldn't be pinged for the opposition failing to engage
 
Top