[Law] Uncontested lineout drive/ maul - penalty?

[pombok]

Any idea what this penalty is for?

Brive vs Bayonne - 26/12/2019

https://youtu.be/3gXcB5D-p4Y

 

[didds]

Leaving the lineout befoire the ball has left thing?

eg backing oiff and backing off until > 10m from LoT (that's my guess anyway - I may not be totally correct about the 10m thing).

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

The ref explains to Black that he had left the lineout. [LAWS]Law 18.27 b
Retire to the offside line of the non-participating players of his own team.
[/LAWS]The team in possession were entitled to go forward. He did check that the ball was kept at the front of the maul.

Except maybe that the hindmost foot of the uncontested maul had gone past the line of touch, so the lineout was over and so Black was entitled to join the maul?

[LAWS]18.37b (Lineout ends when)
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.[/LAWS]

Rugby is fundamentally a contest for the ball, when Professional players shy away from that contest they should accept the consequences. So he was offside, but wasn’t penalized until he interfered with play? Perhaps? There was a 2014 Law clarification about this, but I cannot find it just now. If somebody could provide a link to that, it might well answer your question.

 

[Balones]

The 2014 clarification seems to have disappeared. I have looked several times over the ladt couple of years for a formal reference to it but can only find rather obtuse reference through local society websites or even websites like below.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/bizarre-rugby-stand-left-fans-12802495

http://therugbyref.blogspot.com/2016/05/uncontested-maul-at-lineout.html
(The link above belonging to one of our forum members.)

Personally I still can’t see why he penalised them. The defenders didn’t really move away from the line but allowed the ‘maul’ to move through and then stepped back. Or at the very least left an enormous gap before easing back. The ‘easing back’ was certainly not at all material. The gap was already there to create the space. Perhaps the ref saw it differently from his perspective.

 

[L'irlandais]

The ball carrier at the commencement of the maul must be available to be defended by his opponents.
A player bound in the maul is allowed to be there.
A player may not unbind or use a sliding bind to go around a maul.

Reasons:
To ensure that the commencement of the Maul is a contest.
To allow the maul to be legally defended.

It was something along these lines. So an onside Black defender would have been entitled to either bind to the ball carrier and create a maul, or tackle the ball carrier below the waist to bring him to ground without creating a maul. However Black4 had not retired 10m after leaving the lineout and so was not in a(/an onside) position to take advantage of this. By deciding not to participate in the maul, his options did NOT include hovering near the advancing maul.

*I evoke the same caveat as didds, I am not 100% sure about the retiring 10 m. but that’s how far back the other non-participants were. This is a little like the “pillar ‘n post” at a ruck, the Professional game is not respecting the LoTG and are creating nonsense situations (you are either bound to a ruck, or you have to retire) similar to this.

 

[L'irlandais]

At the risk of repeating myself, when Black chose not to contest the driving maul, the lineout was not over (see 18.37b). So Black players left the lineout, on the line of touch, they then had only 4 options open to them, given by Law 18.27. None of the Black defenders exercised one of the options open to them; this meant they were all offside. The ref didn’t penalize them immediately, as it only became material when Black 4 interfered with play.

 

[Balones]

We didn’t have a maul. We had a player with the ball and his team mates attached to him. The ball carrier left the lineout with his mates attached to him. We have a 37a(i) situation.
As far as I can see the defenders started moving back when the ball carrier moves forward. Because we don’t have a maul the ball/ball carrier is deemed to have left the lineout once it has left the line of touch. Was there a slight stepping back by one of the defenders? Possibly but not clearly. The gap was already there for the ‘pod’ to move through. The only person in front of them was the receiver snd he moved back as they came through.

 

[Decorily]

Personally I think it was a bad call from the referee!
I have encountered similar scenarios a number of times and my reaction has been to call "play on, ball at front" which generally causes the defenders to react and either engage , tackle or whatever.

But then again maybe that's one of the many reasons that I'll never be a professional referee!!

 

[L'irlandais]

While rugby is very much a thinking man’s game, perhaps members of the tight five might do better to abstain from trying to be too blooming clever.
A. N. Other French example of why we shouldn’t encourage this sort of thing.

Has the ball carrier left the lineout first? In my view the referee’s correct in saying Black left the lineout first by stepping back. By leaving the lineout first they are offside and so are not entitled to tackle, or even join the maul without first retreating to the line of non-participating players.

 

[didds]

Think we discussed that total non play before?

Its an example of how daft its all got. Not tyat I have a solution particularly. I think I said the alst time i could see no reason why white wouldm't have advanced.

didds

 

[Arabcheif]

I think I've got 2 issues with this, the 2nd isn't really about the video in the OP.
1. There is no Maul regardless if you say "would be Maul," there's no maul according to the criteria in Law. So as soon as the catcher-come-ball carrier steps, the ball has left the LoT. Therefore LO offside doesn't apply as we're in open play. Just shout open play now. Therefore IMO the ref here was wrong.
2. I wonder if when there has been a contest when dummy runs have been made when player leave the line to be in position to form the maul early if this ref has penalised that?

 

[Balones]

While rugby is very much a thinking man’s game, perhaps members of the tight five might do better to abstain from trying to be too blooming clever.
A. N. Other French example of why we shouldn’t encourage this sort of thing.

Has the ball carrier left the lineout first? In my view the referee’s correct in saying Black left the lineout first by stepping back. By leaving the lineout first they are offside and so are not entitled to tackle, or even join the maul without first retreating to the line of non-participating players.

I have viewed it several times and cannot see them stepping back out of the lineout before the ball is caught and the ball carrier starts to move forward.

 

[L'irlandais]

Fair enough. I was more trying to explain what decision had been taken in French. No problem accepting the match referee may have been incorrect. I guess our use of uncontested maul is in itself incorrect/misleading.

 

[Shelflife]

The sanction for leaving the lineout is a free kick though, if hes playing advantage for that and then pings them for being offside that would be very much a "gotcha" pen and really not something that you should be considering doing esp in such a tight game like that and at such a crucial stage of the game.

 

[Decorily]

The sanction for leaving the lineout is a free kick though, if hes playing advantage for that and then pings them for being offside that would be very much a "gotcha" pen and really not something that you should be considering doing esp in such a tight game like that and at such a crucial stage of the game.

Agreed...and as I said earlier I think it was an error and poor decision by the referee.

 

[irishref]

My conclusion is that the ref made an error. My logic:

No maul formed, ball at front with carrier - players allowed to move forward according to the directive.

Defenders left a gap for them to move forward without leaving the lineout.

Lineout over the moment the ball, in the arms of the receiver, crosses the original lineout mark. In effect, 1 or 2 steps from the receiver means lineout over.

Neither team seemed to do anything wrong and both seemed clued up as to the options available. The atttacking team ensured the ball carrier was in a position to be tackled. The defending team left the gap then attempted a legitimate tackle without forming a maul.

 

[crossref]

My conclusion is that the ref made an error. My logic:

No maul formed, ball at front with carrier - players allowed to move forward according to the directive.

Defenders left a gap for them to move forward without leaving the lineout.

Lineout over the moment the ball, in the arms of the receiver, crosses the original lineout mark. In effect, 1 or 2 steps from the receiver means lineout over.

Neither team seemed to do anything wrong and both seemed clued up as to the options available. The atttacking team ensured the ball carrier was in a position to be tackled. The defending team left the gap then attempted a legitimate tackle without forming a maul.

So .. play on ?

 

[irishref]

So .. play on ?

Yup, I would not gave blown my whistle here.

 

[mcroker]

For some reason it's not on the IRB site - http://hertsrefs.co.uk/docs/2013_14/IRB_Clarification_-_Lineout.pdf . (it's also a tad old at 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 theline out as a group", PK to attacking team;

 if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simplyopening up a gap & "creating space" & not leaving the line out, the following processwould be followed:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drivedown-field (therefore play on, general play
- defenders could either engage toform 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), thereferee would award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than PK forobstruction.

 

[crossref]

For some reason it's not on the IRB site .

No longer current ?