uncontested maul thingy

[Dickie E]

I know we have discussed this before but I can't recall the consensus.

Blue win lineout and Red do not contest nor make contact.

Blue form a 'maul', ferry ball to back and start marching forward.

Do Red now have to make contact with the lead Blue player to demonstrate obstruction?

 

[menace]

I know we have discussed this before but I can't recall the consensus.

Blue win lineout and Red do not contest nor make contact.

Blue form a 'maul', ferry ball to back and start marching forward.

Do Red now have to make contact with the lead Blue player to demonstrate obstruction?

Dickie, I believe our GMG wants us to have blue 'use it!', and even if they don't then it's accidental obstruction only and scrum over. AFAIUI Red don't need to prove the obstruction?

Edit:
GMG excerpt
Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, then PK to attacking team.
• 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 should be followed:
o The attacking team 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.)
o If the attacking team immediately passes the ball back to a player behind the front player or at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to "Use it" which they must do immediately.
o If the team drives forward with the ball at the back (and ignores the referee’s call to “Use it”), the referee should award a scrum to the defending team for "accidental offside" (rather than PK for obstruction).

 

[talbazar]

What would the GMG advise to do if a defending player goes around the non-maul and nails the ball carrier?

It's legal to me, but an incredible occasion for flashpoint!

Pierre.

 

[Taff]

What would the GMG advise to do if a defending player goes around the non-maul and nails the ball carrier?
It's legal to me, but an incredible occasion for flashpoint!

How is it legal? Once the ball has been touched in a LO, the ball is the offside line until the LO ends.

The tackler would have to be in an offside position to make the tackle.

 

[RobLev]

How is it legal? Once the ball has been touched in a LO, the ball is the offside line until the LO ends.

The tackler would have to be in an offside position to make the tackle.

The lineout ends when the ball leaves the lineout; and if it's been handed back to a player at the back of the "maul", it's left the lineout (law 19.9):

[LAWS]When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.[/LAWS]

and 19.12:

[LAWS]Definitions

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Dickie,
If they move the ball back in their group, the ref calls "use it" which they must do without delay. If they keep the ball in hand, the ref immediately blows for accidental offside and opposition get to feed the scrum

 

[damo]

How is it legal? Once the ball has been touched in a LO, the ball is the offside line until the LO ends.

The tackler would have to be in an offside position to make the tackle.

I think that if the ball is smuggled to the back of a "non maul" then the ball has left the line of touch and so the lineout is over. If a maul has been formed then the lineout would still be operating, but since there is no maul this doesn't apply.

As an appeal to authority, I have seen it a few times in Super Rugby where in this instance a player runs around the back of a "non maul" and is allowed to tackle the ball carrier.

 

[Phil E]

I think that if the ball is smuggled to the back of a "non maul" then the ball has left the line of touch and so the lineout is over. If a maul has been formed then the lineout would still be operating, but since there is no maul this doesn't apply.

That doesn't make sense because if a maul forms the lineout isn't over until the hindmost foot has crossed the line of touch.
So just moving the ball to the back doesn't make the lineout over.

 

[crossref]

That doesn't make sense because if a maul forms the lineout isn't over until the hindmost foot has crossed the line of touch.
So just moving the ball to the back doesn't make the lineout over.

that would be the case if there was a maul - but in this instance we don't have a maul (just a maul like thingy) so I am with the other responses the line out is over

 

[ChrisR]

The GMG on this situation is a Catch 22. Follow this:

Red throw-in, catch, bind and keeping the ball in the hands of the catcher (front player) they advance.

Blue, to avoid forming a maul and a PK for "leaving the lineout", step aside to leave a hole.

As Red advance Blue attempts to tackle the ball carrier. To do so they must leave the lineout!

This is the most idiotic, convoluted, unrealistic directive I have ever seen. And that's putting a positive spin on it!

 

[Taff]

That doesn't make sense because if a maul forms the lineout isn't over until the hindmost foot has crossed the line of touch. So just moving the ball to the back doesn't make the lineout over.

Exactly.

 

[Dixie]

I agree that it is bizarre. My take:

I think that if the ball is smuggled to the back of a "non maul" then the ball has left the line of touch and so the lineout is over.

I can't agree. It is possible that it might leave the LoT, but it is not necessary. Catcher's two supporters bring him to ground facing backward, and immediately form a wedge to the side of and slightly behind him. Jumper leapt into the gap to catch, and so has landed slightly ahead of the LOT. When a team mate grabs the ball off him, the ball is still precisely on the LoT. it can['t be said to have left it, unless (as RobLev suggests) this constitutes peeling. I cannot see this as peeling - if it were, there would be very few mauls at lineouts, as all would have ended.

The GMG on this situation is a Catch 22. Follow this:

Red throw-in, catch, bind and keeping the ball in the hands of the catcher (front player) they advance.

By advancing, I think the GMG anticipates a call of "Use It" by the ref to warn them that they are in danger of conceding a scrum for accidental offside. If they immediately use it, play on. If not, scrum.

Blue, to avoid forming a maul and a PK for "leaving the lineout", step aside to leave a hole.

As Red advance Blue attempts to tackle the ball carrier. To do so they must leave the lineout!

This technique is high-risk and needs to be practiced. You are absolutely correct that looked at forensically, and applying a very narrow definition of the lineout, any lineout player who moves backward to get himself into a position to tackle can be deemed to have left the lineout. But this is also true of any player who moves backward to get into position to join a maul, if he does so before the first contact. But we don't ping that, and such forensic analysis is rarely applicable to laws drafted without any expectation of it. Even so, any coach who takes on the risks of this strategy would be well advised to have a big lump at receiver, and delegate to that lump the task of tackling the front man. If he has the ball, the tackle is legal. If not, the obstruction is proven.

This is the most idiotic, convoluted, unrealistic directive I have ever seen. And that's putting a positive spin on it!

Possibly! it wouldn't be the first (nor even the most egregious or important) time that the powers-that-be, in attempting to right a perceived wrong, have created much larger problems than the ones they originally addressed. I have just such a situation with the EU at present.

 

[The Fat]

The GMG on this situation is a Catch 22. Follow this:

Red throw-in, catch, bind and keeping the ball in the hands of the catcher (front player) they advance.

Blue, to avoid forming a maul and a PK for "leaving the lineout", step aside to leave a hole.

As Red advance Blue attempts to tackle the ball carrier. To do so they must leave the lineout!

This is the most idiotic, convoluted, unrealistic directive I have ever seen. And that's putting a positive spin on it!

Is this taken from the USA GMGs?
If so, who was the genius that added, To do so they must leave the lineout!???

That differs to all of the reproductions (By Unions in Aus, NZ, and England) of the original memo that I have been able to find which all read;

"The attacking team 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.)"


There is no mention of the defending team having to leave the line out in order to attempt to tackle the ball carrier (the front man) in this situation.

If the attacking team decide to keep the ball with the front man (i.e. the jumper) and drive (waltz, stroll, meander, whatever) downfield, as soon as they have moved past the line-of-touch, the line out is over and we are in general play.
"...... if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play........"

It is going to be difficult for the defending players to tackle the front man. Even if the attempted tackler manages to get a good hit on the ball carrier and is actually starting to bring him to ground, the ball carrier has team mates presumably bound to him and therefore can easily hand the ball to a team mate on the way down.
In the previous thread on this topic, the video of Ireland's #7 attempting to tackle the England ball carrier demonstrates how difficult making such a tackle will be.

If the attacking team move the ball to a player at the back of the group/"maul thingy", the line out is also over and once again we have general play. In this situation the ref calls "Use it". If they comply with the ref's call, it is play on. If they do not comply with the "use it" call the referee orders a scrum with the defenders to throw the ball in.

There is only one scenario that WR (IRB when the original memo was released) has not considered or given guidance on. I'm still waiting for someone on here to bring that one up. I'll leave it to the group to see if anyone can describe this scenario. Tick, tick, tick........

 

[didds]

isn't this where somebody jumps in and claims that the non-maul with the ball at the front, advancing up the pitch to be tackled by the receiver (as above) is a flying wedge and illegal?

;-)

didds

 

[The Fat]

isn't this where somebody jumps in and claims that the non-maul with the ball at the front, advancing up the pitch to be tackled by the receiver (as above) is a flying wedge and illegal?

;-)

didds

Behave yourself didds:wink:

 

[OB..]

The lineout ends when the ball leaves the lineout; and if it's been handed back to a player at the back of the "maul", it's left the lineout (law 19.9):

[LAWS]When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.[/LAWS]

and 19.12:

[LAWS]Definitions

A lineout player ‘peels off’ when leaving the lineout to catch the ball knocked or passed back by a team-mate.[/LAWS]

The GMG on this situation is a Catch 22. Follow this:

Red throw-in, catch, bind and keeping the ball in the hands of the catcher (front player) they advance.

Blue, to avoid forming a maul and a PK for "leaving the lineout", step aside to leave a hole.

As Red advance Blue attempts to tackle the ball carrier. To do so they must leave the lineout!

This is the most idiotic, convoluted, unrealistic directive I have ever seen. And that's putting a positive spin on it!

As RobLev pointed out, the lineout is over when the ball is passed back. There is no longer a lineout to leave, nor is there an offside line for the defenders.

 

[OB..]

I can't agree. It is possible that it might leave the LoT, but it is not necessary. Catcher's two supporters bring him to ground facing backward, and immediately form a wedge to the side of and slightly behind him. Jumper leapt into the gap to catch, and so has landed slightly ahead of the LOT. When a team mate grabs the ball off him, the ball is still precisely on the LoT. it can['t be said to have left it, unless (as RobLev suggests) this constitutes peeling. I cannot see this as peeling - if it were, there would be very few mauls at lineouts, as all would have ended.

Double banking is no longer legal, so any player coming round to get the ball from the catcher is peeling.

A maul can form if the defenders bind on to the catcher and then he passes the ball back. In practice, once the defenders bind, the referee can be relaxed about the precise timing of passing back the ball.

This provides the unusual situation where the attacker has to wait to see what the defenders do before he knows what he can do. He is probably best advised to hold on to the ball until he knows the opponents have bound on to him. There is a risk that they might prevent him from passing it back, but that is all part of having a contest.

 

[ChrisR]

TF, I wasn't quoting the GMG (US or otherwise). I was just posing a scenario to illustrate my contempt for the directive. So I was the 'genious'.

My point is this:

A player can leave the lineout to peel and leave the lineout to form a maul.
But you can't leave the lineout to avoid forming a maul?
And if you do the penalty is a PK?
And when the ops clearly and deliberately obstruct it's only a scrum?
And you have to get out of the way of a player carrying the ball?

Hello? Did anyone refer to the principles of the game?

 

[OB..]

A player can leave the lineout to peel

Yes.

and leave the lineout to form a maul.

Yes, it is a form of peeling since you are expecting to get the ball.

But you can't leave the lineout to avoid forming a maul?

Leaving the lineout was made illegal to stop teams suddenly changing the numbers after the lineout was formed, or dropping back into the 10m area to become extra defenders. It is therefore not well suited to the current problem. Personally I have no objection to a player taking half a step to make it clear he is not engaging to form a maul. The Red Sea approach takes the law too literally for my taste. This area of law needs reviewing, but unfortunately they have a moratorium on law changes in the run-up to a RWC for obvious reasons. Hence the stop-gap approach.

And if you do the penalty is a PK?

That was fit for the original purpose. However since they have taken a lenient view of obstruction, and called it "accidental offside", I think they should do the same with "leaving the lineout" and allow the defenders, say, 1 metre. By the law definition, they are still "near" the lineout.

And when the ops clearly and deliberately obstruct it's only a scrum?

Deliberately? More likely it is just a timing issue. See my tit-for-tat view above.

And you have to get out of the way of a player carrying the ball?

No. You can tackle him as usual.

 

[ChrisR]

And you have to get out of the way of a player carrying the ball?

If you don't want to form the maul you must step aside (instead of back) so as to leave a clear channel for the opponents. Essentially, that is getting out of the way of the player carrying the ball.

How do you think this will be (or should be) addressed post RWC?