Unopposed lineout maul ENG v SAM

[didds]

But the S1 comes in which normally has me thinking “Did they mean to stand off?” and then he doesn’t target the ball carrier and latches on so I’m now thinking “in at the side” and would ping accordingly.

But its not a maul. engladn move past the LoT its now open play.

 

[jdeagro]

ah - indeed. mea culpa.

No worries. To be honest, only through just recently re-reviewing the lineout laws, am I starting to realize offsides at the lineout is interesting.

I wonder if one could argue (as risky as a move this would be for the throwing team) that when their player catches the ball in the lineout, if they bring it down while reaching forward in front of the line of opposing players, are those opposing players immediately offsides now and would continue to be should they try to play the ball or player who caught it until they backpedaled back behind the ball first.

I admit this is unlikely to work tactically for a team, and sounds stupidly dumb, but technically by the wording of the law, could the catcher of the ball reach out past the opposition line of players in the lineout as they're coming down and if the catcher reacted fast enough to run forward keeping the ball past the opposition players, he'd be free to carry on without the opposition being able to play him without risk of penalty against them?

 

[crossref]

(edit: It also helps when the coach quietly sidles up to me beforehand and asks ”So, about uncontested mauls…”)

i like it when they do that !
I think coaches are well advised to wrn all ref about any surprises they plan to spring. A surprised ref is an unpredictable ref.

 

[Volun-selected]

But its not a maul. engladn move past the LoT its now open play.

Oh, the joys of video replays and I see what you mean. As Lawes comes down, Cole steps ahead - that triggers Lay to advance. Before that he’s on the Samoan side of the LoT.

 

[didds]

No worries. To be honest, only through just recently re-reviewing the lineout laws, am I starting to realize offsides at the lineout is interesting.

I wonder if one could argue (as risky as a move this would be for the throwing team) that when their player catches the ball in the lineout, if they bring it down while reaching forward in front of the line of opposing players, are those opposing players immediately offsides now and would continue to be should they try to play the ball or player who caught it until they backpedaled back behind the ball first.

I admit this is unlikely to work tactically for a team, and sounds stupidly dumb, but technically by the wording of the law, could the catcher of the ball reach out past the opposition line of players in the lineout as they're coming down and if the catcher reacted fast enough to run forward keeping the ball past the opposition players, he'd be free to carry on without the opposition being able to play him without risk of penalty against them?

I suspect the reality is the oppo would take the ball of you, and the ref wouldn't ping them anyway. it would pretty much be tantamount to "buying" a penalty and its probably "against the spirit of the game". ungentlemanly conduct

 

[jdeagro]

I suspect the reality is the oppo would take the ball of you, and the ref wouldn't ping them anyway. it would pretty much be tantamount to "buying" a penalty and its probably "against the spirit of the game". ungentlemanly conduct

I agree with that reality, lol.

 

[Volun-selected]

I suspect the reality is the oppo would take the ball of you, and the ref wouldn't ping them anyway. it would pretty much be tantamount to "buying" a penalty and its probably "against the spirit of the game". ungentlemanly conduct

And if it was the oppo receiver who grabs the ball, they’re onside anyway.

 

[didds]

well, i had rather presumed it was either the reciver or ojne of the other lineout players indeed. Anybody else would have had to approach from < 10m ie offside

 

[tim White]

Small point; Coles makes almost immediate contact with a Samoan player, does this not constitute a maul?

 

[Decorily]

Small point; Coles makes almost immediate contact with a Samoan player, does this not constitute a maul?

Haven't seen the video.
The defender is entitled to attempt to tackle the ball carrier once they are back on ground. If this tackle is not successful and immediate it can become a maul.
If a defender makes contact and a maul is formed it will continue to be a maul even if the defender(s) subsequently disengage.

 

[didds]

as decorily hasnt seen the video, they may not be aware cole was not the ball carrier/catcher, and was in front of the catcher ie Lawes when the minimal contcat with a samoan was made. TBH I wouldnt consider that contact as contact to form a maul - it was luittle more than a brush and there was no attempt by either [party to bind on each other (I know binding is not needed for a mauil to exist etc - but lets accept if it looks like duck etc)

 

[Locke]

(I know binding is not needed for a mauil to exist etc - but lets accept if it looks like duck etc)

I think binding is needed for a maul to exist. In any case, I agree with you didds.

16.2

It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

 

[Decorily]

I think binding is needed for a maul to exist. In any case, I agree with you didds.

16.2

It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

Correct......and indeed binding is NOT required for a ruck to be formed.

 

[didds]

I think binding is needed for a maul to exist. In any case, I agree with you didds.

16.2

It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

OOOPS! Again!

there ya go.
Im am wrong, mea culpa, and thus no way was the Cole brush with a samoan constituting a maul.

apologies all!

 

[didds]

Correct......and indeed binding is NOT required for a ruck to be formed.

that must be what I got confused with. DOH!

 

[jdeagro]

Correct......and indeed binding is NOT required for a ruck to be formed.

Does 15.7 not count when the ruck is initially being formed?

A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.

 

[Decorily]

Does 15.7 not count when the ruck is initially being formed?

15.7 refers to players joining a ruck after it is formed.

 

[jdeagro]

15.7 refers to players joining a ruck after it is formed.

I figured that would be the distinction. Though it doesn't explicitly state that / leaves a little ambiguity, I'm guessing that's what was meant too.

 

[Decorily]

I figured that would be the distinction. Though it doesn't explicitly state that / leaves a little ambiguity, I'm guessing that's what was meant too.

I think actually it does explicitly state it....
15.7 is under the heading 'Joining a ruck'.

 

[Stu10]

For those who can't quite recall 15.2, "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."