Unopposed lineout maul ENG v SAM

[belladonna]

Quite early in the ENG v SAM game there was (what looked like) an unopposed white lineout maul. Blue didn't engage but instead tackled the BC at the back of the wedge. Despite being unopposed, the wedge advanced slowly - and I think white got the put-in at the ensuing scrum, which seemed a bit backwards? Tbf I was watching with the sound down as my kids hate rugby lol, so I'm not really sure what happened Would appreciate any clarification.

 

[didds]

hpw did b;lue get a player to the back of the wedge without being offside is the first point?#

video link? time?

 

[Decorily]

hpw did b;lue get a player to the back of the wedge without being offside is the first point?#

video link? time?

I would disagree...surely the first infringement was obstruction.

However the OP is really poorly worded and more clarity is needed.

 

[belladonna]

The game time is 4:22, and apologies for the poor wording

Surely though without any engagement from Blue the formation is not a maul, so there are no offside lines, and yes I would have expected a call of obstruction.

I seem to remember a long discussion about this in another thread...

 

[DocP]

That was the call from the referee. No maul had been formed so therefore no offside lines so the Blue player (McFarland?) could come round and join from England's side. 2 points for me, and this is a tactic I used many moons ago in my playing days, not with much success,
- obstruction, like others why were England not blown up for it. The ball, from what I recall, was at the back of the "maul"
- the line out is not over until the ball has moved through the mark of the lineout, so surely there is an offside at the mark of touch until England move through the mark. I'm going off memory here so can't quite remember when the Samoa player made his venture around the back of the England maul but it didn't look right to me

 

[didds]

LoT is an offide line while the ball is "in" the lineout. Innit? The lineout wasn't over ?
(sorry - that was DocP's 2nd half of his post too)

 

[Decorily]

LoT is an offide line while the ball is "in" the lineout. Innit? The lineout wasn't over ?
(sorry - that was DocP's 2nd half of his post too)

The ball itself is the offsideline at this point....no longer the line of touch.
The lineout could in fact be over if the ball has been passed back in the 'wedge'.

 

[didds]

OK. Appreciating we need to be careful with still shots etc - nonetheless this is the moment Lawes feet get back to ground.
(1st attachment)
The red line is the line of touch (off the RA).


Pick your offense.
Eng 3 blocking
Sam 1 offside.

Samoa dont engage this body of players fro some distance - 4-5 seconds on the clock - during which the ball has clearly been transferred - lawes is chariot riding .

So you have presumably a choice of
PK Samoa (E3 o/s)
PK England (S1 o/s)
FK Samoa (obstructioin at "maul")
PK Samoa (obstrutcion in "maul".

It seems to have ended up as PK to England for Samoa in at the side which in initially thought was the 2nd attachment)
The Sam player ringed in Green *binds on from correct side, binds at about the same time as Sam player ringed in Red - so i thought _maybe_ the call was the green samoa created a maul, and the red samoa is now in at the side/offside.

But then the ref says something like "clearly passed the line, then the tight head coming around " - which was after the two shots above. See attachment #'3.

So add ind eeed PK to England in at the side/offisde for Sam 3. But only of you ignore the above (and PK and advantage wasnt called for Eng;and at any time)

 

[Dave Elliott]

Not the best video, sorry, but at least you can see what happened.
View attachment IMG_1423.MOV

 

[Dave Elliott]

very tight there, if you pause blue looks off side as laws lands, but then it is obstruction by white as they advance while ball at the back

 

[didds]

yup - totally agree Dave. As per my #8

 

[jdeagro]

very tight there, if you pause blue looks off side as laws lands, but then it is obstruction by white as they advance while ball at the back

Presumably you mean Blue #1?...I think that's a little hard offsides call to see from the refs perspective, but probably the correct call.

From what I can tell in the video, he remains onsides in regards to the mark of touch until the ball is thrown. He doesn't seem to advance until after the White jumper has caught the ball. As we know, at that point the offsides line is the ball not the mark of touch, per 18.32:

Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball.

After that, the white not-Maul group of players seem to advance simultaneously as Blue #1 advances in the other direction past the ball.

Question is, did the ball leave the lineout before Blue #1 advanced past it?...I think not, since my understanding is the lineout area is inclusive of the half meter on both sides of the mark of touch.

Long story short I agree with you lads.

 

[crossref]

like every line out you can spot a number of technical offences, but for me the expected call is a scrum to samoa, for england accidental offside
.

I think that non-engage is one of those ploys that every grass roots ref sees several times a season, quickly recognises, and knows how to handle - but which elite refs probably rarely encounter nowadays ... and he was taken by surprise.

 

[didds]

Presumably you mean Blue #1?...I think that's a little hard offsides call to see from the refs perspective, but probably the correct call.

From what I can tell in the video, he remains onsides in regards to the mark of touch until the ball is thrown. He doesn't seem to advance until after the White jumper has caught the ball. As we know, at that point the offsides line is the ball not the mark of touch, per 18.32:



After that, the white not-Maul group of players seem to advance simultaneously as Blue #1 advances in the other direction past the ball.

Question is, did the ball leave the lineout before Blue #1 advanced past it?...I think not, since my understanding is the lineout area is inclusive of the half meter on both sides of the mark of touch.

Long story short I agree with you lads.

as per my #8, this still is at the moment Lawes' feet hit the ground. Which means while Lawes was in the air, blue 1 had to have crossed the LoT.

Mind you, Cole (white #3) is blocking!

 

[jdeagro]

as per my #8, this still is at the moment Lawes' feet hit the ground. Which means while Lawes was in the air, blue 1 had to have crossed the LoT.

Mind you, Cole (white #3) is blocking!

It doesn't matter when Lawes' feet hits the ground though. The offsides line is no longer LoT once he catches the ball. It's now based on the ball:

Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player...After that, their offside line is a line through the ball.

I think England plays the ball back and goes into Maul mode so quickly, that Samoa isn't offsides until after they started advancing (but before the ball has left the lineout).

But again, happens so quick, and a hard angle for the ref, besides us trying to go off stills that I guess it's pedantic to try to determine when he was actually first offsides. But full agreeance he was at some point.

 

[Locke]

I agree that Samoa player appears offsides but I don’t find it to be material since a maul does not form. England then advance even there’s no maul and scrum should be awarded to Samoa, as crossref indicated.

 

[Phil E]

I agree that Samoa player appears offsides but I don’t find it to be material since a maul does not form. England then advance even there’s no maul and scrum should be awarded to Samoa, as crossref indicated.

To be clear, the ref should have shouted use it, only if they don't, does he award a scrum for accidental offside.

 

[didds]

It doesn't matter when Lawes' feet hits the ground though. The offsides line is no longer LoT once he catches the ball. It's now based on the ball:

ah - indeed. mea culpa.

 

[didds]

and now Ive been reminded of the law (DOH!) on review blue 1 is onside. Cole is onside.
however when lawes lands Cole is WELL in front of him albeit trying to get a bind. Maybe Cole gets the benefit of the doubt

Its difficult to say subsequently how England arent done for at least accidental obstruction.

 

[Volun-selected]

To be clear, the ref should have shouted use it, only if they don't, does he award a scrum for accidental offside.

and now Ive been reminded of the law (DOH!) on review blue 1 is onside. Cole is onside.
however when lawes lands Cole is WELL in front of him albeit trying to get a bind. Maybe Cole gets the benefit of the doubt

Its difficult to say subsequently how England arent done for at least accidental obstruction.

For me and my simple grassroots brain, I like to see a clear intent of all defending players holding their initial position as the catcher comes down on their feet. If they’d all stayed back, then it is a deliberate decision and yes, “Use it” followed by Samoa scrum if not used.

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 as I’m reading this thread, I’m second-guessing.

Time for me to re-read the LOTG and the review this thread again.

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