[Law] Wasps Flying Wedge ?

[Nigib]

Apologies in advance if this has been raised previously. I caught the end of the Wasps/Leicester game this afternoon. Wasps frequently adopted a tactic that looked like a flying wedge (or what I understand one to be, don't think I've encountered one up to now).

From pretty much every breakdown, the player receiving the pass had a player either side of him, just behind. The BC then charged into the defensive line supported by the two players.

Was this a flying wedge? If so, why wasn't it penalised?

 

[colesy]

What you describe wouldn't appear to match the description of a flying wedge as given in law.

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.

The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.

 

[didds]

If you ping that then you need top ping every "hammer" move from egs low ruck ball.

that isn't necessarily wrong... just ... nobody does which is why we coach it.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

It's the penalty and FK situation that is the factor here. Having to concede 10m makes it a whole load more dangerous to contest the bc with others already bound on.

 

[ChrisR]

If the support players are bound to the BC before contact then then it could be considered a Flying Wedge.

 

[OB..]

The question you have to ask is whether or not the actual play was dangerous.

The Flying Wedge and Cavalry Charge restrictions were introduced because of penalty ploys near the goal line where a team could build up significant pace and power, and needed to be stopped dead to prevent a score. That upped the ante and was seen a dangerous. It is why the law says "type of attack", and "usually happens".

I think 10.4 (p) should be interpreted very restrictively.

 

[Paule23]

....

I think 10.4 (p) should be interpreted very restrictively.

And that's the problem. The law is worded so poorly, particularly in light of how the game is both played and refereed, that referees either ignore it or interpret is differently to what is written. Sensible approach, but where does that stop? At what point do we decide when and what to interpret, or ignore, because we don't like it or it's impractical?

The Laws are updated at least annually, it's not rocket science to sort this rubbish out and get a law on this worded appropriately. If you want it to apply only to penalties say so, if it needs to be near the line, say so.

 

[ChrisR]

If the Laws prohibited 'pre-binding' on a BC then the problem goes away.

 

[DocY]

And that's the problem. The law is worded so poorly, particularly in light of how the game is both played and refereed, that referees either ignore it or interpret is differently to what is written. Sensible approach, but where does that stop? At what point do we decide when and what to interpret, or ignore, because we don't like it or it's impractical?

The Laws are updated at least annually, it's not rocket science to sort this rubbish out and get a law on this worded appropriately. If you want it to apply only to penalties say so, if it needs to be near the line, say so.

This.

I agree with the OP the what he describes could constitute a flying wedge, as described in the lawbook, but that's just a result of poor wording.

A genuine flying wedge looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNOxiHPafOw

 

[Pegleg]

And that's the problem. The law is worded so poorly, particularly in light of how the game is both played and refereed, that referees either ignore it or interpret is differently to what is written. Sensible approach, but where does that stop? At what point do we decide when and what to interpret, or ignore, because we don't like it or it's impractical?

The Laws are updated at least annually, it's not rocket science to sort this rubbish out and get a law on this worded appropriately. If you want it to apply only to penalties say so, if it needs to be near the line, say so.

Sadly this problem has been with us for some time. At a local level we can overcoem some issue by attending society meetings and agreeing protocols. But yes why does WR not take control and sort the mess out? No wonder supporters / coaches moan about corrupt officials etc. A consistent interpretation is almost impossible.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If you ping that then you need top ping every "hammer" move from egs low ruck ball.

that isn't necessarily wrong... just ... nobody does which is why we coach it.

didds

Does your hammer only have one binder? One binder does not meet definition of FW.

Try it with 2 binders and see result, I'm curious, and don't know result. My guess is no whistle.

Or try the Wasps tactic above with 3 players or 4, 5. At some point refs will catch on.

 

[ChuckieB]

In the absence of a law that prohibits prebinding, refs are left with a situation they cannot ignore and have to manage.

Were I in the position, I would have a fair idea of what I would and wouldn't accept. Society guidance would be one thing but to ignore safety for a recognised situation, not a one off, would actually be reckless.

Blow up for it and, if you're consistent, they'll know your stance and it is for them to then adapt.

 

[DocY]

In the absence of a law that prohibits prebinding, refs are left with a situation they cannot ignore and have to manage.

Were I in the position, I would have a fair idea of what I would and wouldn't accept. Society guidance would be one thing but to ignore safety for a recognised situation, not a one off, would actually be reckless.

Blow up for it and, if you're consistent, they'll know your stance and it is for them to then adapt.

I'd be very reluctant to blow up for anything that's not specifically outlawed.

If you can make a case for it being a flying wedge or dangerous play, that's one thing, but an outright ban on pre-binding will lead to an 'interesting' assessor's report.

 

[Pegleg]

In the absence of a law that prohibits prebinding, refs are left with a situation they cannot ignore and have to manage.

Were I in the position, I would have a fair idea of what I would and wouldn't accept. Society guidance would be one thing but to ignore safety for a recognised situation, not a one off, would actually be reckless.

Blow up for it and, if you're consistent, they'll know your stance and it is for them to then adapt.

This is exactly why we have society meetings to discuss and reach a common understanding. I understand from previous posts that you are new to refereeing perhaps you need to attend a / more meeting(s) of your society to see why its guidance is valuable.

 

[OB..]

These two tactics were first forbidden, by name, in 1996. At that time they had Notes [for referee guidance] in the laws, and the explanations were generic, presumably because everybody knew what the tactics were that were being banned. In the 2000 re-write they decided to incorporate the Notes into the laws (very sloppy).

The prohibition killed the tactics, so we no longer see them, but people are reading the laws and trying to find some way to apply those bits. My line is "don't bother". Just decide if a play is obviously dangerous.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Just decide if a play is obviously dangerous.

Might be too late, post play.

 

[ChuckieB]

Might be too late, post play.

.....amd what has been likely considered dangerous needs support and guidance for those being asked to apply the laws.

No room for inconsistent application in my view.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

.....amd what has been likely considered dangerous needs support and guidance for those being asked to apply the laws.

No room for inconsistent application in my view.

And players look a bit different than we did in 96. Sure we had steroids, mostly from other species. Now things have improved and the juice is better also. Many on here believe the drug tests are sufficient proof. I have no proof otherwise, just the boys look stronger. More capable of physical damage to others.

 

[Pegleg]

.....amd what has been likely considered dangerous needs support and guidance for those being asked to apply the laws.

No room for inconsistent application in my view.

Absolutely. That is why refs need to get together and disucc things etc. The forum helps but NOTHING trumps a well run society where you can discuss things with refs of all levels from newbies to "first cless" / international and with assessors. There is a wealth of experience available to us. If you can't "see" dangerous these guys can help. If, after their help, you still can't "see" it then maybe reffing is not for you.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I think pre binding and running in open play should be outlawed. It's Only a matter of time before one player gets seriously hurt trying to stop 3 or more