PDA

View Full Version : [Line out] line out and forming maul



crossref
15-10-16, 17:10
So I had this in my game today -

blue attacking lineout on red 5m line

blue are going to set up a maul and try and drive over,

blue jumper goes up, catches, come down, and in his enthusiasm flips to ball to his oncoming team mate who catches it and joins the maul

but there was clear daylight between the catcher and the receiving player - who received the ball a good 1/2 metre behind the maul, which he then joined.

So peep - but would you give accidental offside, or a PK for obstruction?

Rushforth
15-10-16, 18:10
It really depends on the level. I'll always go with the penalty for a team-mate in front of an attempting catcher, even at grass-roots, but in that case they are potentially denying chasers the chance to pick the ball up.

Here, the ball has been won, the team mate (#9?) was already intending to join the maul, and it seems to be incompetent rather than deliberate, from your description. Nor did the defenders have a chance to gain control of the ball, at any point.

At any serious level, peep PK. But in 90% of matches, use empathy, in this case with blue - but defenders do get the scrum - if it is early on in the ATP sequence.

The Fat
15-10-16, 18:10
Would you penalise for same action anywhere else on the field i.e. ball passed to a player who then joins on to team mates in front of him?
I would say yes.

I know you are going to say that the non-engagement situation after a LO is technically obstruction as well but we have been given clear guidelines on how to manage this "special" situation.

Your scenario.
Peep. "Obstruction blue. Timing issue guys".

OB..
15-10-16, 21:10
Your scenario.
Peep. "Obstruction blue. Timing issue guys".Agreed.

If you want to get technical, the lineout was over once the ball was passed to a player not in the lineout.

I never saw the logic in the"accidental offside" ruling anyway, so I am not disposed towards trying to extend its reach.

didds
15-10-16, 21:10
15 kicks to clear, hits 10 in the back who has turned and scrunched up trying to get out of the,way.

Sounds pretty accidental to me.

Istr a similar youtube clip doing the rounds where the player in front gets the ball right up his backside?

Didds

Decorily
15-10-16, 21:10
[QUOTE=didds;321455


Istr a similar youtube clip doing the rounds where the player in front gets the ball right up his backside?

Didds[/QUOTE]

Don' think it actually went up .....think it bounced!!!!!!

OB..
16-10-16, 12:10
15 kicks to clear, hits 10 in the back who has turned and scrunched up trying to get out of the,way.

Sounds pretty accidental to me.True, but what has that go to do with the current query?

Pinky
16-10-16, 15:10
Running into a player in front of you has for all my memory been accidental offside and scrum to opposition. It is only obstruction if the player in front affects play by preventing an opposition player tacking the ball carrier, so it would depend on how contested the set up of the planned maul was whether I would PK or scrum.

OB..
16-10-16, 21:10
[...] his oncoming team mate who catches it and joins the maul

but there was clear daylight between the catcher and the receiving player - who received the ball a good 1/2 metre behind the maul, which he then joined.[...]


Running into a player in front of you has for all my memory been accidental offside and scrum to opposition. It is only obstruction if the player in front affects play by preventing an opposition player tacking the ball carrier, so it would depend on how contested the set up of the planned maul was whether I would PK or scrum.
I don't see how deciding to join a "maul" can be seen as "accidental". Binding on to it (as necessarily implied by "joining") is deliberate.

didds
17-10-16, 00:10
True, but what has that go to do with the current query?


err... "I never saw the logic in the"accidental offside" ruling anyway, so I am not disposed towards trying to extend its reach."

??~

Unlike "brexit means brexit" does "accidental offisde" then not mean "accidental offside" ?

As this is OB, I must be missing something!"

didds

The Fat
17-10-16, 01:10
err... "I never saw the logic in the"accidental offside" ruling anyway, so I am not disposed towards trying to extend its reach."

??~

Unlike "brexit means brexit" does "accidental offisde" then not mean "accidental offside" ?

As this is OB, I must be missing something!"

didds

I think what OB is saying is that your example is a clear case of accidental offside whereas the situation we were discussing where a player intentionally joins to the rear of a group of team mates is clearly just that, intentional and therefore should be penalised rather than award a scrum

OB..
17-10-16, 01:10
err... "I never saw the logic in the"accidental offside" ruling anyway, so I am not disposed towards trying to extend its reach."

??~

Unlike "brexit means brexit" does "accidental offisde" then not mean "accidental offside" ?

As this is OB, I must be missing something!"

didds
I was referring to the WR ruling which said passing the ball to the back of the pseudo-maul at a lineout (before the opposition had formed a real maul) counted as accidental offside. I guessed that was what raised the possibility here.

Dickie E
17-10-16, 02:10
Istr a similar youtube clip doing the rounds where the player in front gets the ball right up his backside?

Didds

Cricketer: "Doctor, doctor, I've got a cricket ball stuck up my backside."

Doctor: "How's that?" Cricketer: "Don't you start."

DocY
17-10-16, 08:10
I was referring to the WR ruling which said passing the ball to the back of the pseudo-maul at a lineout (before the opposition had formed a real maul) counted as accidental offside. I guessed that was what raised the possibility here.

My understanding was that WR wanted to discourage the practice (by the defending team).

While it is a deliberate offside, it's also a bit of a gotcha and gaining a penalty from it therefore wouldn't be very fair.

So in answer do didds' post: no, "accidental offside" doesn't necessarily have to be accidental!

didds
17-10-16, 08:10
I was referring to the WR ruling which said passing the ball to the back of the pseudo-maul at a lineout (before the opposition had formed a real maul) counted as accidental offside. I guessed that was what raised the possibility here.

Ah - all understood now.

Yes - Ive also felt uncomfortable about this.

I can only assume it was because WR felt (?) that the catch+land+rip+transfer is/was so ingrained that it was otherwise a really simple "gotcha" PK otherwise. It certainly falls in line with the perception that WR do not like defending teams not engaging a maul ie by avoiding penalising the catching teams harshly. Especially since the same law/interpretation needs to be applied across all levels globvally form RWC final, to eg community rugby U13s . I appreciate this is where "manage it" comes in :)

didds

didds
17-10-16, 08:10
Found the video I meant - understood this is not what OB meant though :-)

https://www.youtube.com/v/VA0nT9fO01I&start=20

didds

ChrisR
17-10-16, 11:10
Take your pick. Which one applies?

Law 10.1 Obstruction
(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

law 11.6 Accidental Offside(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

This is a clear case where 10.1 applies. However, I agree with Pinky on his point that obstruction is not usually called unless the defenders are attempting to tackle the BC. Therefore I don't have a problem with crossref going with 11.6 and a scrum.

OB..
17-10-16, 11:10
My understanding was that WR wanted to discourage the practice (by the defending team).Why try to force teams to join in the attackers chosen approach? Makes no sense to me.


While it is a deliberate offside, it's also a bit of a gotcha and gaining a penalty from it therefore wouldn't be very fair.It only requires a little more thought by the attackers - don't pass the ball back until an opponent has bound on.


So in answer do didds' post: no, "accidental offside" doesn't necessarily have to be accidental!Disagree.


Yes - Ive also felt uncomfortable about this.

I can only assume it was because WR felt (?) that the catch+land+rip+transfer is/was so ingrained that it was otherwise a really simple "gotcha" PK otherwise.That seems unrealistic to me. Players are expected to train their instincts eg don't stick a foot out to trip an opponet when he beats you, don't catch a kick from a team mate behind you etc..


It certainly falls in line with the perception that WR do not like defending teams not engaging a maul ie by avoiding penalising the catching teams harshly.It would be nice to know why.

OB..
17-10-16, 12:10
This is a clear case where 10.1 applies.Agreed.
However, I agree with Pinky on his point that obstruction is not usually called unless the defenders are attempting to tackle the BC. I think it is unrealistic to say that a defender MUST run into an opponent in order to prove obstruction. By doing so he is "playing a player without the ball" - 10.1 (f).

didds
17-10-16, 12:10
Quote Originally Posted by didds
Yes - Ive also felt uncomfortable about this.

I can only assume it was because WR felt (?) that the catch+land+rip+transfer is/was so ingrained that it was otherwise a really simple "gotcha" PK otherwise.



That seems unrealistic to me. Players are expected to train their instincts eg don't stick a foot out to trip an opponet when he beats you, don't catch a kick from a team mate behind you etc..

It certainly falls in line with the perception that WR do not like defending teams not engaging a maul ie by avoiding penalising the catching teams harshly.
It would be nice to know why.


I can only concur with you OB.

didds

Dickie E
17-10-16, 20:10
My understanding was that WR wanted to discourage the practice (by the defending team).



Not really. What they are saying is that the ball carrying team reasonably expect the opposition to engage with them in a post-lineout maul. If they don't that is OK, but they get a scrum, not a penalty.

OB..
17-10-16, 23:10
Not really. What they are saying is that the ball carrying team reasonably expect the opposition to engage with them in a post-lineout maul. If they don't that is OK, but they get a scrum, not a penalty.Why are they entitled to act on an expectation rather than a fact? Particularly since the expectation is not very realistic.