Mexican Stand Off

[Phil E]

Not sure if this has already been shown, and if anyone can insert the video go ahead.

https://twitter.com/Champrugby/status/991339190427246592?s=19

Basically its a Mexican Stand Off at the lineout.

Defenders wont engage to create a maul
Attackers have the ball at the front so don't have to use it.
But attackers also don't move.

My thoughts are that we can't ask them to use it (well we can but have no basis in law to do so) becasue the ball is available for both teams to play. The defenders could create a maul, or just tackle the ball carrier who is at the front. Attackers could drive foreward with the ball at the front to the goal line.

So what would you do?

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I've nearly had this a few weeks ago. Ball carrying team decided after a couple of seconds to move forward with ball at the front, forcing defending team to engage. I would have probably called use it if it lasted a lot longer, even if "no basis in law".

 

[menace]

Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

 

[didds]

The inventiveness of the Italians (well, me actually a couple of years before the Italians famously used the "stand back" tactic against England... I was poo-pooed at the time here for having a stupid idea ;-) ) strikes again!

didds

 

[Taff]

For quite a time there was a gap big enough to drive a mini bus through it. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

Great clip
I think the referee is powerless .. just wait and watch very carefully, when something does happen you don't want to miss it !

 

[Dickie E]

a bit like when the ball is just out of the ruck but everyone is holding position cos they're not sure if its out: "ball is out, play on!"

 

[didds]

Well. the #9 needs sacking. With a hole as huge as that "behind" the phalanx and concerted and dynamic drive would have almost immediately put all those waiting defenders offside leaving a phalanx with the ball at the front to deal with the solo bloke on the line.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

I'm with Menace. Not the ref's job as the ball is in play and both sides have options. If non-maul keeps crabbing to the right and they go beyond the 15m that will change the dynamic.

 

[didds]

I'm with Menace. Not the ref's job as the ball is in play and both sides have options. If non-maul keeps crabbing to the right and they go beyond the 15m that will change the dynamic.

.. in that the lineout is over so blues own backs cn come up/join the phalanx etc... but its hardly affects the defnders?

I feel like Im missing something...

didds

 

[crossref]

It's a very odd one, both teams seem to have convinced themselves that blue cannot advance ... But since they have the ball carrier at the front , they can .. and should have !

 

[Dickie E]

Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

I think that when it is clear that the players aren't aware of the law, it is valid for the ref to step in and clarify.

 

[ChrisR]

If they advance or continue sideways until the ball leaves the lineout (and if advancing only the ball has to leave the LoT as no maul has formed) then we're in general play and defenders can cross the LoT and try to tackle ant any angle. Then you'd have obstruction from the players bound on the side or back.

So the team in possession were smart enough to keep it as a lineout but when stalemate happened they didn't have a plan B.

 

[menace]

I think that when it is clear that the players aren't aware of the law, it is valid for the ref to step in and clarify.

IMO this is not one of em. They know exactly what they are doing. This didn't happen by accident. Too clever for their own good...being stupid/cute is different to not knowing the laws.

 

[Dickie E]

IMO this is not one of em. They know exactly what they are doing. This didn't happen by accident. Too clever for their own good...being stupid/cute is different to not knowing the laws.

nah, neither team expected the other to do what they did. As a result, they weren't aware how the ref was going to manage it. A good time for the ref to clarify IMO.

 

[menace]

:shrug::shrug:
Not my monkey.

But ok..I will bite.
What will you say? You have no law to back you. ..other than the ref is soul judge...respect my authority. .yada yada yada.
What if it was a tactic by one team...what will you say so that it doesn't advantage one team over the other?

 

[crossref]

I am with menace ... although I will confess to an instinctive feeling, initially, that the ref should say something... in fact I don't think there is anything the ref can fairly say

 

[Dickie E]

:shrug::shrug:
Not my monkey.

But ok..I will bite.
What will you say? You have no law to back you. ..other than the ref is soul judge...respect my authority. .yada yada yada.
What if it was a tactic by one team...what will you say so that it doesn't advantage one team over the other?

I'd call out "ball is at front, no obstruction". This invites attacking team to move forward and/or defending team to tackle ball carrier.

If that fell on deaf ears, then "<attacking team>, use it!"

If that fell on deaf ears, scrum attacking team.

"Soul judge" ... love it

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

It's a very odd one, both teams seem to have convinced themselves that blue cannot advance ... But since they have the ball carrier at the front , they can .. and should have !

But could this be at risk of being called a "flying wedge" ball carried moving forwards with players bound either side of him.... or do you have to be "driving forward" before the teammates bind on for that definition to be met?

 

[crossref]

They were a wedge, but they weren't flying ..