Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

      
  1. #11

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,923
    Thanks (Received)
    86
    Likes (Received)
    1229

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    IIRC refs usally then call AIOLI to the ball holding team

    didds
    "Oil and garlic"?
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  2. #12
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,967
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    252

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.


    There is no other reference (or definition) of 'leaving the lineout' that I can find. So I have to assume that it's the 10mx10m area from LoT to 10m back between the 5m and 15m from touch.

    Therefore the non-catching team should be able to retire, and the catching team advance, until the ball leaves the LoT. Then we are in 'general play' and obstruction laws should apply.

  3. #13

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,923
    Thanks (Received)
    86
    Likes (Received)
    1229

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended.


    There is no other reference (or definition) of 'leaving the lineout' that I can find. So I have to assume that it's the 10mx10m area from LoT to 10m back between the 5m and 15m from touch.

    Therefore the non-catching team should be able to retire, and the catching team advance, until the ball leaves the LoT. Then we are in 'general play' and obstruction laws should apply.
    Law 19.8 defines how a lineout is formed. Therefore any player in the lineout who does not conform to these requirements has left it (there are some specified exceptions).

    I agree it would help to have "leaving" defined". Personally I would set the limit at 1 metre. This would enable a team to make it clear they did not want to form a maul. Current WR thinking seems to be that they should move sideways.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  4. #14

    Referees in England
    Nigib's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Oxfordshire
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    02 Jul 07
    Posts
    325
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    64

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by DocY View Post
    Yes, if the ball is still in the not-a-maul. In practice, it's almost always a scrum as soon as it's been transferred. The team not in possession will either be obstructed by the player at the front, or they'll flood around and stop the ball coming out (or both).
    The added wrinkle this season is that the ball must be ripped by a player in contact (hence no 'long' transfer) - the ripper then stays in position, and the ball is then transferred back through the maul.

  5. #15

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,759
    Thanks (Received)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    725

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    "Oil and garlic"?
    :-)
    oops!

    UIOLI

    didds

  6. #16
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,967
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    252

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Personally I would set the limit at 1 metre. This would enable a team to make it clear they did not want to form a maul. Current WR thinking seems to be that they should move sideways.


    I could live with 1m tho I'm not sure if it's enough to make a clear statement of non-engagement. The proposed WR solution is a non-starter in my opinion. Has it been applied and, if so, what happened next?

  7. #17

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    25 May 16
    Posts
    377
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    32

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taff View Post
    Watching the Dragons v Glasgow Warriors game last weekend, and can't help wondering if we've seen the start of a new tactic.

    At a LO, the Dragons obviously didn't want to create a maul, because as soon as the Warriors won the ball, they would all stay in line and step back from the BC. Eg if the BC advanced 1m, all the Dragons pulled back 1m in a clearly rehearsed move.

    I think they got away with it on the night (clearly no maul was created) but isn't that a PK offence for leaving the LO?
    Surely if bc catches ball in line out & advance forward with ball in hand towards opposition ,
    Line out is over .
    Opposition rehersed step away also , simply shows they not looking to engage in maul..
    They wont be penalised for same .) But they looking for obstruction penalty ???

    If ball gone to back of non maul at line out ,,i believe refs are encouraged to advise team to use it & not allow them to advance forward , as this clearly obstruction .
    We all know this is 1 reason why opposition have stepped away ,

    Also if pottential maul is near try line .
    For me another reason why opposition use this risky stratergy of not forming a maul .
    Is because quite often mauls near try lines tend to be imaginary pulled down , & attacking teams then awarded penalty / penalty try .
    ( wales v france either im sure on warburtons red card issue , france did this to wales also ,,could of been 6 nations , game over ,,france won ) ,from a collapsed maul , ended with french penalty try ..

    Ideally had wales , not entered maul , they cant pull it down ,,still hi risk

  8. #18

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,759
    Thanks (Received)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    725

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    if a team didn't engage close to their own try line it would be a high risk strategy indeed. presumably the tactical thinking is that with no maul they can't be driven over, or they have the potential of a collapse and a PK at least, a PT possibly, and a YC even.

    the tactic may well be to hope to "catch out " the oppo to transfer the ball and advance and "buy" at least a scrum turnover to relieve the pressure - but if the ball isn't transferred its almost a certain try - unless they can buy a "flying wedge" PK maybe (now there's esoteric thinking).

    I'm not saying the above is a correct thing to do, but it seems the logical thinking behind the practice.

    didds

  9. #19

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,333
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Received)
    890
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy View Post

    Ideally had wales , not entered maul , they cant pull it down ,,still hi risk
    Utter rubbish.

    Ideally, had they not pulled it down...they wouldn't have given away a penalty.

    Your statement is like saying.....if they don't make any tackles, they can't commit any high tackles!

    True, but worthless.
    Last edited by Phil E; 05-10-16 at 16:10.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  10. #20

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    25 May 16
    Posts
    377
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    32

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Utter rubbish.

    Ideally, had they not pulled it down...they wouldn't have given away a penalty.

    Your statement is like saying.....if they don't make any tackles, they can't commit any high tackles!

    True, but worthless.
    No phil , im not suggesting no tackles is like saying it cant be a high tackle .( i agree that is nonsensce thinking )
    There have been loads of mauls from line outs near try lines that have not been pulled down ,,but yet the penalty has gone that way ..for allegedly collapsed mauls .
    But my response was simply of a view , of why i feel from taffs observation , of this practice in mauls from line outs ..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •