Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

      
  1. #21

    Referees/Trains Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,176
    Thanks (Received)
    87
    Likes (Received)
    823
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy View Post
    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 .
    I just don't believe that. Do you have video evidence?

    Follow my blog The Rugby Ref


  2. #22

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    25 May 16
    Posts
    312
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    28

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    I just don't believe that. Do you have video evidence?
    Beleiving is seeing .
    Im surprised you a non believer ..
    Ill look at this later when im back ,,ill see what i can find for you .

  3. #23

    Referees in England
    Nigib's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Oxfordshire
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    02 Jul 07
    Posts
    321
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    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?
    I've seen the tactic tried several times in games I referee over the last couple of seasons. Usually the captain speaks to me beforehand and advises that they use the tactic. I make it very clear that they if they touch I'll call a maul, and if they step back (rather than slide apart along their line) they'll be pinged. Not seen one success at this, usually always contact... until last Saturday in a schools U18 game. They tried a couple of times and didn't succeed, and then. LO on Red 5m, Black throw-in. Taken by Black, who formed to trundle; Reds parted, Black roll through over the goal line. Luckily for Red, they had some backs who got in the way and managed to hold it up. But an object lesson in choosing where you shouldn't try this.

  4. #24

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    13,194
    Thanks (Received)
    80
    Likes (Received)
    1092

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    I had my first real experience of this last week, with one team - to begin with - using it at every defending lineout

    I can't really see the point of it, the attacking team caught the ball, formed a loose maul like structure and moved the ball rapidly (hand to hand) to the scrum half who immediately used it -- sometimes with an attacking player running round to try and disrupt, fruitelssly

    I could really see anything to penalise... but couldn't really see the point of the tactic

  5. #25

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,764
    Thanks (Received)
    85
    Likes (Received)
    1139

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy View Post
    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 .
    What you are claiming is that senior referees, more experienced at that level than any of us, and much closer to the action, are regularly getting it wrong. Moreover that also implies the Match Observers and coaches are also missing it.

    I'd require a very high level of evidence before I could accept that claim.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  6. #26

    Referees in Wales
    Taff's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Llanelli District
    Grade
    WRU Level 2
    Join Date
    23 Aug 09
    Posts
    6,425
    Thanks (Received)
    25
    Likes (Received)
    219

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by beckett50 View Post
    ... Just be careful that the defending team don't leave the lineout before it is over.
    But that is exactly what they ARE doing surely. All 8 were moving back in a line.

    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.
    If they are in the LO, my understanding is that a participating player can only leave the LO if he's peeling. there was no way this was "peeling" - this was synchronised (and obviously very well rehearsed) leaving of the LO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christy View Post
    Surely if bc catches ball in line out & advance forward with ball in hand towards opposition ,
    Line out is over.
    Wouldn't the opposition have to catch the mall and move at least 1-2 metres for the ball to be deemed to have left the LO? My point is if the oppos have caught the ball and advanced past where the "defenders" had been standing when the LO formed, but they're not there any more ... isn't it fair to say they've left the LO before it was over? After all, if they're not where they started - where have they gone? And there is no way they could argue they were "peeling" because most of the time, they didn't step out till the ball had been lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nigib View Post
    I've seen the tactic tried several times in games I referee over the last couple of seasons. ... until last Saturday in a schools U18 game. They tried a couple of times and didn't succeed, and then. LO on Red 5m, Black throw-in. Taken by Black, who formed to trundle; Reds parted, Black roll through over the goal line.
    I've got no problem with one side "parting". In fact as I understand it, that is the best way to avoid a maul.

    Parting - good
    Leaving - bad.
    Last edited by Taff; 05-10-16 at 20:10.

  7. #27

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,059
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    387

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    All the information you need Taff, is in the 2014 memo from WR regarding how to manage non-engagement by the side not winning the LO.
    Your OP describes the "defending" team as leaving the LO which is a PK. As you say, part = good, leave = bad
    When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others.
    It's the same when you are stupid.

  8. #28

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    21,764
    Thanks (Received)
    85
    Likes (Received)
    1139

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    All the information you need Taff, is in the 2014 memo from WR regarding how to manage non-engagement by the side not winning the LO.
    Your OP describes the "defending" team as leaving the LO which is a PK. As you say, part = good, leave = bad
    Yes, but it is not a very satisfactory document IMHO. It is heavily biased towards making it difficult to avoid forming a maul.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  9. #29
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    6+1
    Join Date
    22 Dec 15
    Posts
    185
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    67

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Non-ball carrying side also have the option of the direct "sack" of the ball carrier. A maul is not formed immediately on contact between ball carrier and opposition if they are attempting to tackle (particularly if below the waist).

  10. #30

    Referees in Australia
    TigerCraig's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Sydney North & NSWRRA
    Grade
    Level 1 Ref/Level 2 AR
    Join Date
    19 May 08
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nigib View Post
    I've seen the tactic tried several times in games I referee over the last couple of seasons. Usually the captain speaks to me beforehand and advises that they use the tactic. I make it very clear that they if they touch I'll call a maul,.
    How does a touch form a maul? A maul requires a bind. In the season just go I coached my team to put their hands straight up in the air and scream 'no maul not bound' in unison. We won at least 1 scrum per game. We had a very weak line-out so didn't bother other team ball but got more than our share of turnovers

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
  •