Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

      
  1. #31

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,930
    Thanks (Received)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    1327

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderhorse1986 View Post
    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).
    I don't understand why teams not wanting to form a maul don't simply drop down to a crouch as the ball is thrown and go straight for the legs of the catcher the moment his feet touch the ground - grasping an opponent below the hips is not binding, so no maul can be formed.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  2. #32

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,091
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    I don't understand why teams not wanting to form a maul don't simply drop down to a crouch as the ball is thrown and go straight for the legs of the catcher the moment his feet touch the ground - grasping an opponent below the hips is not binding, so no maul can be formed.
    Binding by an opponent of the ball carrier is not a requirement when forming a maul. The BC "Held" by an opponent and a team mate of the BC "Bound" to him is the minimum requirement.
    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.

  3. #33
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,614
    Thanks (Received)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    363

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    Binding by an opponent of the ball carrier is not a requirement when forming a maul. The BC "Held" by an opponent and a team mate of the BC "Bound" to him is the minimum requirement.
    What happens when the big forward comes on a crash ball and his mate binds onto him just before an opponent grabs him? By your definition that would be a maul formed and collapsed by the one defender. I think you'd struggle to sell that.

  4. #34

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,091
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by DocY View Post
    What happens when the big forward comes on a crash ball and his mate binds onto him just before an opponent grabs him? By your definition that would be a maul formed and collapsed by the one defender. I think you'd struggle to sell that.
    Not my definition, by the definition provided in Law 17.

    A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.


    I was simply pointing out to Ian that the Laws don't require an opponent to bind to the BC.

    There are many instances during a game where, as a tackle is occurring, you could argue that, technically, a maul has formed. It's up to the referee to manage such split second instances.
    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.

  5. #35

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,690
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post

    There are many instances during a game where, as a tackle is occurring, you could argue that, technically, a maul has formed. It's up to the referee to manage such split second instances.
    and in the pro game especially refs do everything they can to perceive these things as a tackle, wherever they possibly can.

  6. #36

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,020
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    775

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taff View Post
    But that is exactly what they ARE doing surely. All 8 were moving back in a line.


    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.


    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.


    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.
    whuch has just made me think...

    blue catch and form a "non-maul".

    red part.

    blue move forward a metre or so such that red are lined up in line almost in line the foremost blue player (just a inch or so closer to their own DBL), whoi has supporters either side of him.. The ball could be anywhere in this "non-maul".

    wherever red now "hit" the non-maul, have they no got legitimate claims for obstruction? the ball carrier is blocked by a teamn mate on all sides potentially with a defender at worst coming in level with him?

    Agreed it would take split second timing!

    didds

  7. #37

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,690
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post

    wherever red now "hit" the non-maul, have they no got legitimate claims for obstruction? the ball carrier is blocked by a teamn mate on all sides potentially with a defender at worst coming in level with him?

    Agreed it would take split second timing!

    didds
    I think yes, but WR guidance is that we call this accidental offside, not obstruction.

    (WR are trying to discourage the use of this defence)

  8. #38

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,091
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I think yes, but WR guidance is that we call this accidental offside, not obstruction.

    (WR are trying to discourage the use of this defence)
    Only accidental offside (under the WR guidelines for non-engagement at the LO) if blue transfer the ball back from the front player (i.e. jumper).

    If, in didds' scenario, blue keep the ball at the front of the "non-maul" and move a metre or so forward and have actually moved over the LoT, the LO is over and we are now back in general play and as such, normal obstruction laws apply i.e. PK
    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.

  9. #39

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    LSRFUR
    Grade
    10
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    14,690
    Thanks (Received)
    99
    Likes (Received)
    1364

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fat View Post
    Only accidental offside (under the WR guidelines for non-engagement at the LO) if blue transfer the ball back from the front player (i.e. jumper).

    If, in didds' scenario, blue keep the ball at the front of the "non-maul" and move a metre or so forward and have actually moved over the LoT, the LO is over and we are now back in general play and as such, normal obstruction laws apply i.e. PK
    well yes.
    but then as didd said timings become split second,

    and also we are back in the terriority of an issues we once had a 300-post thread about, with much acrimony : can you be guilty of obstruction if you are behind the ball carrier....

  10. #40

    Referees in Australia
    The Fat's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    FNCRRA
    Grade
    L1 Ref & L2 AR
    Join Date
    15 Jul 10
    Posts
    4,091
    Thanks (Received)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    396

    Default Re: Is this a new Lineout tactic?

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    well yes.
    but then as didd said timings become split second,

    and also we are back in the terriority of an issues we once had a 300-post thread about, with much acrimony : can you be guilty of obstruction if you are behind the ball carrier....
    Yes

    10.1 Obstruction
    (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.


    Blue form a "non-maul" thingamajig/whatchamacallit type formation around their ball carrier. I'd say that would bring 10.1(c) into play
    Last edited by The Fat; 06-10-16 at 14:10.
    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.

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
  •