Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Spot the error?

      
  1. #1

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Spot the error?

    I could be very wrong but I think I spotted a glaring error in this chap's article?

    https://sport500.co.uk/if-referees-e...a-better-game/

    As in Launchbury doesn't have to be bound on, as he is caught in the maul and thus is legal.


    didds
    Last edited by didds; 16-03-17 at 13:03.

  2. #2

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,455
    Thanks (Received)
    107
    Likes (Received)
    962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Yes your right.
    A player can be caught in the middle of a maul (usually the 2nd row directing the traffic or trying to reach the ball carrier with both hands). In those circumstances he doesn't need to bind in the conventional way.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  3. #3

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    cheers Phil for the confirmation.

    A bit worrying then that such a basic point was not understood by "President of the RFU for the 2013-14 season, having been a member of the RFU Council for 20 years. He coached England age-group teams for more than a decade and had a couple of stints coaching Bristol Rugby "

    didds

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Important point here. Not being bound in doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of causing an obstruction if he was the winner of the ball in the first place!

    As likely winner of the ball in the line out, and if subsequently caught up in a maul, should he choose to pass/feed that ball back through the maul, as the laws allow, he can hardly be bound at the same time he initiates the move. Unless he is Doc Ock, of course!

    As such it can't subsequently be obstruction anyway!

    Only obstruction offences that can generally arise are for an uncontested lineout (no maul) being primary obstruction, which is an obvious risk, i.e. a ball being passed back directly to a supporting player or as we have also seen, players binding to their own player trying to protect access to the ball which itself is obstruction, as defending players are forced to come round to play the ball!
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 16-03-17 at 14:03.

  5. #5
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    429
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout . Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

    Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

    My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

    Any thoughts ?

  6. #6

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,332
    Thanks (Received)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    380
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout . Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

    Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

    My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

    Any thoughts ?
    To ensure that the forward pack controls the set piece so a smarmy shitty back that feels they have to be involved in everything doesn't screw up the maul formation?

    P.S - watch Brumbies rolling mauls from the past 3 seasons and the success of conversion....that's why.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

  7. #7

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    12,929
    Thanks (Received)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    1327

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I could be very wrong but I think I spotted a glaring error in this chap's article?

    https://sport500.co.uk/if-referees-e...a-better-game/

    As in Launchbury doesn't have to be bound on, as he is caught in the maul and thus is legal.


    didds

    While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

    The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  8. #8
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,116
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    296

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    It's always puzzled me why it's become so fashionable from a 5m-10m PK for teams kick their possession out - in order to try to win it back again [ and risk a steal/knock-on/poor throw] at the subsequent Lineout . Even if they catch then the throwers team get shoved 2m backwards as they land, so they seem to start their maul attempt from c.7m distant.

    Why not simply walk forward from the PK & as soon as opponent engages at mid point [c.3.5m out from 5m PK] then form the maul, surely less prone to losing possession & nearly always nearer the Goal Line.

    My team never kick out, we therefore never lose possession & always have control of the maul , which leads to a pretty successful try rate.

    Any thoughts ?
    I agree that it's a risk to possession but lineouts are pretty secure and if you lose it on the ops 5m they are under such pressure that they'll likely give it straight back to you.

    The positive aspect of the LO is as a base for structured variety although (yawn) most end up as mauls. It is a high percentage play.

  9. #9

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

    The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.
    then why single out Launchbury in a lineout? This is true of any maul. I apprecite that deliberate midfield mauls are rarely set thgese days (CF Launchbury v Italy, early 2nd half !" LOL)

    I don;t disagree with Ian;'s points generally... but this is hardly new .

    didds

  10. #10
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Spot the error?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    While I agree with PhilE's answer, I think the point the writer is making is that if it weren't for the maul Laws, that player is obstructing. If you did what this player did in midfeld (hand the ball to a player behind you then bind onto him and drag him forward) you would be PK for obstruction.

    The way the Laws surrounding "maul from a line-out" are currently enforced, it is almost impossible for a maul to be prevented from forming.
    .......but he can't just "wish away" the laws because it drives different behaviour based on your whereabouts on the pitch.

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
  •