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

Thread: Not contesting line out maul at all

      
  1. #1

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    ARLB
    Grade
    New/Ungraded
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Posts
    307
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Not contesting line out maul at all

    Reds play Blue. Red lineout. They catch drive and set up maul. No blue player engages in the maul. So no maul. But no blue player makes any subsequent effort to tackle. The blue players completely back off. Therefore there is no obstruction and its play on. Right or wrong?

  2. #2

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,420
    Thanks (Received)
    162
    Likes (Received)
    1924

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    This blog post explains all the permutations

    http://therugbyref.blogspot.com/2016...neout.html?m=1

  3. #3

    Referees in England
    beckett50's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    East Midlands
    Grade
    Level 6
    Join Date
    31 Jan 04
    Posts
    2,483
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    203

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Ermm. It depends.

    This all changed a few years back and I will try and clarify so please bear with me.

    In your scenario where is the ball? Also remember that no lineout player can leave the line out until it is over (ball leaves the Line of Touch).

    Options.
    1. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on to the catcher but the ball remains at the front. Blue options are to tackle the ball carrier or - in your scenario - step apart. In which case there is no offside/obstruction and red can trundle up the park until they either score or Blue tackle the front of the 'tortoise' (to use a Roman Legion analogy)

    2. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Blue do not engage and do not leave the line out. Referee calls "No Engage; Use it!!" If red do not use it then there is a scrum turn over with Blue throwing in the ball. However, on a second and subsequent occasions that Red do not 'Use it!" the sanction is a PK to Blue - 15m in

    3. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Blue player runs round and tackles the hind most player (ball carrier). PK to RED for Blue leaving the LoT before the line out has finished.

    4. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Red player at the front reaches out and tries to grab a Blue player to form a Maul. Don't get fooled by this action by Red. Still no Maul as the Blue team have elected not to engage.

    Blue MUST NOT leave the LoT but need to 'part the curtains' by staying between the 5m and 15m lines.

    Hope this all helps?

    If you PM me I have a load of video clips that were issued at the time
    --------------------

    https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=691560798


    "Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf" Native American Proverb

    Vanillaisforicecream

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    1,050
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    108
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by beckett50 View Post
    Ermm. It depends.

    This all changed a few years back and I will try and clarify so please bear with me.

    In your scenario where is the ball? Also remember that no lineout player can leave the line out until it is over (ball leaves the Line of Touch).

    Options.
    1. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on to the catcher but the ball remains at the front. Blue options are to tackle the ball carrier or - in your scenario - step apart. In which case there is no offside/obstruction and red can trundle up the park until they either score or Blue tackle the front of the 'tortoise' (to use a Roman Legion analogy)

    2. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Blue do not engage and do not leave the line out. Referee calls "No Engage; Use it!!" If red do not use it then there is a scrum turn over with Blue throwing in the ball. However, on a second and subsequent occasions that Red do not 'Use it!" the sanction is a PK to Blue - 15m in

    3. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Blue player runs round and tackles the hind most player (ball carrier). PK to RED for Blue leaving the LoT before the line out has finished.

    4. Ball thrown in, Red catch the ball and set up by binding on, but the ball is transferred - player by player - to the back. Red player at the front reaches out and tries to grab a Blue player to form a Maul. Don't get fooled by this action by Red. Still no Maul as the Blue team have elected not to engage.

    Blue MUST NOT leave the LoT but need to 'part the curtains' by staying between the 5m and 15m lines.

    Hope this all helps?

    If you PM me I have a load of video clips that were issued at the time
    surely under your scenario 3, on transference of the ball without a maul forming, the ball is deemed to have left the lineout, and the lineout is therefore over?

  5. #5

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,670
    Thanks (Received)
    120
    Likes (Received)
    1439

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    surely under your scenario 3, on transference of the ball without a maul forming, the ball is deemed to have left the lineout, and the lineout is therefore over?
    I'm pretty sure scenario 3 requires that the gaggle of Red players moves forward at the same rate as the ball is transferred thereby leading to the ball remaining stationary on the LoT.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  6. #6

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,670
    Thanks (Received)
    120
    Likes (Received)
    1439

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...iOi6gODq7QAplc

    Is this the event that has prompted the OP?
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  7. #7

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    843
    Thanks (Received)
    40
    Likes (Received)
    232

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...iOi6gODq7QAplc


    Is this the event that has prompted the OP?
    If it is then the other thread on this clip has dealt with it quite comprehensively.

  8. #8

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    ARLB
    Grade
    New/Ungraded
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Posts
    307
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https...iOi6gODq7QAplc

    Is this the event that has prompted the OP?
    Something similar to this yes. Here it is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gXcB5D-p4Y

    The point is how can we call "obstruction" or "offside" when the defense make no effort to tackle there in the initial phase. It's not material because the other players aren't even bothered to play.

  9. #9

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    ARLB
    Grade
    New/Ungraded
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Posts
    307
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Quote Originally Posted by breako View Post
    Something similar to this yes. Here it is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gXcB5D-p4Y

    The point is how can we call "obstruction" or "offside" when the defense make no effort to tackle there in the initial phase. It's not material because the other players aren't even bothered to play.
    Looking at law 10

    A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes:

    Playing the ball.
    Tackling the ball-carrier.

    Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish.
    A player can be offside anywhere in the playing area.
    A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
    An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

    Interferes with play; or

    Moves forwards towards the ball;
    ...
    So the point here is the defense are making no effort to tackle or get to the ball carrier, then the attack are actually gaining no advantage.
    They are not "Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish"

    A player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum.
    The offending team aren't gaining an advantage if the defense are making no effort to play the ball or tackle.

    Another good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdlBMs-Juxw
    Last edited by breako; 29-12-19 at 00:12.

  10. #10

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,420
    Thanks (Received)
    162
    Likes (Received)
    1924

    Default Re: Not contesting line out maul at all

    Its normally accidental offside rather than a PK and it's only when they move forward with ball at back

    ”- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction."

    The reason we ref it like that is because of the guideline the IRB once issued

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
  •