PDA

View Full Version : Mexican Stand Off



Phil E
03-05-18, 09:05
Not sure if this has already been shown, and if anyone can insert the video go ahead.

https://twitter.com/Champrugby/status/991339190427246592?s=19

Basically its a Mexican Stand Off at the lineout.

Defenders wont engage to create a maul
Attackers have the ball at the front so don't have to use it.
But attackers also don't move.

My thoughts are that we can't ask them to use it (well we can but have no basis in law to do so) becasue the ball is available for both teams to play. The defenders could create a maul, or just tackle the ball carrier who is at the front. Attackers could drive foreward with the ball at the front to the goal line.

So what would you do?

Thunderhorse1986
03-05-18, 10:05
I've nearly had this a few weeks ago. Ball carrying team decided after a couple of seconds to move forward with ball at the front, forcing defending team to engage. I would have probably called use it if it lasted a lot longer, even if "no basis in law".

menace
03-05-18, 10:05
Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

didds
03-05-18, 10:05
The inventiveness of the Italians (well, me actually a couple of years before the Italians famously used the "stand back" tactic against England... I was poo-pooed at the time here for having a stupid idea ;-) ) strikes again!

didds

Taff
03-05-18, 13:05
For quite a time there was a gap big enough to drive a mini bus through it. :biggrin:

crossref
03-05-18, 13:05
Great clip
I think the referee is powerless .. just wait and watch very carefully, when something does happen you don't want to miss it !

Dickie E
03-05-18, 13:05
a bit like when the ball is just out of the ruck but everyone is holding position cos they're not sure if its out: "ball is out, play on!"

didds
03-05-18, 13:05
Well. the #9 needs sacking. With a hole as huge as that "behind" the phalanx and concerted and dynamic drive would have almost immediately put all those waiting defenders offside leaving a phalanx with the ball at the front to deal with the solo bloke on the line.

didds

ChrisR
03-05-18, 16:05
Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

I'm with Menace. Not the ref's job as the ball is in play and both sides have options. If non-maul keeps crabbing to the right and they go beyond the 15m that will change the dynamic.

didds
03-05-18, 16:05
I'm with Menace. Not the ref's job as the ball is in play and both sides have options. If non-maul keeps crabbing to the right and they go beyond the 15m that will change the dynamic.

.. in that the lineout is over so blues own backs cn come up/join the phalanx etc... but its hardly affects the defnders?

I feel like Im missing something...

didds

crossref
03-05-18, 17:05
It's a very odd one, both teams seem to have convinced themselves that blue cannot advance ... But since they have the ball carrier at the front , they can .. and should have !

Dickie E
03-05-18, 21:05
Do nothing. Say nothing.
Not my job to make them play.
If they want to waste their playing time who am I to stop them.

I think that when it is clear that the players aren't aware of the law, it is valid for the ref to step in and clarify.

ChrisR
03-05-18, 22:05
If they advance or continue sideways until the ball leaves the lineout (and if advancing only the ball has to leave the LoT as no maul has formed) then we're in general play and defenders can cross the LoT and try to tackle ant any angle. Then you'd have obstruction from the players bound on the side or back.

So the team in possession were smart enough to keep it as a lineout but when stalemate happened they didn't have a plan B.

menace
03-05-18, 23:05
I think that when it is clear that the players aren't aware of the law, it is valid for the ref to step in and clarify.

IMO this is not one of em. They know exactly what they are doing. This didn't happen by accident. Too clever for their own good...being stupid/cute is different to not knowing the laws.

Dickie E
04-05-18, 01:05
IMO this is not one of em. They know exactly what they are doing. This didn't happen by accident. Too clever for their own good...being stupid/cute is different to not knowing the laws.

nah, neither team expected the other to do what they did. As a result, they weren't aware how the ref was going to manage it. A good time for the ref to clarify IMO.

menace
04-05-18, 06:05
:shrug::shrug:
Not my monkey.

But ok..I will bite.
What will you say? You have no law to back you. ..other than the ref is soul judge...respect my authority. .yada yada yada.
What if it was a tactic by one team...what will you say so that it doesn't advantage one team over the other?

crossref
04-05-18, 06:05
I am with menace ... although I will confess to an instinctive feeling, initially, that the ref should say something... in fact I don't think there is anything the ref can fairly say

Dickie E
04-05-18, 06:05
:shrug::shrug:
Not my monkey.

But ok..I will bite.
What will you say? You have no law to back you. ..other than the ref is soul judge...respect my authority. .yada yada yada.
What if it was a tactic by one team...what will you say so that it doesn't advantage one team over the other?

I'd call out "ball is at front, no obstruction". This invites attacking team to move forward and/or defending team to tackle ball carrier.

If that fell on deaf ears, then "<attacking team>, use it!"

If that fell on deaf ears, scrum attacking team.

"Soul judge" ... love it :)

Thunderhorse1986
04-05-18, 08:05
It's a very odd one, both teams seem to have convinced themselves that blue cannot advance ... But since they have the ball carrier at the front , they can .. and should have !

But could this be at risk of being called a "flying wedge" ball carried moving forwards with players bound either side of him.... or do you have to be "driving forward" before the teammates bind on for that definition to be met?

crossref
04-05-18, 08:05
They were a wedge, but they weren't flying ..

didds
04-05-18, 08:05
If they advance or continue sideways until the ball leaves the lineout (and if advancing only the ball has to leave the LoT as no maul has formed) then we're in general play and defenders can cross the LoT and try to tackle ant any angle. Then you'd have obstruction from the players bound on the side or back.

So the team in possession were smart enough to keep it as a lineout but when stalemate happened they didn't have a plan B.

Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing :-)

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

ChrisR
04-05-18, 11:05
Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing :-)

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

That's a real good point, didds.

- - - Updated - - -


Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing :-)

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

That's a real good point, didds.

menace
04-05-18, 13:05
I'd call out "ball is at front, no obstruction". This invites attacking team to move forward and/or defending team to tackle ball carrier.

If that fell on deaf ears, then "<attacking team>, use it!"

If that fell on deaf ears, scrum attacking team.

"Soul judge" ... love it :)
And there you have now disadvantaged a team by giving away their tactic.
Ill counsel players when they are breaking a law....not when theyre abiding by them.

soul / sole...all the same to me.
I am soul, you are sole! :pepper::pepper:

collybs
04-05-18, 16:05
Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

Law 9.3 in 2018 laws refers to all players whether offside or not.

Obstruction
9.3 A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.


Law 9.2 refers to offside players

9.2 An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

didds
04-05-18, 18:05
Law 9.3 in 2018 laws refers to all players whether offside or not.



so - just to clarify you'd ping a support player running in support of a ball carrier - like the below.? He's chosen to take up that support position to best support the ball carrier so is by definition intentionally there.

3754

OB..
04-05-18, 20:05
so - just to clarify you'd ping a support player running in support of a ball carrier - like the below.? He's chosen to take up that support position to best support the ball carrier so is by definition intentionally there.

3754If he was already there when the defender arrived, then he does not have to get out of the way. If he moved in order to prevent the defender getting to the ball carrier - PK. Often a judgement call.

ChrisR
05-05-18, 00:05
So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?

Sounds like scrum time but who feeds?

Taff
05-05-18, 07:05
... Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point...
Personally, I wouldn't penalise that. The support players have to be somewhere.


So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?
Good question Chris, but the intention was to set up a Maul and not block any possible tacklers. And if they didn't deliberately move into a blocking position the "intent" bit is missing, so I don't see why they would be penalised.

The same argument applies to guards at Rucks; they are onside but they are only there to protect their SH by making life more awkward for opposition players. We don't penalise those, and there is far more "intent" there than at this LO.

didds
05-05-18, 10:05
If he was already there when the defender arrived, then he does not have to get out of the way. If he moved in order to prevent the defender getting to the ball carrier - PK. Often a judgement call.

I agree OB. I was intending to imply that it was a standard support line etc :-)

didds

didds
05-05-18, 10:05
So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?

Sounds like scrum time but who feeds?

I thought refs generally did watch for the "step betweeners" ? At lineout but also receiving kicks.

didds

OB..
05-05-18, 11:05
Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point..
Once the ball has been caught, the offside line for those participating in the lineout runs through the ball, so players cannot run round and claim obstruction.

This remains the case while the lineout continues to exist.

However:18.37 Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no player may leave the lineout until it has ended.
"Leaving the lineout" is not defined and some people take a very restricted view. In this case at least one defender seems to have left the lineout by sliding behind a team-mate.

ChrisR
05-05-18, 19:05
I'm not sure what the throwers are expecting outside of wanting the ops to join so they can drive. However with the ball at the front they can do that anyway. And the defenders? Are they just expecting the throwers to play the ball away?

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much if the defenders left the LoT as long as the stayed between the tramlines and the goal as there's no advantage to be gained by dropping back.