• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Truck and trailer from Line out

Ciaran Trainor

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Had an interesting one yesterday which made me think twice about my decision.
Red 5 man attacking line out about 7M out.
Clean catch and pod formed but Black defenders step aside.
Red walk towards line and touch down claiming try.
I disallow saying truck and trailer, penalty Black for obstruction.
Red claim correctly that the catcher was at the front an always had the ball and touched it down so it should be a try.
I stuck to my guns and it did not affect the result ultimately.
In hindsight I think this is covered as a flying wedge and the fact that it started in a line out is immaterial.
Was I right?
 
My understanding was that if black chose not to compete then as long as the BC is at the front and no support players move in from to block them off, then the pod can march the length of the pitch.
If the BC moves the ball back, you then call use it, if they don’t you ping for obstruction.

If the defenders step out the way, the onus is on them to reengage by tackling the BC (which is why the have to remain at the front) and they don’t get a free gotcha for a PK.
 
Just checked my GMG (your union may vary) and it has:
LINEOUT DEFENSE NOT ENGAGING IN MAUL
  • Defense must not choose to not engage by stepping back, leaving the lineout as a group. PK
  • Defense may choose to not engage by staying in the lineout and opening up a gap to avoid contact with opponents.
  • If the attacking team keeps the ball with the front-most player in the huddle, they may move forward. Defenders may either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier.
  • If the attacking team clearly transfers the ball behind the front-most player in the huddle, the referee must tell them to “Use it”, which they must do immediately. If they don’t, it is a turnover scrum.
Click to expand...
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
Had an interesting one yesterday which made me think twice about my decision.
Red 5 man attacking line out about 7M out.
Clean catch and pod formed but Black defenders step aside.
Red walk towards line and touch down claiming try.
I disallow saying truck and trailer, penalty Black for obstruction.
Red claim correctly that the catcher was at the front an always had the ball and touched it down so it should be a try.
I stuck to my guns and it did not affect the result ultimately.
In hindsight I think this is covered as a flying wedge and the fact that it started in a line out is immaterial.
Was I right?
Click to expand...

The uncontested LO maul can be really hard to manage, in the few seconds you have available!

If the ball is at the front it's not a truck and trailer or obstruction... if they're at walking speed, and there's no contest, the flying wedge is neither materially dangerous nor (probably) materially disadvantaging the defenders. I'd allow the try that Black didn't seem interested in stopping.

I think at the very least you'd want to vocally warn them about the prebind before penalising them, in such a situation - that seems like a 'gotcha', considering it's only a problem because Black weren't responding to the expected maul.
 
My 2p? which may not support the laws/regs/instructions etc ..

Ball kept at the front - no obstruction, no truck and trailer. (And I'm very positive the laws support that too),

If the wedge is walked at slow speed there is no realistic danger QED no FLYING wedge. IMO (again, not necessarily supported by the laws etc) is that the FW law is about danger, not a concept.
QED - Try.
 
Appreciate the responses but I'm still not sure.

From the law book
a Flying wedge is An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the try line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates pre-bind onto the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.
Pace or intent is not a factor, it is illegal

The five current Global Law Trials – Goal Line Drop-out, 50:22, jackler protection, banning pre-bound pods in open play (flying wedge) and approving a single latcher – will become full law.

Once the catching pod has moved from the line of touch, we have open play therefore the formation is illegal surely?
(I appreciate our American cousins had some guidelines issued but they don't apply globally do they?)
 
cant argue your logic CT, being fair.

But I would suggest its because the law makers dont actually consider the realities of the game. Id wager that law is there with ONLY a charging FW in mind. I just dont believe they've ever sat around a table and postulated "if its done at walking pace do we still want it to be a FW". Because its is blindingly obvious they are incapable of viewing the game outside of a very narrow field of view.
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
Appreciate the responses but I'm still not sure.

From the law book
a Flying wedge is An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the try line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates pre-bind onto the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.
Pace or intent is not a factor, it is illegal
Click to expand...
Flying wedge is prohibited under 9.22 Dangerous Play

If the wedge formation is not flying, and not dangerous, then I don't think it was what they meant by a flying wedge

But I dunno
 
Dickie E said:
What they need is a red team

Red team - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
they do! The at least need some sort of sub committee that actually thinks about how any law change can be abused/twisted AND what the subsequent outcomes of any actions eg when the ruck change to attackers keeping the ball at an unsuccessful ruck was brought in in 1992, did they actually consuider what the defence may do eg not compete much and instead implement wide field trench defence? (rhetorical question - clearly they didnt)
 
Ciaran Trainor said:
From the law book
a Flying wedge is An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the try line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates pre-bind onto the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.
Pace or intent is not a factor, it is illegal
Click to expand...
It doesn’t help that the definition is a bit wooly, one of those “don’t worry, you’ll know it when you see it…” entries.

If we pick it apart, does the definition mean a FW can only happen from a penalty, free kick, or open play - so never from a lineout?
Ciaran Trainor said:
(I appreciate our American cousins had some guidelines issued but they don't apply globally do they?)
Click to expand...
They do not - each union generally has their own take, but I’m pretty sure I’d have heard a lot more noise from the society if any of us disagreed with the GMG. We’ve had that wording I shared from at least the 23-24 season. It’s pretty universal that whenever the new or updated GMG comes out, any typos or queries come up almost immediately.
 
crossref said:
Flying wedge is prohibited under 9.22 Dangerous Play

If the wedge formation is not flying, and not dangerous, then I don't think it was what they meant by a flying wedge

But I dunno
Click to expand...

If you want to penalise by the letter of the law:
9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
- helping your opponent back to their feet is a penalty

9.17 A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
- catching a lifted opponent, who's overbalanced and falling awkwardly, and lowering them safely to the ground is a penalty
- the famous George North/Israel Folau lift and run should have been a penalty to Australia

9.20b A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
- ear to ear with an opponent in a ruck? Foul play, direct head contact, low degree of danger: two yellow cards

etc etc
I don't think the law book benefits from too literal a reading.
 
Same situation, red forms up and walks through the black line. Black wait until they are through before attempting to tackle, but at this stage they hit the side of the "maul", players bound to the ball carrier - ball remains at the front.

Is this obstruction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top