Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

[Dickie E]

Just throwing it out there.
But if there is players bound each side of the ball carrier then that would make it pretty difficult to tackle the ball-carrier? (Unless you go head on at them). Could it be considered a form of obstruction?
" A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier."

I've often thought it obstructs any reasonable tackle from the side...but I have conformed to the masses and let it go.

as long as the ball carrier is at the front it is all good. Similar to the lineout to maul tactic

[OB..]

far be it for me to doubt OB's encyclopedic knowledge ... but a quick googling indicates the FW was a common tactic in USA college american football in the 1920s or even earlier

(see https://www.californiagoldenblogs.co...gold-medalists)

so was a widely known tactic some 3/4 of a century before 1996. I cant ever recall seeing it ever used in the preceding twenty years from that date and would say it had to be outlawed before 1996 surely?

I'm feeling very tentative querying OB here!

In the 1996/7 law book the two banned techniques are flagged as changes to the law.

The Americans did devise a Flying Wedge technique, but it was a development of blocking, which was already legal.

During the 1880s and 1890s, teams developed increasingly complex blocking tactics including the interlocking interference technique known as the Flying wedge or "V-trick formation", which was developed by Lorin F. Deland and first introduced by Harvard in a collegiate game against Yale in 1892. Despite its effectiveness, it was outlawed two seasons later in 1894 through the efforts of the rule committee led by Parke H. Davis, because of its contribution to serious injury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rican_football

[didds]

Thanks OB :-)

[ctrainor]

Why do you want pre-binding (that's nothing like a FW) called more often, and for what? Have you seen people be injured from it? Do you just think its unfair? How is it more dangerous then a standard tackle or ruck?

2 reasons, it creates an unfair contest for the ball, and more importantly it's boring :-)

[tim White]

Tackling two oncoming players at the same time is more dangerous than tackling just one. Perhaps this is another reason to encourage lower tackles rather than just bash into each other.

[Flish]

Just been penalised by Karl Dixon in Leicester vs Falcons, warned them 3 times even to the point of don’t bind until take contact, they did anyway, penalty against.

[CrouchTPEngage]

Interesting.! I just came on here to ask why he's just done the opposite. I must have missed the actual PK. I just saw him (about 58mins ) telling the players 'No pre binding ' then Newcastle.spend about 60 seconds pre binding and pick and go rugby . No action. I think it's dangerous, unentertaining and difficult to defend against safely. I can see why teams do it ,if they get away with it .

[Balones]

My understanding from our professional colleagues is that there is quite a lot of discussion going on in the background in relation to pre-binding and that we may be receiving some guidance on it soon.

[Phil E]

My understanding from our professional colleagues is that there is quite a lot of discussion going on in the background in relation to pre-binding and that we may be receiving some guidance on it soon.

Cue.......Sir I wasn't pre-binding, I was latching.

[Flish]

Cue.......Sir I wasn't pre-binding, I was latching.

Indeed, as in the guidance for the Covid amended laws there's no maul (Binding) but latching on is allowed