Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

      
  1. #1
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    442

    Default Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dsD...w?usp=drivesdk

    In the Wasps Brstol game, there were numerous cases of (mainly Wasps) pre binding with more than 1 player and before contact. I tried to add a video link above , of one such example
    Personally I'd like to see this penalised as,for me, it kinda has the same negative attributes of a flying wedge
    It's dangerous for the tackler and negative in that it denies contest at the following ruck as those bound attackers fall to ground .

    In my games, I want players that only 1 player pre binding is allowed.
    I would let it go once, with a warning
    I'd be interested to get the thoughts of my fellow refs on here as to their approach to this.
    I appear to be in a minority.
    Cheers.

  2. #2

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,076

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    same question in effect, and thus same answer, as any such questions about the laws as written and the failed blowing of them at the elite level

    some sort of mixture of under instructions/agreements/CBA/"the greater good"/TV audiences dont want nit picky refs etc etc etc

    didds
    Last edited by didds; 1 Week Ago at 13:09.

  3. #3

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,589

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post

    In my games, I want players that only 1 player pre binding is allowed.
    I would let it go once, with a warning
    I'd be interested to get the thoughts of my fellow refs on here as to their approach to this.
    I appear to be in a minority.
    Cheers.
    what is the relevant Law you are using ?

    The only one seems to be 9.22 Teams must not use the ‘cavalry charge’ or ‘flying wedge’.

    The general convention seems to be this Law is only used at PKs hence you finding yourself in the minority

    Plus - coming of the back of a ruck, while I agree they are forming a wedge - it's not really flying .
    Last edited by crossref; 1 Week Ago at 14:09.

  4. #4
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    442

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Cheers CR. I was wondering if anyone else penalises or, at least, find it negative.

    For the benefit if other readers . Here's the definition I am using ..

    Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of 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.

    The key features , given the ambiguity if the 'usually' qualifier, are 'binds on each side of the ball carrier' and 'before engaging'.
    We've debated something like this before.ariubd the requirement for a PK but I'm not so sure.
    Just seems preferable and more equitable to allow the defence a fair crack.

  5. #5

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    18,589

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    that it denies contest at the following ruck as those bound attackers fall to ground .
    perhaps that is a richer seam to mine - pk under 14.8 ?
    Other players must:

    Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately.

    Remain on their feet when they play the ball.

  6. #6

    Referees in America
    thepercy's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    New York State Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    21 Sep 13
    Posts
    790

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    You really think this is more dangerous than the accepted amout of danger in a rugby match?

    I don' think this is more dangerous than if the support players were not prebound and came into the tackle area from a distance.

  7. #7

    Referees in America
    Rank Bajin!
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Virginia (USA)
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,589

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    Cheers CR. I was wondering if anyone else penalises or, at least, find it negative.

    For the benefit if other readers . Here's the definition I am using ..

    Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of 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.

    The key features , given the ambiguity if the 'usually' qualifier, are 'binds on each side of the ball carrier' and 'before engaging'.
    We've debated something like this before.ariubd the requirement for a PK but I'm not so sure.
    Just seems preferable and more equitable to allow the defence a fair crack.
    If this were a standardized test for verbal reasoning, I would argue that the "usually" applies to the clause regarding proximity to the goal line, and not to the PK. If you lift out everything between the commas, you see what I mean.

    But as OB has said on multiple occasions, looking to read the Law in that manner isn't beneficial because they weren't drafted that way.

    That notwithstanding, I don;t think pre binding in an of itself, is unlawful. Going to ground immediately on the ball carrier without contacting an opposition player - much more penalizable.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Man may do as he will; he may not will what he wills
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Tullamore Dew, the Afghan Wigs, and many, many strippers - how to get over your ex. How true.

  8. #8

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    862

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Interesting. By pre-binding this seems to be extending the ruck. Do we then have use of hands in ruck to pick up?

  9. #9

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    Looks wrong and probably is one the player picking the ball up from the ruck is not the last man. 15.11 Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
    Ciaran Trainor

  10. #10

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,787

    Default Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    This is a Law 14 offence:
    8. Other players must:

    a. Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately.


    We used to see it here and refs used to call "reload" to tell the latched players to release, get to their feet & then rejoin the ruck. This would now be penalised
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •