Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

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.

[didds]

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

[crossref]

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 .

[CrouchTPEngage]

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.

[crossref]

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.

[thepercy]

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.

[SimonSmith]

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.

[Balones]

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

[ctrainor]

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.

[Dickie E]

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