Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

      
  1. #21

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,138
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ctrainor View Post
    Just watched the premiership highlights and heard at least 2 refs say "don't pre-bind" during the inevitable pick and goes near the line which nearly always results in a try for the attacking team after 5 or 6 attempts.
    For me, whilst it has come to be an accepted part of the game, it isn't much of a spectacle.
    In each case the ref totally ignored the pre-binding of one, usually two players so why do they bother saying it?

    Not sure pre-binding is specifically outlawed but for me it should be.

    As for penalising the pre-binders for going off their feet, has anyone seen that given?
    I remember them saying that but I am fairly sure it was at a penalty or such near the line that they said it. I don't think it was in open play or they would be saying it every phase.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  2. #22

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,506

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

    Well, just watched the premiership highlights again and plenty of tries scored and created by pre-binding, pick and go scenarios.
    Law 9.22 Dangerous play specifically says, teams must not use the cavalry charge or flying wedge but now conveniently offers no explanation as to what that is.
    I guess we'll just have to wait until some poor sod gets seriously injured before this is removed from the game.
    Ciaran Trainor

  3. #23
    Coach/Referee

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    03 May 13
    Posts
    1,105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ctrainor View Post
    Well, just watched the premiership highlights again and plenty of tries scored and created by pre-binding, pick and go scenarios.
    Law 9.22 Dangerous play specifically says, teams must not use the cavalry charge or flying wedge but now conveniently offers no explanation as to what that is.
    I guess we'll just have to wait until some poor sod gets seriously injured before this is removed from the game.
    I know this has been 'done to death ' but can you expand on your comments?

    "...no explanation as to what that is." ...what do you mean?

  4. #24

    Referees in Australia
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Central Australian Rugby Referees
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,725

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Decorily View Post
    I know this has been 'done to death ' but can you expand on your comments?

    "...no explanation as to what that is." ...what do you mean?
    If you can find a definition of what a FW actually is....
    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.

  5. #25

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,138
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonSmith View Post
    If you can find a definition of what a FW actually is....
    Spookily enough the definition/explanation of a Flying Wedge and a Cavalry Charge are now to be found in the...Definitions!

    Who'd have thought?

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  6. #26

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,506

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

    my mistake, It is in the definitions.
    Flying wedge is specific that you cannot pre bind onto a ball carrier a it is dangerous.
    I wish they would enforce it.
    Ciaran Trainor

  7. #27

    Referees in America
    thepercy's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    New York State Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    21 Sep 13
    Posts
    876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ctrainor View Post
    my mistake, It is in the definitions.
    Flying wedge is specific that you cannot pre bind onto a ball carrier a it is dangerous.
    I wish they would enforce it.
    The FW definition specifies, usually at a PK/FK, usually near the goal line, and teammates binding on both sides of the ball carrier forming a wedge, often in front of the ball carrier.

    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?

  8. #28

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,814

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

    The Flying Wedge originated in Australia. The law banning it dates from 1996/7.

    The wedge would form up, unbound, some distance back from the point of the penalty. The penalty taker would have the ball on the mark and the proto-wedge would start running. When they came up to the penalty taker, he would pass the ball to the point man and the others would bind on. Up to that moment, the defenders could not move forward. The wedge would thus be at full speed a mere 5m out from the goal line, and was virtually impossible to stop.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  9. #29

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,407

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

    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!

  10. #30

    Referees in Australia
    menace's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    ACTRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    20 Nov 09
    Posts
    3,581
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.
    Tell em it's Law 23 and smile

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
  •