Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

      
  1. #31

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,142

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

    Quote Originally Posted by menace View Post
    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
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  2. #32

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,861

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

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    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
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  3. #33

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,467

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

    Thanks OB :-)

  4. #34

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,537

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thepercy View Post

    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 :-)
    Ciaran Trainor

  5. #35

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria -The North
    Grade
    Advisor/Assessor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 05
    Posts
    1,836

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

    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.
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    (Groucho Marx)

  6. #36
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,274

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

    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.

  7. #37
    Slowing down these days

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    21 Jan 09
    Posts
    463

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

    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 .

  8. #38

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NLMOT PR
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    1,066

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

    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.

  9. #39

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,197
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    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.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  10. #40
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    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

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
  •