• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Is refereeing around the lineout becoming too pedantic?

USA Rugby’s Game Management Guidelines are clear on this. If the defense chooses not to engage the maul, they may do so by opening up a gap to let the ball carrier through but cannot step backward and thereby leave the line out.
If the defense opens up legally, the team in possession must play the ball away immediately or it’s a scrum to the defense.
If the linked clip on Instagram were a game in the US, it should be penalty to the attack. However, per the GMGs, I also wouldn’t let the play continue or award the try because the team in possession didn’t play it away immediately and are advancing illegally.
Penalty to the team in possession for me.
 

Attachments

  • 868814AC-174E-47A4-9821-E5EA5E5DA0B5.jpeg
    868814AC-174E-47A4-9821-E5EA5E5DA0B5.jpeg
    217.9 KB · Views: 11
Locke said:
USA Rugby’s Game Management Guidelines are clear on this. If the defense chooses not to engage the maul, they may do so by opening up a gap to let the ball carrier through but cannot step backward and thereby leave the line out.
If the defense opens up legally, the team in possession must play the ball away immediately or it’s a scrum to the defense.
If the linked clip on Instagram were a game in the US, it should be penalty to the attack. However, per the GMGs, I also wouldn’t let the play continue or award the try because the team in possession didn’t play it away immediately and are advancing illegally.
Penalty to the team in possession for me.
Click to expand...
For the last point I have seen a referee call that a flying wedge and given a penalty to the defensive team rather than a scrum. Even at the time I hadn't made my mind up if that was the correct call or if it was just obstruction. A penalty either way.

I suppose the scrum call is to try and make it a bit more equitable as the attack haven't intentionally formed an "unopposed maul" (yes, I know there is no such thing) but does run parallels in my mind of the good old days when wheeling a scrum would be a turnover. The FR soon learnt tactics to get a turnover when needed with that call, so they removed it. This feels like the defence might purposely not engage to try and "win" a scrum. Doesn't sit 100% right with me. But then I suppose the defence are trying to win a PK by not engaging.

All just feels against the spirit of the game in my mind, and I can't quite put my finger on how I feel about it
 
Last edited:
im sure I MUST have this wrong then but the above seems to suggest

red catch
red set up a "maul" shape thing

blue open a hole.

If red move forward with the ball at the front that is a PK for flying wedge
If red move forward with ball moved backwards on the "maul" shape its a PK for obstruction.
If red do not move forward or or move the ball the game is at a stalemate. Red cannot move forward, red cannot move the ball backwards to give to the receiver/scrum half. The lineout is not over so blue lineout players cannot move away.
(There is a video somewhere where this happens but I cant find it.)

The only way "out" is for red catcher to pass directly to the receiver.

There is no accidental FW. There could be a call for accidental obstruction and scrum turnover, blue ball.

QED blue's best solution for any red lineout is maybe contest in the air but do not engage on the ground whatever happens. As red MUST pass away and cannot advance - or blue win a PK or lineout.

That somehow doesn't seem right, and somebody will explain why hopefully!
 
didds said:
im sure I MUST have this wrong then but the above seems to suggest

red catch
red set up a "maul" shape thing

blue open a hole.

If red move forward with the ball at the front that is a PK for flying wedge
If red move forward with ball moved backwards on the "maul" shape its a PK for obstruction.
If red do not move forward or or move the ball the game is at a stalemate. Red cannot move forward, red cannot move the ball backwards to give to the receiver/scrum half. The lineout is not over so blue lineout players cannot move away.
(There is a video somewhere where this happens but I cant find it.)

The only way "out" is for red catcher to pass directly to the receiver.

There is no accidental FW. There could be a call for accidental obstruction and scrum turnover, blue ball.

QED blue's best solution for any red lineout is maybe contest in the air but do not engage on the ground whatever happens. As red MUST pass away and cannot advance - or blue win a PK or lineout.

That somehow doesn't seem right, and somebody will explain why hopefully!
Click to expand...

See Phil's post #3 in this link which explains it well
 
Locke said:
USA Rugby’s Game Management Guidelines are clear on this. If the defense chooses not to engage the maul, they may do so by opening up a gap to let the ball carrier through but cannot step backward and thereby leave the line out.
If the defense opens up legally, the team in possession must play the ball away immediately or it’s a scrum to the defense.
If the linked clip on Instagram were a game in the US, it should be penalty to the attack. However, per the GMGs, I also wouldn’t let the play continue or award the try because the team in possession didn’t play it away immediately and are advancing illegally.
Penalty to the team in possession for me.
Click to expand...

Thank you for citing USA Rugby's game management guidance, that's super helpful for me actually and interesting. I personally think they got it wrong, unless World Rugby did actually issue similar guidance - but either way then they're choosing to ignore multiple other concrete lineout laws in favor of 1 lineout law.
 
didds said:
except that was 5 years ago.

now there are claims that the action of

catch
form maul like thing
ball at the front
walk downfield
is now potentially called a flying wedge - see #8 and #22 in this thread
I thus refer us all back to my #23 in this thread.
Click to expand...
Every lineout to maul event involves (in order):
1. Player catches ball
2. Team mates bind on
3. Opponents engage
To consider this a Flying Wedge is an over-extension.
A bit like considering every regular backline move as a Cavalry Charge
 
Dickie E said:
Every lineout to maul event involves (in order):
1. Player catches ball
2. Team mates bind on
3. Opponents engage
To consider this a Flying Wedge is an over-extension.
A bit like considering every regular backline move as a Cavalry Charge
Click to expand...
Err... no.
3 opponents do not engage.
4 team with ball moves forward.

That is what is being discussed.
I'm just putting several posts together.
FW has been moted in posts #8 and #22 (IIRC). Not by me.
I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
 
didds said:
Err... no.
3 opponents do not engage.
4 team with ball moves forward.

That is what is being discussed.
I'm just putting several posts together.
FW has been moted in posts #8 and #22 (IIRC). Not by me.
I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
Click to expand...
the point I'm making is that here is always a period of time between step 2 and step 3. It might be a second or it might be a minute. The revised FW laws are not designed to apply to lineout to maul situations.
 
Dickie E said:
the point I'm making is that here is always a period of time between step 2 and step 3. It might be a second or it might be a minute. The revised FW laws are not designed to apply to lineout to maul situations.
Click to expand...
so the comments iin #8 and #22 are 100% incorrect ? Not my comments - others.
 
but #8 is certain, even when incorrect.

#22 suggests that maybe they think it may happen.

QED - its out there.

So definittively then

red catch
red set.
blue step away, not leaving a lineout.
red ball at front
red can walk over the try line and score.
definitively, every time, no quibble.
If so - can they jog?
can they run?
 
Phil E said:
[LAWS=]A cavalry charge is a military tactic where soldiers on horseback rush towards the enemy to engage in close combat. Cavalry charges have been a key tactic in many battles throughout history.[/LAWS]
Click to expand...
In fairness I think that the advent of the longbow at the start of the 100 Years War rather started the decline in the use of the Cavalry Charge, so 'throughout' can be a little misleading.
 
didds said:
but #8 is certain, even when incorrect.

#22 suggests that maybe they think it may happen.

QED - its out there.

So definittively then

red catch
red set.
blue step away, not leaving a lineout.
red ball at front
red can walk over the try line and score.
definitively, every time, no quibble.
If so - can they jog?
can they run?
Click to expand...
Yes, thats my view.

On the Flying Wedge, the description in the lawbook is ambiguous, however it can be read (as I do) that a flying wedge is from open play, penalty or free kick. Not from a lineout.

Returning to my fallback position of using common sense when there is ambiguity, means that your conclusion is correct.

imho
 
didds said:
but #8 is certain, even when incorrect.

#22 suggests that maybe they think it may happen.

QED - its out there.

So definittively then

red catch
red set.
blue step away, not leaving a lineout.
red ball at front
red can walk over the try line and score.
definitively, every time, no quibble.
If so - can they jog?
can they run?
Click to expand...
No that's not right. After the "red ball at front" event the ref tells them to use it. If they don't, blue scrum (as per Phil's post)
 
Mipper said:
In fairness I think that the advent of the longbow at the start of the 100 Years War rather started the decline in the use of the Cavalry Charge, so 'throughout' can be a little misleading.
Click to expand...

The Italian Savoy cavaleria regiment made one of the last successful cavalry charges in military history on August 23, 1942.
 
Took another look at this and what I see is catcher comes down, back to defenders, and presents the ball back but keeps hold of it. Sticking one arm out with the ball ready to be transferred isn’t actually a transfer so this picture doesn’t really match the “attacking team clearly transfers the ball behind the front-most player” that would trigger a “use it” call.

To me the ball is still with the front-most player and from the angle I can’t be sure if the supporting players are in front of the BC for an obstruction call.

To me, the defenders step back, so PK against them - but why not play advantage? As per the USGMG:
If the attacking team keeps the ball with the front-most player in the huddle, they may move forward. Defenders may either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier.
Click to expand...
If the defenders had opened up legally the BC and pod could happily advance and score - so give them advantage to advance and score. They can walk or run it over, as long as the ball stays in the hand of the front-most player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top