It's a logical conclusion based on the USGMG, but the only reason I wouldn't is because I disagree with the premise of the USGMG that the defenders should be penalized for this. Good thing I don't ref much these days
.
Is refereeing around the lineout becoming too pedantic?
- Thread starter jdeagro
- Start date
.Well I didn't know that. Which poor enemy forgot their longbowmen on that occasion then?
didds
Resident Club Coach
ah - so thats what my actual question was of course.
So all blue has to do is NOT create a maul at the lineout eg step sideways and not engage and blue ALWAYS has to play the ball away. i.e. it is the perfect defece to attempts to drive a maul to score.
correct ?
Not in the states with USGMG apparently. It states that blue's huddle is allowed to march on as long as they keep the ball carrier in the front.
Last edited:
Ciaran Trainor
Referees in England
From the lawbook (and note once the ball has moved from the line of touch the lineout is over)
Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched 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.
Law 9: Foul play
Teams must not use the ‘flying wedge’.
Law application guidelines
Law changes summary
The five current Global Law Trials – Goal Line Drop-out, 50:22, jackler protection, banning pre-bound pods in open play (flying wedge) and approving a single latcher – will become full law.
Law application guidelines
Side entry
On the whole, the coaching, playing and refereeing application has seen a cleaner, safer breakdown, especially aligned with the 2021 global law trials around protecting the lower limbs of the jackler, permitting the 1-man latch but outlawing the flying wedge of 2+ players pre-latched which have now been moved into full law.
I maintain that if the defending lineout players step aside, not offside which they do in the clip, you can't bind onto the ball carrier and march down the pitch.
for the clip we have I would say,
penalty advantage Purple offside;
Use it blue; Either pass it away or lead ball carrier breaks with one maximum binding onto him
If they don't , come back for the penalty on 15M line;
Stop the game and explain my decision IAW laws of game.
IMO USGMG are simply wrong
Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched 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.
Law 9: Foul play
Teams must not use the ‘flying wedge’.
Law application guidelines
Law changes summary
The five current Global Law Trials – Goal Line Drop-out, 50:22, jackler protection, banning pre-bound pods in open play (flying wedge) and approving a single latcher – will become full law.
Law application guidelines
Side entry
On the whole, the coaching, playing and refereeing application has seen a cleaner, safer breakdown, especially aligned with the 2021 global law trials around protecting the lower limbs of the jackler, permitting the 1-man latch but outlawing the flying wedge of 2+ players pre-latched which have now been moved into full law.
I maintain that if the defending lineout players step aside, not offside which they do in the clip, you can't bind onto the ball carrier and march down the pitch.
for the clip we have I would say,
penalty advantage Purple offside;
Use it blue; Either pass it away or lead ball carrier breaks with one maximum binding onto him
If they don't , come back for the penalty on 15M line;
Stop the game and explain my decision IAW laws of game.
IMO USGMG are simply wrong
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Yes to this. It corrects what I excluded earlier regarding ball carrier at front
Gotcha, so you agree with the USGMG?
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
Yes
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
I've now seen that video on a number of rugby and/or referee platforms. I know those 2 clubs (I actually played for one) and I know the referee, who is in the early days of his refereeing career. This was a relatively low level juniors game.
I wonder how I'd feel if I was the centre of such scrutiny & controversy especially (I presume) without my consent
I wonder how I'd feel if I was the centre of such scrutiny & controversy especially (I presume) without my consent
didds
Resident Club Coach
so basically we have
a set of referees that would allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
a set of referees that would not allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose.
Elsewhere - who knows on the day,....
a set of referees that would allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
a set of referees that would not allow a non contested huddle ball at the front moving forward.
At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose.
Elsewhere - who knows on the day,....
Welp, played in a game here in the states yesterday and we got blown up for obstruction when the non-throwing team didn't engage the huddle (ball & ball carrier kept at the front) and we took a step forward. Seems the ref called it slightly off from what the USGMG state. I can't really fault him though, he did an excellent job otherwise, and I personally like his reffing qualities whenever we cross paths. I just wish there was all around less confusion on how this is allowed to be played out, especially for the ball carrying team.
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
This game is just getting more & more confusing and difficult to officiate with clarifications, guidelines, applications, inter-region variations, law trials, etc, etc
I must agree. While I was less versed on the laws back then, I do feel I recall the game flowed more often and clearly when I started playing 20 years ago up until about a decade ago.
Also the law trials seemed to have become more abundant in the last decade or so too. I feel they should probably take more time to observe the previous law trials that have become actual laws, before continually implementing new ones.
I would. This has long been a settled issue in the USA.
Gotta pick your battles. I asked him about it respectfully, relative to when it occurred, but his mind was made. Not much I can do. Again, no ref is perfect, so if this was his one mistake, as a captain, I'm pretty ok with it - especially being more scrupulous of the laws myself.
Next time I cross paths with him, I'll have a healthy discussion about it with him, to clarify.
didds
Resident Club Coach
hence my caveat
"At least in the USA you should definitively know which it is I suppose."
didds
Resident Club Coach
This "problem" being all law trials, variations, changes etc are driven by the pro end of the game. and WR/NGB/Statue unions etc are all constantly trying to create/find perfection in a complex game. 99.9% (my guess!) of games ie non pro globally work just fine without constant tinkering.
Meanwhile at the pro level they can't seem to figure out how to keep their feet at rucks. Perhaps WR should focus on enforcing the fundamentals at that level instead.
Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
It's a bit of a stretch to call 8 guys walking toward the oposition line wit hte ball at the front a "Flying" anything.
didds
Resident Club Coach
i dont disagree.
hence a previous question about
walking
jogging
running.
at what juncture - if even walking doesn't constitute a FW - does "walking" become "flying"