Is refereeing around the lineout becoming too pedantic?

[Volun-selected]

at what juncture - if even walking doesn't constitute a FW - does "walking" become "flying"

I agree with the logic, but from the Laws I don’t see speed as a factor; the “flying” for me is just a byproduct of how it was originally used. If we have a maul and it legally splinters and the pod with ball carrier see their chance and charge en masse for the line do we call it as FW? No.

We see 2 players pre-bind in open play on the BC we’ll stop it regardless of speed.

The side entry guidelines from 2022 have “…flying wedge of 2+ players pre-latched…” - no mention of speed, only the structure.

 

[Dickie E]

I agree with the logic, but from the Laws I don’t see speed as a factor; the “flying” for me is just a byproduct of how it was originally used. If we have a maul and it legally splinters and the pod with ball carrier see their chance and charge en masse for the line do we call it as FW? No.

We see 2 players pre-bind in open play on the BC we’ll stop it regardless of speed.

The side entry guidelines from 2022 have “…flying wedge of 2+ players pre-latched…” - no mention of speed, only the structure.

Note that the Law Changes Summary 2022 says this, specifically using 'open play' in regard to FW:
"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."

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Note that the Law Changes Summary 2022 says this, specifically using 'open play' in regard to FW:
"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."

But we have open play Dickie. The pod has gone beyond the line of touch so the lineout is over.

 

[Dickie E]

But we have open play Dickie. The pod has gone beyond the line of touch so the lineout is over.

But the pod was created in a lineout, not open play.
Let's say we have a common or garden variety maul, with ball at front. If defenders melt away, does that then become a FW?

 

[Volun-selected]

But we have open play Dickie. The pod has gone beyond the line of touch so the lineout is over.

But the pod was created in a lineout, not open play.
Let's say we have a common or garden variety maul, with ball at front. If defenders melt away, does that then become a FW?

I think for an actual maul it’s clear, if the defenders withdraw or fall away “the maul continues”.

But this is not a maul, since the defenders have not engaged. For me, if the BC stays at the front the huddle (and the US GMG says “huddle” never maul, which is why the BC can’t pass the ball back), then the huddle can advance.

And I’m ok with that - why should negative play be rewarded when referees have been specifically tasked to discourage negative play? Play for a gotcha, get hoisted on your own petard.

Back to the heart of this: What happens when the BC at the front of a huddle passes the LoT? … Maybe we need YUMV for Your Union May Vary until WR clarify.

 

[Zebra1922]

My view is you can have a flying wedge from the lineout. I look at the purpose or intent of the law, the flying wedge/pre-binging more than one person is to allow defenders access to tackle the ball carrier when a maul has not been formed. If you have people bound either side of the ball carrier following a line out, it is not practical difference than players binding either side in open play - you are preventing the tackler accessing the ball carrier so even if they are meandering at snails pace, it meets the definition of a flying wedge for me.

 

[jdeagro]

My view is you can have a flying wedge from the lineout. I look at the purpose or intent of the law, the flying wedge/pre-binging more than one person is to allow defenders access to tackle the ball carrier when a maul has not been formed. If you have people bound either side of the ball carrier following a line out, it is not practical difference than players binding either side in open play - you are preventing the tackler accessing the ball carrier so even if they are meandering at snails pace, it meets the definition of a flying wedge for me.

I'm not sure I agree on that being the intent of a flying wedge, as one can argue pre-binding a single player behind the ball carrier makes it almost equally difficult for the ball carrier to be tackled. And it is legal to pre-bind a single player.

I assumed the flying wedge law was more for safety, because without it, nothing stops an entire 15 man huddle from marching down the pitch at high speed, making it insanely dangerous for any opponent to attempt to stop without re-enacting the stampede scene of the Lion King. But it's reasonable to say 1 extra pre-bound player is not so dangerous.

 

[Zebra1922]

It might be reasonable to say 1 extra pre-bound player is not so dangerous, but the law explicitly prohibits this. 1 player pre bound OK, 2 players pre bound illegal.

 

[jdeagro]

It might be reasonable to say 1 extra pre-bound player is not so dangerous, but the law explicitly prohibits this. 1 player pre bound OK, 2 players pre bound illegal.

I think we're starting to get pedantic on at what point how many bound players becomes dangerous.

I do agree it seems a little arbitrary that World Rugby decided 1 is ok and 2 isn't. But I could see the logic in saying 1 pre-bound player is a fairly common occurrence between how mauls develop, or how tackles immediately develop into a ruck (from the support player), that they drew the line there. I do think 2 pre-bound players is measurably more dangerous than 1, but that's more just my opinion.

 

[Rich_NL]

My view is you can have a flying wedge from the lineout. I look at the purpose or intent of the law, the flying wedge/pre-binging more than one person is to allow defenders access to tackle the ball carrier when a maul has not been formed. If you have people bound either side of the ball carrier following a line out, it is not practical difference than players binding either side in open play - you are preventing the tackler accessing the ball carrier so even if they are meandering at snails pace, it meets the definition of a flying wedge for me.

But do you blow it up, or manage for materiality?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

But the flying wedge is specifically outlawed!

 

[Dickie E]

But the flying wedge is specifically outlawed!

yes, at a PK, FK or open play. A lineout is none of those 3.

[LAWS=]Flying wedge: [/LAWS][LAWS=][/laws][LAWS=] 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. [/LAWS]

 

[didds]

yes, at a PK, FK or open play. A lineout is none of those 3.

[LAWS=]Flying wedge: [/LAWS][LAWS=][/laws][LAWS=] 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. [/LAWS]

it would be a hard sell to suggest that a lineout catch and drive does not constitute open play once the lineout is over.

 

[Dickie E]

it would be a hard sell to suggest that a lineout catch and drive does not constitute open play once the lineout is over.

So maybe a good maul defence might be to all drop off the maul & create a flying wedge by the opposition?

 

[Decorily]

So maybe a good maul defence might be to all drop off the maul & create a flying wedge by the opposition?

"Drop off the maul."... do you mean withdraw from the maul or not form the maul?

 

[didds]

So maybe a good maul defence might be to all drop off the maul & create a flying wedge by the opposition?

it certainly raises the philosophical question over why a maul, with all defenders fallen/dropped off, and STILL classed as a maul (AIUI!?), trundling up the pitch (ball at the back cos its still a maul), isn't a flying wedge as it would have been IF no defenders had ever attached it self

 

[SimonSmith]

So maybe a good maul defence might be to all drop off the maul & create a flying wedge by the opposition?

I see where you're going.

But the dilemma that presents is: The maul has been created. Players drooping does not end the maul. So we now have this maulbutwedge thing. Which isn't covered in law/

 

[jdeagro]

And a reminder that in the states at least, off a lineout the uncontested maul aka "huddle" is explicitly allowed per the the official game management guidelines.

We'll see how long that remains the official stance.