• 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

[Line out] Leaving the Lineout?

C

ChuckieB

Active member
IMG_0405.jpg

I see it most obviously when watching the Crusaders, as precursor to setting up the line out drive, but shouldn't this be considered leaving the lineout?

It is neither changing position nor is it peeling.

Stamping it out would certainly make for a more level playing field when trying to defend the lineout.
 
Trying to eliminate peeling to set the maul would not end well. Black are not competing for the ball and they can manouver the same way. I don't see a problem.
 
whether lifted jumpers or not, this is how its been done "for ever". Certainly for over 40 years. frankly its too late to stop it now, and Im not sure what stopping it would honestly bring as a "benefit" to the game.

didds
 
With much comment on how difficult it is to defend a lineout maul and drive when the maul is effectively set and ready to go by the time the catcher hits the ground, one might think it could be an area to look at. Especially in light of "simplification" of the laws.

In effect, as things stand, the lineout as a mechanism to get the ball back into play quickly further loses its meaning in the laws.
 
*shrug*

I don;t have an issue with the lineout maul scenario.

Maybe somebody who does can come up with a solution, but in the meantime I suspect deciding something that has been stanadrd practise for decades at least illegal instead is going to be a hard sell to achieve that.

didds
 
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this? You would need the ball carrier to cross the LOT prior to the maul forming, then players attempting to engage. In my view this would move things too far in favour of the defending team who get free option to sack the ball carrier and also overwhelm the ball carrier prior to support players arriving.

All fine to me, let it continue.

More interesting to me is what happens to the defending team who choose not to engage. Do they step aside along the LOT (OK) or retreat from the line out before it is over (not OK). More frequently the latter in my experience.
 
Zebra1922 said:
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?
Click to expand...
I was just thinking the same. :chin:

Players are allowed to form a maul and must join the maul either behind or alongside the hindmost team-mate, so to an extent, they have to leave the LO to form a maul. OK, technically they may have "left the lineout" but this really isn't an issue. If it's not broken - don't fix it. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Zebra1922 said:
How else would you be expected to form a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?
Click to expand...

Im guessing that you mean, How else would you be expected to join a maul at a lineout without the option to peel off like this?

AYAK,The maul forming and its applicable offside lines only requires 2 from ball carrier side in L/O and one from opponent at L/O
 
Taff said:
I was just thinking the same. :chin:

Players are allowed to form a maul and must join the maul either behind or alongside the hindmost team-mate, so to an extent, they have to leave the LO to form a maul. OK, technically they may have "left the lineout" but this really isn't an issue. If it's not broken - don't fix it. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

I do agree with you.

However, this is an example of an unintended consequence of not enforcing the letter of law by allowing the maul joining players to leave the L/O. Had it been enforced verbatim, we would never encountered the Italian tactic of non engagement.
 
Zebra1922 said:
More interesting to me is what happens to the defending team who choose not to engage. Do they step aside along the LOT (OK) or retreat from the line out before it is over (not OK). More frequently the latter in my experience.
Click to expand...

I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.

At our level catchers just automatically feed the ball back before contact. This season in 7 games we have had 6 turnover balls for "accidental offside", a stack of "use its", plus one ref gave us a penalty when a team tried to do it a second time. Not one try conceded.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
I understand.

I feel the same about rucks, scrums, and passing.
Click to expand...

Nah, love scrums - 80 minutes of scrums would do me

I vaguely remember rucks before they became flops

Passing is over rated - I believe it is something backs do in between brushing their hair and doing their nails

Seriously I love a good driving maul constructed in general play, but from a lineout 5 metres out it is just dull
 
TigerCraig said:
Seriously I love a good driving maul constructed in general play, but from a lineout 5 metres out it is just dull
Click to expand...

Huh, never thought of it as dull. L/O mauls aren't exactly complex design, after all everyone is already on location. So i agree with dull as a descriptive.

Just to take it one step further and seriously, lifting at L/O (maul or not) is also dull, and predictable, and repetitive.
 
Not Kurt Weaver said:
Huh, never thought of it as dull. L/O mauls aren't exactly complex design, after all everyone is already on location. So i agree with dull as a descriptive.

Just to take it one step further and seriously, lifting at L/O (maul or not) is also dull, and predictable, and repetitive.
Click to expand...

I just think they are too heavily weighted towards the throwing/maul creating team. Pretty much because everyone is there. Constructing a maul in general play is harder so more interesting.

Just an opinion.
 
TigerCraig said:
I just think they are too heavily weighted towards the throwing/maul creating team. Pretty much because everyone is there. Constructing a maul in general play is harder so more interesting.

Just an opinion.
Click to expand...

I dond;t strongly disagree with the overall premise, but equally I'm not at all bothered.

regarding general play mauls... when do they ever happen now?

didds
 
didds said:
regarding general play mauls... when do they ever happen now?

didds
Click to expand...

Very seldom, as far as i can see. Many thing that might have been called mauls (eg chest high tackle and supported of the ball carrier is bound on, ten to be called a tackle when the ball carrier goes to ground. It is difficult to hold up a ball carrier to get a maul these days.

Mauls are likely only where folk are on their feet and the side with the ball recons they can advance by pushing the opposition back. Seems to me that is likely to be the situation in some lineouts where the ball is caught, and not many other places.
 
TigerCraig said:
I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.

At our level catchers just automatically feed the ball back before contact. This season in 7 games we have had 6 turnover balls for "accidental offside", a stack of "use its", plus one ref gave us a penalty when a team tried to do it a second time. Not one try conceded.
Click to expand...

Argentina U20's [v England] tried to employ the 'don't contest' the BC tactic, but they utilised a backing away from the LO-BC tactic when the BC started moving forward, I was praising the referee for not giving them one single decision for their contact avoidance retreat.

Well done that Ref.
:clap:
 
TigerCraig said:
I hate mauls at lineouts with a passion and would love them banned

What I coach my team to do is stay where they are in the lineout and scream "no maul we aren't bound". Of course I speak to the refs before the game so they know whats going on.
Click to expand...

I would say 'thanks for letting me know, but having given me the heads up, please tell your players - DONT scream at me during the game '
 
crossref said:
I would say 'thanks for letting me know, but having given me the heads up, please tell your players - DONT scream at me during the game '
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but it's more to confuse the opposition. More than once they gave just stopped dead and started looking around wondering what to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top