General Rugby Discussion II

prawnsambo

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the ball doesn't leave the catcher, then it can match forward no problem....and the carrier can be tackled.

If the ball is transferred back with no engagement, and it marches forward, it's obstruction.

That could also be considered a 'flying wedge'.

Hands Like Flippers

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the ball doesn't leave the catcher, then it can match forward no problem....and the carrier can be tackled.

If the ball is transferred back with no engagement, and it marches forward, it's obstruction.

Thanks.

And obstruction means penalty?

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the ball doesn't leave the catcher, then it can match forward no problem....and the carrier can be tackled.

If the ball is transferred back with no engagement, and it marches forward, it's obstruction.

But the ball has to transfer now, the catcher can no longer work his way back.

Maybe there was contact and the player disengaged? If there’s contact at all, then it’s a maul.

sydthebeat

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Thanks.

And obstruction means penalty?

Yes.

But the pertinent point here is the location of the ball.

If it's with the front man ie no transfer backwards.... Then what they did was fine, and when the defense engaged it became a maul legally

Edit : and another possibility.
If there was engagement by the defense initially, but then stood off, then the opposition can transfer back and match up field to their hearts content

Hands Like Flippers

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yes.

But the pertinent point here is the location of the ball.

If it's with the front man ie no transfer backwards.... Then what they did was fine, and when the defense engaged it became a maul legally

In u18 rugby is that not a flying wedge which is also illegal?

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yes.

But the pertinent point here is the location of the ball.

If it's with the front man ie no transfer backwards.... Then what they did was fine, and when the defense engaged it became a maul legally

Edit : and another possibility.
If there was engagement by the defense initially, but then stood off, then the opposition can transfer back and match up field to their hearts content

I think there has been a change here - I don't think they can drive ahead with the ball at the front - The ball carrier/catcher must turn and drive ahead independently - e.g. They can't remain with their back to the opposition in the classic "lineout maul" formation.

Once they turn , other players can "latch on" and drive forward , but the player has to turn.

Your point about an opposition player engaging then leaving is correct though..

sydthebeat

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

In u18 rugby is that not a flying wedge which is also illegal?

The outcome of up to the refs opinion.

A "flying wedge" usually happened at pace, close to the try line.

What we're taking about is a maul off a line out. Usually the catcher will land facing his own side, and the "maul" will be stationary first. Its at that stage where the ball carrier can recognise no engagement by the opposition and hold the ball as he is matched by his team mates and remember hes facing backwards.

If it gets up a head of steam and the ref decides its unsafe and a dying wedge is formed, he can call that

sydthebeat

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think there has been a change here - I don't think they can drive ahead with the ball at the front - The ball carrier/catcher must turn and drive ahead independently - e.g. They can't remain with their back to the opposition in the classic "lineout maul" formation.

Once they turn , other players can "latch on" and drive forward , but the player has to turn.

Your point about an opposition player engaging then leaving is correct though..

this is teh last clarification i can find on this, from 2014:

Date 9th September 2014

Line out

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by “leaving the line out as a group”, PK to attacking team;

If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:

– attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);

– if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee would tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately…

– if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.


Has there been something since?

Quin_Dub

sydthebeat wrote: »

this is teh last clarification i can find on this, from 2014:

Date 9th September 2014

Line out

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by “leaving the line out as a group”, PK to attacking team;

If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:

– attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);

– if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee would tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately…

– if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.


Has there been something since?

On the highlighted point above - This season and last Refs have been saying that the ball carrier must "play the ball" as it were by turning and moving off independently followed by a latch from teammates.

I guess it's a clarification on the "or tackle the ball carrier only" bit above as if a maul is formed it's nearly impossible to "tackle the ball carrier only" for the most part..

I can't find anything in writing either though...

Have to say, Baz and Andrew are putting together really enjoyable shows this season. This is another brilliant one, some great stories - really worth a watch:

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/MattHughesDM/status/1224958029147398144?s=19

Exclamation Marc

This could be pretty cool..

The British and Irish Lions could make an appearance in Ireland, Scotland or Wales ahead of next year's South Africa tour.

The Press Association are reporting that the three countries are possible hosts for a potential Lions fixture against a so far unnamed opponent.

The game, if it takes place, would be in late June 2021 ahead of departure to South Africa for an eight-match tour that features three Tests against the world champion Springboks.

Twickenham, meanwhile, is unlikely to be available as the 2021 Gallagher Premiership final is scheduled there for 26 June.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1113335/

RugbyLover123

I’d prefer see them play a one off test in France or Argentina, maybe even Italy or Japan.

Captain_Crash

Don't they often play the Baa Baa's before heading off on tour? I seem to remember them playing them in Cardiff a few times

errlloyd

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Don't they often play the Baa Baa's before heading off on tour? I seem to remember them playing them in Cardiff a few times

They've played in Hong Kong too.

Captain_Crash

errlloyd wrote: »

They've played in Hong Kong too.

They did yeah, last time out.

errlloyd

Captain_Crash wrote: »

They did yeah, last time out.

I think HK probably had something to do with time different acclimatization.

thomond2006

errlloyd wrote: »

I think HK probably had something to do with time different acclimatization.

HSBC were the main sponsor.

salmocab

A match at home might make sense from the point of view that lots of players will likely be playing finals right before the plane leaves so maybe a game for the other players might not be a bad thing. The cynic in me knows full well it would be a grab at some extra cash.

Yeah_Right

I get that the Lions wouldn't want a full blooded test match against a tier 1 nation so that rules out Argentina. Why not Georgia? And when they go to NZ or Australia they could have a warm up against a PI team or Japan.

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I get that the Lions wouldn't want a full blooded test match against a tier 1 nation so that rules out Argentina. Why not Georgia? And when they go to NZ or Australia they could have a warm up against a PI team or Japan.

wont make enough money from a game against Georgia or PIs..

Theyve played Argentina before.

aloooof

Some superb stuff in the replies here!

https://twitter.com/andymcgeady/status/1224974954871115776

salmocab

aloooof wrote: »

Some superb stuff in the replies here!

https://twitter.com/andymcgeady/status/1224974954871115776

In a cup match years ago we gave away a penalty 20 odd meters out late in a tight game and an Aussie lad playing centre for us tapped and ran with the ball, after the ref whistled and called him back the opposition were slagging him for the mistake and he chuckled and said but you didn’t get to take a quick tap.

errlloyd

salmocab wrote: »

In a cup match years ago we gave away a penalty 20 odd meters out late in a tight game and an Aussie lad playing centre for us tapped and ran with the ball, after the ref whistled and called him back the opposition were slagging him for the mistake and he chuckled and said but you didn’t get to take a quick tap.

That is world class gamesmanship over ****housery.

Nathan Hines joining an opposition huddle or holding onto 4 players in a ruck are up there.

salmocab

errlloyd wrote: »

That is world class gamesmanship over ****housery.

Yeah probably

aloooof

There was a match earlier in the season where, after box-kicks, Fineen Wycherly was routinely holding about 3 lads into the ruck. I've a feeling he could be one to watch in the sh*t-housing stakes.

Former Former

aloooof wrote: »

Some superb stuff in the replies here!

https://twitter.com/andymcgeady/status/1224974954871115776

The Rattez thing reminded me of a Leinster v Munster game back in 2009 or 2010. Shane Jennings lost his gumshield, Donnacha O'Callaghan picks it up and just flings it into the crowd. Jennings was totally stumped, then lost his sh*t. Totally unnecessary and unprovoked, but utterly typical of the games around then.

I miss those days.

salmocab

aloooof wrote: »

There was a match earlier in the season where, after box-kicks, Fineen Wycherly was routinely holding about 3 lads into the ruck. I've a feeling he could be one to watch in the sh*t-housing stakes.

The problem these days is that’s the stuff that will get picked up on.

aloooof

salmocab wrote: »

The problem these days is that’s the stuff that will get picked up on.

Aye, he did eventually get pinged for it, but I agree, it should really only be considered sh*t-housery if you get away with it.