Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

Mind you, after a second look, - Pearce makes the secondary signal that the lineout has ended as soon as they pass the ball, and all of Australia's players advance from the lineout offside line even though the ball has not left "the lineout"

So, second question, does passing the ball to another pod in the line end the lineout?

 

[JRugby2]

Mind you, after a second look, - Pearce makes the secondary signal that the lineout has ended as soon as they pass the ball, and all of Australia's players advance from the lineout offside line even though the ball has not left "the lineout"

So, second question, does passing the ball to another pod in the line end the lineout?

Logically I'd say no. The ball was passed between players who formed the lineout and were still in their positions at the lineout. For the ball to have left the lineout based on the current wording I'd say it would:

a) have to go beyond the 5m/15m lines
b) be passed/kicked to someone not in the lineout
c) be carried away from the lineout (including in a ruck/maul)

 

[Dan54]

Boy it's intersting one isn't it. I couldn't decide if was somehow illegal etc.

As an aside, in NPC thay playing the maul can only stop once and then play it, noticed it and liked it. But genuinely don't know if it being trialed in RC.

 

[JRugby2]

Boy it's intersting one isn't it. I couldn't decide if was somehow illegal etc.

As an aside, in NPC thay playing the maul can only stop once and then play it, noticed it and liked it. But genuinely don't know if it being trialed in RC.

Not yet.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I believe the line out is over and it is an illegal flying wedge. At least that is my opinion on how it should be interpreted. World Rugby have been far too generous on pre-binding in the lead up to a tackle.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I would like to see it from the front too but it also looks like it has been transferred to Kolisi before the Wallabies have engaged with EE.

 

[JRugby2]

I believe the line out is over and it is an illegal flying wedge. At least that is my opinion on how it should be interpreted. World Rugby have been far too generous on pre-binding in the lead up to a tackle.

Not having a go here - but why do you think this?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I don’t really know but I think they are generally slow to react to trends and then have to go hard at them to fix them a few years later.

 

[Sully]

Not having a go here - but why do you think this?

The lineout is over as soon as the ball is passed. If the nall is then transferred back before the opposition engage it's illegal.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The lineout is over as soon as the ball is passed. If the nall is then transferred back before the opposition engage it's illegal.

I'm not sure a pass is enough, especially if it's between players who haven't "left the lineout"

Ending a lineout

37. The lineout ends when:

1. The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
   1. leaves the lineout; or
   2. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
   3. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
2. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
3. The ball becomes unplayable.

 

[JRugby2]

The lineout is over as soon as the ball is passed. If the nall is then transferred back before the opposition engage it's illegal.

As strewth said this would be a new interpretation

 

[Braveheart81]

What do we think on the maul try by Malcolm Marx where he stumbles and his knee hits the ground (and he potentially loses his bind) on the way to the try line?

According to the laws, has the ball carrier not gone to ground and is required to play it? Even if his bind was determined to stay legal (he didn't stay connected to the shoulder) isn't the knee hitting the ground all that is needed for him to no longer be able to legally be the ball carrier in a maul?

 

[Derpus]

What do we think on the maul try by Malcolm Marx where he stumbles and his knee hits the ground (and he potentially loses his bind) on the way to the try line?

According to the laws, has the ball carrier not gone to ground and is required to play it? Even if his bind was determined to stay legal (he didn't stay connected to the shoulder) isn't the knee hitting the ground all that is needed for him to no longer be able to legally be the ball carrier in a maul?

I don't think there is much to say about that one except I think they had advantage at the time so probably would have scored next maul anyway.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What do we think on the maul try by Malcolm Marx where he stumbles and his knee hits the ground (and he potentially loses his bind) on the way to the try line?

According to the laws, has the ball carrier not gone to ground and is required to play it? Even if his bind was determined to stay legal (he didn't stay connected to the shoulder) isn't the knee hitting the ground all that is needed for him to no longer be able to legally be the ball carrier in a maul?

It's a good one for the amateur refs out there!

Marx is legal at this point

Law 16.8 - The ball-carrier in a maul may go to ground provided that player makes the ball available immediately.

1st question - Can he get back to his feet and keep going with the maul? Law is unclear
2nd question - Has the maul ended when he goes down/loses his bind? Law is unclear
3rd question - if it has ended and it's open play, he can get back to his feet, but then was anyone obstructed from tackling Marx? Everyone in the maul was - was that material?

 

[Braveheart81]

1st question - Can he get back to his feet and keep going with the maul? Law is unclear
2nd question - Has the maul ended when he goes down/loses his bind? Law is unclear
3rd question - if it has ended and it's open play, he can get back to his feet, but then was anyone obstructed from tackling Marx? Everyone in the maul was - was that material?

I would say no to question one. I don't think the law is unclear. It says what he needs to do when he goes to ground.

Yes to question two.

In relation to question three, continuing to be part of the maul should result in a penalty to Australia for obstruction.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't think there is much to say about that one except I think they had advantage at the time so probably would have scored next maul anyway.

Not for this try / maul. No advantage signaled by the ref.

Harry Wilson had a long conversation about it with the ref after the try - you can see on the spidercam feed.

if the commentators didn't talk over the ref just before the conversion we could probably hear the explanation

 

[Strewthcobber]

I would say no to question one. I don't think the law is unclear. It says what he needs to do when he goes to ground.

Yes to question two.

In relation to question three, continuing to be part of the maul should result in a penalty to Australia for obstruction.

I think the ref sees him go to ground. maul is now over. We are in open play. Lolesio rushes up to make the tackle.

Marx can get up with the ball without releasing as there is no tackle yet. He then forces over the try line through Lolseio's tackle.

The unknows for me - is he allowed to keep hold of the maul (he's not bound to it), is he allowed to run into the former maul as he tries to get over the line, and was anyone else obstructed by the maul and prevented from tackling Marx once the maul was over?

I'd honestly be happy if the ref called either way here. I don't think it's clear and obvious either way.

 

[Derpus]

I think the ref sees him go to ground. maul is now over. We are in open play. Lolesio rushes up to make the tackle.

Marx can get up with the ball without releasing as there is no tackle yet. He then forces over the try line through Lolseio's tackle.

The unknows for me - is he allowed to keep hold of the maul (he's not bound to it), is he allowed to run into the former maul as he tries to get over the line, and was anyone else obstructed by the maul and prevented from tackling Marx once the maul was over?

I'd honestly be happy if the ref called either way here. I don't think it's clear and obvious either way.

Law 16.8 seems to suggest otherwise?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Law 16.8 seems to suggest otherwise?

Once he loses his bind at the back of the maul, it's not a maul anymore. The ball carrier has left the maul.

Law then switches to 13.1 - players on the ground in open play

 

[Derpus]

Right so he only has to release if he goes to ground but is still bound? Assuming he's come unbound and the maul has ended there are about 12 Wallabies being impeded.