rugbyunion
Latest News:
Untitled Document

Goto Page: 12345Next
Current Page: 1 of 5
He has a point .......
Dieselpup (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 18:57
Pat Lam post game -

"Both of their tries should have been ruled out as it's illegal that backs are joining the maul in the way they do. I've shown clips to the referee's assessor and then went before a three-man panel to illustrate my view that they are in breach of the laws. But it's happened again, so what's the point?"

Interesting......

 
Re: He has a point .......
Geronimo Jim (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:05
Genuine question, what are the backs doing against the laws.

 
Re: He has a point .......
Platwell House (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:10
Refereeing is a tough job however rules are rules

 
Re: He has a point .......
robtheh (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:11
Quote:
Geronimo Jim
Genuine question, what are the backs doing against the laws.

I think what heís saying is that the backs are joining the maul before the line outís over. Which is a penalty offence.
I canít say I noticed it, then again I wasnít looking for it.

Verbatim, from the article...
ďIf you look at the law, and what they do, as soon as the ball is thrown their backs come flying up. They are allowed to do that but must retreat 10 metres back, and not hang around two or three metres away, if the ball does not go more than 15 metres and is brought down, which happened at our ground.
ďThat is why I was annoyed with this and they did it against Saracens .
ďThey have to go back 10 metres and they can not join until the line out is over.
ďI put the clip in and spoke to Spredders and he said oh, no one has really refereed that rule. So I said look at the lawbook, it is a penalty offence. When you look at the build-up to that second try they are all offside and it should be a penalty but it wasnít. So what was the point [in all that work].Ē

Law 18.35


ďOnce the ball has been thrown in by a team-mate, players who are not participating in the lineout may move forward. If that occurs, then their opponents may also move forward. If the ball does not go beyond the 15-metre line, the players will not be liable to sanction if they immediately retire to their respective offside lines. [10 metres back]

 
Re: He has a point .......
bris4life (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:14
I would suggest it is regarding the Exeter backs joining the maul and helping to drive the maul forward and over the try line. The officials seem to be blind to their backs joining and apparently not applying the lineout laws to the letter, which Exeter are exploiting.

If it is illegal then it should be penalised, but if it is legal or not refereed properly we should be doing it too.

See previous thread about "Exeter Offside at the Lineout", summarised below:

Since "the try that shouldn't have been" at the death of our match i've been looking out for it on the highlights. And yes they do score a lot of tries from the lineout, forming a maul and then driving over with backs joining ...but most of them illegally IMHO!

the law: the lineout does not end until..."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." (the mark of touch is the line across the field where the ball is thrown in)

So that means the backs who have to stay 10m from the line of touch, can only start advancing towards the maul when the feet of the last forward in the maul cross the line of touch.

bear in mind that when the ball is brought down from the lineout the maul usually moves backwards a metre or so initially and the depth of the maul is usually 2 or 3 m so the attacking team have to move the maul forwards 3 or 4 meters before the backs can start to advance.

looking back Exeter have scored 8 tries illegally like this in the premiership alone (forgetting any cups) as well as about 4 or 5 legally from lineout/mauls.

- 4 in recent week (yesterday x2, vs harlequins x2)
- our match
- vs bath
- vs Newcastle
- vs Wasps (looked like a winger joined but couldn't see his number)

all these can be seen on the excellent premiershiprugby.com website.

Am i interpreting the laws wrongly ? Or is this just being ignored by the refs / assistant refs?

if the latter then good luck to them but we should be doing it too!


not a dig at exeter alone as i'm sure others do it (and if we could only achieve what they have!) but its been bugging me and i'd really appreciate views form anyone that knows the laws better than me?

 
Re: He has a point .......
Geronimo Jim (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:18
I'd have to look at it with the above comments in mind. I'm assuming that the ref has called maul. In any case the referee is the sole arbiter etc. I hope this doesn't rumble on for weeks and lead to more bad blood.
Briz are a good side and deserve to flourish.

 
Re: He has a point .......
Hercules Spoons (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:21
How condescending of you GJ

 
Re: He has a point .......
Stevie_Wonder (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:24
Quote:
Hercules Spoons
How condescending of you GJ

Really? Sometimes we just look for fights on this forum

 
Re: He has a point .......
Gray_Lensman (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:26
Refs don't apply the Laws shock. When was the last time you saw a not-straight put in penalised (insert your own favourite offence)?

 
Re: He has a point .......
Field marshall (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:30
What's the point in having laws if they aren't going to be abided by and administered?
Bad blood or not, Exeter need to play by the same laws that everyone else does. If Pat really has been through all of this effort and the ref still didn't catch it then he should be spending some time in the championship following a robust review of his performance.

Other than that, Exeter were the better team today and I have no complaints about the result.

 
Re: He has a point .......
youngone (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 19:39
I had no idea that rule existed and I didn't even notice either infringement but at the end of the day if Exeter exploit a law not being refereed then fair play to them, any other team could do it. The professional era rewards gamesmanship not sportsmanship after all. There are other rules that should be addressed more imo such as when a maul collapses, no defending players roll away meaning the ball can't come out and the defending team gets a scrum, such a ridiculous rule (not that this was happening today but it shows that there are a lot of controversial rules out there)

Also, can we stop griping at fans of opposition teams on here? Does my nut in

 
Re: He has a point .......
Grizzly Adams (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 21:54
I also thought that the laws were supposed to stop a team from adding players to the back of a ruck to create more distance between offside line and scrum half. Now this seems to be creeping back in and no surprise the team doing it the most and were guilty of doing it the most in the first place are another top 2 side. So as said above the game rewards gamesmanship not sportsmanship and the best 2 at it no surprise are the top 2.

 
Re: He has a point .......
Knowle Blue (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 22:09
Well said Grizzly Adams, sportsmanship is poles apart from gamesmanship. We can either adapt or we can continue to be noble losers. Having watched the game, and the highlights, you can see how the particular law in question is being flouted. Can we blame Sir? Iím not so sure we can, but I do feel all the officials can be held to account, maybe some retraining is an option.
However Iím a great believer of taking the opportunity away from Sir to make decisions against you, by being simply more adept, and savvy than the opposition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 22:27 by Knowle Blue.

 
Re: He has a point .......
Geronimo Jim (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 22:43
Quote:
Hercules Spoons
How condescending of you GJ

Read it how you like Mr Spoons.

 
Re: He has a point .......
AH-64 (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 22:56
Early in the game Ian Witten asked Sir at what point can they enter the maul. He replied when I drop my arms. It would seem that they are aware of the law and were playing under the instruction of Sir, they entered when he felt the maul had made enough progress forward.

 
Re: He has a point .......
w4rriorz1980 (IP Logged)
05 January, 2019 23:01
Unlucky Briz.Was rooting for you today.



Eats,Shoots And Leaves

 
Re: He has a point .......
Alwaysahooker (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 00:32
I agree with the comments being made to a degree but if you read the full article that started this Pat Lam spoke to the rfuís head of match officials to get a ruling on this and pointed out that Sirs were not reffing to the letter of the law.
In relation to being more streetwise to refs can somebody explain how you defend against this to stop the opposition gaining the illegal advantage as if you defend the drive and stop it then Sir just gives a penalty try and a yellow card. ( sorry Iím still bitter from the previous match at AG) and will we have to accept another apology rather than the points.

 
Re: He has a point .......
pacific islander (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 00:40
As said above.. it's hard for refs to get all aspect's Right.

But surely if a particular issue has been pointing out you would think it would be looked at by the letter of the law?

That said there were notorious times chiefs were coming off feet at clear out (which is clearly unsafe for players) & should be addressed regardless of who the opposition is.
Taking players beyond ruck & side entry clear outs (which were clearly visable on camera at (never entering/clearing ruck off hind foot)

IMo become a trade mark for chief's.

Player safety AND Welfare First (injury prevention) before winning please.

GROW the game!! Not good if you have a young audience

 
Re: He has a point .......
pacific islander (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 00:45
Quote:
w4rriorz1980
Unlucky Briz.Was rooting for you today.
thank you w4nkrriorz1980 was rooting for you too

 
Re: He has a point .......
Redfieldman (IP Logged)
06 January, 2019 08:23
I really dislike this aspect of the game. Of course thereís a place for the rolling maul but I think itís becoming too hard to defend. Why not limit it to 8 players a side?

Goto Page: 12345Next
Current Page: 1 of 5

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?