Candidate for worst refereeing call of the year.

Last minute win by the Cheetahs over the Blues at home. Last call must be a candidate for the worst call of the year ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11409531 ). In Essence the cheetahs threw the ball in and drove. The blues didn't contest and didn't engage in the maul. The Australian ref pinged the blues or stepping back, ie. out of the lineout (I'm basing this on the newspaper report as I've only watched the highlights with the sound off. It could be for the blues halfback/hooker entering the lineout before the ball was caught, even so I think it would be a very poor decision as the blues didn't contest and didn't engage with the Cheetahs drive, i.e. no effect - bearing in mind most sides could be pinged in most phases of the game). Have a look. What do you think?

Here's the Dom post's write up. Pretty much how I saw it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/66780274/cheetahs-snatch-lastgasp-victory-from-blues

I am not overly a fan of this not competing rule personally. A team tried doing it in my game last week, but were told they couldn't too (so had to try stopping our drive late). I am hoping that this law is changed soon.

Probably in the minority with that though.

There was a directive to refs (and teams) a few months back that at the lineout the defending team could

1) Engage and try and stop the drive.
2) One player try and "sack" the ball carrier
3) Not engage, WITHOUT stepping away and leaving the lineout, then having the option to run round as no maul formed.

With option 3 if the defending team step away they are to be penalised. Should the attacking team move the ball away from the front man prior to engagement, then they are to be penalised.

Watching the highlights there seems to be a player very obviously stepping away - however that is possibly the SH as he seems to join the line then step away. Slightly more contentiously the Blues 19, at the side also takes steps backwards rather than engaging. Looks to me as if the Blues got it wrong slightly and were correctly penalised.

LondonTiger wrote:There was a directive to refs (and teams) a few months back that at the lineout the defending team could

1) Engage and try and stop the drive.
2) One player try and "sack" the ball carrier
3) Not engage, WITHOUT stepping away and leaving the lineout, then having the option to run round as no maul formed.

With option 3 if the defending team step away they are to be penalised. Should the attacking team move the ball away from the front man prior to engagement, then they are to be penalised.

Watching the highlights there seems to be a player very obviously stepping away - however that is possibly the SH as he seems to join the line then step away. Slightly more contentiously the Blues 19, at the side also takes steps backwards rather than engaging. Looks to me as if the Blues got it wrong slightly and were correctly penalised.

Just watched it again. Ref said the entire Blues lineout walked backwards. Still thing it's appalling.

The two forwards on the other side do step back too. I very much doubt it was the worst decision in the game let alone the year.

He says "everyone was walking backwards. Everyone in front of that was walking backwards". Bang on decision.

This penalty has been in the law for a long time (in the NH in any event).

It is explained by Glasgow's captain (along with a description of what I think the Blues tried to do) here:

blackcanelion wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:There was a directive to refs (and teams) a few months back that at the lineout the defending team could

1) Engage and try and stop the drive.
2) One player try and "sack" the ball carrier
3) Not engage, WITHOUT stepping away and leaving the lineout, then having the option to run round as no maul formed.

With option 3 if the defending team step away they are to be penalised. Should the attacking team move the ball away from the front man prior to engagement, then they are to be penalised.

Watching the highlights there seems to be a player very obviously stepping away - however that is possibly the SH as he seems to join the line then step away. Slightly more contentiously the Blues 19, at the side also takes steps backwards rather than engaging. Looks to me as if the Blues got it wrong slightly and were correctly penalised.

Just watched it again. Ref said the entire Blues lineout walked backwards. Still thing it's appalling.

I think this goes to show there is always something unusual in Rugby.

LT thank for the laws interpretation. I didn't know this. Just watched my recording and I agree, by the letter of the law as you describe, correctly penalised.

I suppose the not engaging is an OK tactic, but it does go against the grain to not contest in some way. Also a shame to lose a match on a tactical gamble like that.

doctor_grey wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:There was a directive to refs (and teams) a few months back that at the lineout the defending team could

1) Engage and try and stop the drive.
2) One player try and "sack" the ball carrier
3) Not engage, WITHOUT stepping away and leaving the lineout, then having the option to run round as no maul formed.

With option 3 if the defending team step away they are to be penalised. Should the attacking team move the ball away from the front man prior to engagement, then they are to be penalised.

Watching the highlights there seems to be a player very obviously stepping away - however that is possibly the SH as he seems to join the line then step away. Slightly more contentiously the Blues 19, at the side also takes steps backwards rather than engaging. Looks to me as if the Blues got it wrong slightly and were correctly penalised.

Just watched it again. Ref said the entire Blues lineout walked backwards. Still thing it's appalling.

I think this goes to show there is always something unusual in Rugby.

LT thank for the laws interpretation.  I didn't know this.  Just watched my recording and I agree, by the letter of the law as you describe, correctly penalised.  

I suppose the not engaging is an OK tactic, but it does go against the grain to not contest in some way.  Also a shame to lose a match on a tactical gamble like that.  

I understand your point LT. I've definitely learnt something as a result. I still think the Cheetahs players were offside, the other issue is when does the lineout end. I watched the lineout with a former professional rugby player (NZ who also played in England premiership) and coach. His take was the same as mine. It'll be interesting to see where it goes. I suspect there'll be some discussion of it at the super 15 ref level. If in their wisdom they settle on the interpretation you have to engage so be it.

Yes, the question is how long does the lineout last for, If I remember rightly any player can move once the lineout is over (fielded by a receiving player) or the ball has gone over your head.

Gotta admit though its quite a few years since I knew all these rules sub conciously. I got the feeling that Jerome Kaino thought the lineout was over, but hey what would he know?

Risca Rev wrote:I am not overly a fan of this not competing rule personally. A team tried doing it in my game last week, but were told they couldn't too (so had to try stopping our drive late). I am hoping that this law is changed soon.

Probably in the minority with that though.

On what grounds were the players told that they couldnt not engage the Maul? out of interest. or in other words what is the rule that needs changing?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Yes, the question is how long does the lineout last for, If I remember rightly any player can move once the lineout is over (fielded by a receiving player) or the ball has gone over your head.

Gotta admit though its quite a few years since I knew all these rules sub conciously. I got the feeling that Jerome Kaino thought the lineout was over, but hey what would he know?

Lasts until the player catching the ball has landed or when the ball is thrown beyond the lattermost dude in the lineout.

I guess my point is he's pinged them for retreating from the lineout. Either way the Cheetahs are obstructing. It's actually clearer if the lineout is still in effect. You effectively have to be behind the ball if you aren't physically holding it.

Rule 19.14 (c)
After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if, after the ball has touched a player or the ground, that player steps in front of the ball, unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent. Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.

If they were a head of the ball when the player caught it they are required to return to an onside position. If they move into an offside position without trying to win possession or make a tackle they must be penalised. The retreating is to some degree secondary as they are moving out of the way of players in illegal positions. That's my take anyway.

What I think should have happened. Is the Cheetahs players should have bound behind the jumper and driven forward.

blackcanelion wrote:
What I think should have happened. Is the Cheetahs players should have bound behind the jumper and driven forward.

Good job that is what they did. The ball carrier was the man furthest forward.

George Carlin wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Yes, the question is how long does the lineout last for, If I remember rightly any player can move once the lineout is over (fielded by a receiving player) or the ball has gone over your head.

Gotta admit though its quite a few years since I knew all these rules sub conciously. I got the feeling that Jerome Kaino thought the lineout was over, but hey what would he know?

Lasts until the player catching the ball has landed or when the ball is thrown beyond the lattermost dude in the lineout.

Ball has to move from the site of the lineout. So draw a box down each line of people and across the 5m and 15m lines. Unless a maul is formed, then all feet of the players must move beyond the line of touch.

19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout
(a) Lineout begins. The lineout begins when the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing it in.
(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.

This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.

This whole law surrounding not engaging the maul is fraught with danger, and dare I say it, trickery.

Did the same not happen yesterday against Ireland? I recall some issue about it yesterday.

Anyway, man up take the maul, all this technical crap about not engaging or not allowed to step back is nonsense.

There are far too many tricks around these days to either not play rugby or to milk technical penalties.

LondonTiger wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:
What I think should have happened. Is the Cheetahs players should have bound behind the jumper and driven forward.

Good job that is what they did. The ball carrier was the man furthest forward.

Not how I saw it. I guess that's the nub of it. As I read it offside in a lineout is pretty restrictive.

LondonTiger wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Yes, the question is how long does the lineout last for, If I remember rightly any player can move once the lineout is over (fielded by a receiving player) or the ball has gone over your head.

Gotta admit though its quite a few years since I knew all these rules sub conciously. I got the feeling that Jerome Kaino thought the lineout was over, but hey what would he know?

Lasts until the player catching the ball has landed or when the ball is thrown beyond the lattermost dude in the lineout.

Ball has to move from the site of the lineout. So draw a box down each line of people and across the 5m and 15m lines. Unless a maul is formed, then all feet of the players must move beyond the line of touch.

19.9 Beginning and ending a lineout
(a) Lineout begins. The lineout begins when the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing it in.
(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.

This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.

Not sure I agree. The first and most significant test is when the player or ball leaves the lineout. The clarification is simply a legal statement that says for avoidance of doubt this includes (but isn't limited to) x, y and z. The weekends lineout is not covered in the examples given. A maul had not formed. In terms of interpretation it makes sense for the ruck or maul to cross the line as this mirrors general play. However, in this case we effectively have a player taking the ball forward, the fact he is bound to his own players shouldn't make any difference in my opinion.

Having said the referee is the sole judge of fact. Both for arguments you've put forward and the ones I've outlined I think someone in the Blues will seek a clarification.

Biltong wrote:This whole law surrounding not engaging the maul is fraught with danger, and dare I say it, trickery.

Did the same not happen yesterday against Ireland? I recall some issue about it yesterday.

Anyway, man up take the maul, all this technical crap about not engaging or not allowed to step back is nonsense.

There are far too many tricks around these days to either not play rugby or to milk technical penalties.

I'd really be interested in the number of penalties derived from mauls driven from lineouts between the halfway and opposition 22m line. Lets face it there's a lot of games going on. If sides want a maul, make sure they engage with the opposition first. That might mean teams have to drive into the opposition and then turn and bind. I think the onus should be on the team in possession. Especially given the amount of  obstruction in a fully developed maul.