This tactic goes back to the 2000's. Pro teams quickly worked out how to get past this tactic. The maul can move forward if the player at the front of the maul is still in possession of the ball. It must only stay stationary if the ball has been transferred to the back as then any movement forward would be obstruction. Modern teams now wait until contact is made by the other team to pass the ball back in the maul. That way if a team doesn't engage like this they can just walk forward. Also, if the team has passed the ball to the back like this and thus can't move forward, there is no offside line and the defense is free to move to the back of the maul and tackle the ball carrier.
@@matthew-tx6is A good point. Would be interesting to see this happen and how its refereed with the new law changes. There may be an exception in the law or perhaps its something they simply didn't account for and that teams may look to exploit.
Yeh,this doesn't happen in rugby. I don't know wtf going on here,the ref only gives a short time to play the ball if it's stationary. Never seen anything like this before
@@russe19642 Only allowing a short time being stationary only applies in a maul. Because the defensive team did not make contact with the opposition then a maul was never formed and so the attack can stand stationary as long as they want. It's the same as a man standing still on his own with the ball and the defense just standing looking at him - no infringement from either side
Ref should have called to use the ball and given 3 seconds to keep the game flowing. Instead its just a waste of time and something the game doesnt need.
Unfortunately, even at the highest level, refs now seem to have little understanding of the rules. Most of the problems have been caused by World Rugby itself, who appears to be causing most of the confusion by constantly changing the rules. They even changed the rules in the middle of the IRB World Cup. I don't blame refs for being unable to keep up. This ref was probably wondering if the rules of the game have changed again. When humans don't know what to do, they tend to do nothing. See example in this video.
@@cgfnortje Agreed...I'm old enough to remember when players and refs knew what a tackle was and thus were more able to assess "loose play". This silliness on view here might have ended with the ball put on the ground and rucked forward requiring defenders to join the ruck to keep it from being walked over the line. My common rant for the past 10 years is that the boredom from the sameness of play as there's no space in which to run the ball or grubber kick for that matter comes from the tackled player (which should mean unable to run no squirm and roll along the pitch) has for 15 plus years NOT been required to release ( or even place) the ball IMMEDIATELY as the written Laws required, and make an honest attempt to roll away. That used to be attended to by rucking the down player off the ball....which meant stepped on him or kicking him. Of course, that was not necessary nor should it have been allowed by refs....All that was necessary was for defenders to bind and step over the down player and heel the ball back into him....he's offside and penalty awarded. This also would require defenders to joing the ruck or else watch the ball walked down the pitch. All this is NOT allowed in recent years. The back of the tackler ( even he's had to turn his back when tackled facing forward is the offside marker (not the ball which he once he's tackled is in advance of) and so defenders have little purpose other than to spread about the pitch and create defense....ie take space away so we're left to bash through the defense with bigger and bigger players ( who have 8 subs if this wearies them) and must be defended by bigger and bigger players. To me, who played for 19 years the thrill of the game was watching a break or being part of one that had 6 or 10 or 11 handlers of the ball...suggesting spirited defenders and wonderful support.
@Jake Watt "Use it" is called at 3 situations: 1. A maul (which has firstly been formed) where the ball carrying team has stopped going forward... 2. A ruck, when the ball is easily available and a player is in place to play it... 3. A scrum that has become static, with the ball available and a player in a position to play the ball. None of these scenarios are relevant here. Demanding a ref to say "use it" followed by a whistle would be a deviation from the lawbook. Now THAT would lead to even MORE uproar from the ill-informed public.
@@cgfnortje ... Raak gou rustig en Lee's mooi wat ek sê. The only people that have little understanding of the LAWS (not "rules") is the average rugby fan. There are very few rugby referees in the world and the level of performance obviously varies... BUT...you can rest assured that the WORST referee knows WAY MORE than the average one eyed fan. All unions/clubs/schools are briefed on any law changes and even how certain interpretations will be applied. The onus is on the TEAMS to get their teams ready for the match under the current laws of the game. The ball carrying team was not aware that if the catcher of the ball holds onto the ball that they are allowed to advance that grouping, as any contact from defenders would be on the ball carrier at the front of that group. The defending side is doing well in creating the technicality. Are they aware of the fact that if the ball is shifted back to a ball carrying teammate, they can win a penalty by making contact with the man in front of the grouping, though? The blame for this little "Stalemate" doesn't lie with the man applying the laws. Blame the teams for their lack of knowledge and adaptability.
Two things here and it has to deal with where the ball is in the bunch. If the ball is with the front-most person of the attacking team, they may move forward. The defending team can either engage to create a maul or tackle the player with the ball. If the ball is transfered to the rear of the attacking player bunch, then the referee must say "use it." The attacking team must either use it immediately or it is a turnover scrum to the defending side.
@@einsatzgruppen449 in our league that's exactly how it's called. Our team uses the call 'poison' to specifically avoid a latch, and the other team gets called if they hold onto the ball like this team did. It doesn't get used often bc we're better at line outs than most squads in our region, but it creates hesitation and that's the key.
Whenever I see a lineout in Northern Hemisphere Rugby I always know what they're going to do next!! When watching NZ provincial Rugby they seem to have so much more options.
@@Pete_Piper Good ol' Pete. Blinkered, opinionated and stupid. Get back to the dark corner of your rugby club bar where you can sit quietly muttering to yourself as the rest of the world moves on.
It's a funny thing to watch. Like a dance between two aboriginal tribes in some sort of traditional ceremony depicting an ancient battle, warranting anthropological investigation. If only they wore leopard skins and had bones through their noses. Bongo drum music should also be used.
@@richardmason2968 Rugby isn't just about running though. Remove the forward-dominant aspects of the game and you're left with a one-dimensional sport.
So all I really get from this is that if *both* sides want to prolong a lineout, they may do so indefinitely. You're allowed to pre-bind the jumper -- I played back when you weren't -- and until the ball leaves the line of touch, the lineout goes on, so neither side can step beyond it. I'll assume unless someone says otherwise that if the ball gets past 15 m in-field, that's the same as its leaving the line of touch. The defending side if they wanted to could engage the ballcarrier, but then it's a maul and the attacking side, with all those pre-bound players, has an advantage.
If the ball is with the player at the front of the maul the ball is in play and the players can move forward also the defenders can tackle the front man, if the ball is moved to the back of the maul the player cannot move forward with being of side but the ball carrier again is in play and can be tackled
It's basically a defensive ploy to isolate the Apex of the maul ( front ball carrier). If the offense had kept the basic shape and simply charged ahead, it would have been deemed as a driving wedge which is an illegal tactic nowadays. If the ball had travelled to the back of the intended maul, the defenders can simply charge into the melee and claiming obstruction, another illegal tactic. That's why, the Apex had to peel off the maul and go himself.
Love this clip, the thing i do not understand is that if the guy at the front has the ball, ie the guy facing the camera then they can walk to the line anyway but if the ball has gone back then as the clip shows the guy at the front trys to turn with the ball ball then has there not been a forward pass in him taking the ball back from someone behind him?
As much as it's entertaining, it is hardly new. I remember teams doing that in the 2000s to counteract rolling mauls when they were a far rarer phenomenon.
What stops the “maul” (I know it’s not a maul as no defenders involved) from simply stepping forward till over the try line? Testudo style. Why can’t they advance?
Couple of variables to your suggestion brings different ref decisions: 1. Jumper holds onto ball. They advance. Opposition engages. PLAY ON. No teammate obstructing tackle to ball carrier. 2. Jumper catches.brings ball down and ball is shifted to players behind him. They advance. Opposition makes no contact. Grouping advances over goal line with ball carrier grounding ball in-goal.TRY. No obstruction as no defender was hindered. It was their CHOICE not to make contact. 3. Jumper catches.shifts ball back to player behind him and relinquishes possession. They advance. Opposition engages from their side of the line-out. PENALTY. Obstruction by players in front of ball carrier. To answer your question... In THAT specific moment there is NOTHING that prevents them from stepping forward.
If the team in possession keep the ball with the initial catcher and move forward it becomes a flying wedge which has been illegal for decades now. I know it’s not very “flying” but it is a wedge moving forward, therefore illegal. If the team in possession pass the ball back, those in front of the ball are guilty of obstruction. No movement is required just shielding the ball carrier is obstruction. The defenders don’t need to prove they are being obstructed by trying to get the ball. Scenario one referee calls “Flying wedge, breakup” Scenario two referee calls “obstruction pass the ball” Failure to do either immediately is a penalty, current laws cater for both scenarios. Of course the new latching laws have put paid to this. So new tactic would be catcher comes to ground and one teammate latches on. Second team mate up has to wait until opposition latch on to make a maul. ( one from each team and the ball carrier) If defence don’t latch on then only two players involved and they can advance without penalty. Of course the defenders won’t let those in possession advance to the goal line so they will latch on and we get a maul. Trouble with these clips is the 3rd XV will try to do it with Blind Pugh, who was dragged out of the bar, refereeing. Mayhem will ensue with the barrack room lawyers holding sway.
I believe, that if, as you rightly point out, it is NOT a maul (because the opposition did not engage) then there is no requirement for the referee to make them "use it". A defending player could actually legally come around and tackle the person with the ball at which point a maul would immediately be called.
This is not remotely a new tactic and the ref should've called a penalty after the maul was formed, there was no ball movement within the maul, and the maul itself was stationary for over 5 seconds (beginning ~11 seconds into the video).
if the ball is at the front of the maul there is not problem shepherding... why they not driving to the line??? wtf??? is there a law change or do they not actually know how to play rugby?
There must be something in the rules already to stop this. There are more rules in rugby than in everyday life. Most amateur teams would just charge forward anyway.
Once they go beyond the line of touch - in this case the 5m line - they need to un-latch and play as individuals. Note there is no maul or ruck so Law 18 continues to apply. Personally, I would give a penalty against Blue for unsportsmanlike behaviour, giving a kick, throw or scrum option to the attacking team. If they did it again I would send someone off.
Not only amazing but you forgot to say exciting, thrilling and great, intelligent addition to the purposeful and deliberate improvement of rugby as a spectator sport.....1:25 of boredom
So, if its not a maul, not contact with opposition, and its not a ruck, ball not on the ground AND no contact with opposition, what is it? If it is neither, than why would there be an offside....which is the tactic or question asked and answered by the defensive deployment of players by Italy against England 4 (?) years ago which sent the "guvernors" up in arms requiring another Law change which looks a lot like this foolishness. Would the problem be eliminated by the ball in a maul only allowed back one row deep, ie the first teammate to be handed the ball after which it MUST become a ruck, ball must go to ground as yonks ago in our lack of imagination most mauls became.....ball carried held up, first supporting player on to the ball and driving forward if he could, looking to work the ball down to the ground when others arrived, OR having freed the ball from the initial maul, passed it back to the scrum half or ran with it oneself.....This 3 and 4 tier maul which put all of one's team in the maul offside and for the most part the ball secure as those players now offside were protection from the opposition, was just NOT a formation seen. I watch old videos from the 1960's until 2000 of international matches and find no instance of this "three-tiered" maul formation from a lineout or any other place on the field. Is there another field sport where the ball cannot be played by the defense nor advanced by the "offense"? Even in basketball this "stymie" would be called "a jump ball"....but here as one person has written, it looks like a Monty Python skit from the "twit Olympics".
Or just make the scrum competitive again, and allow players to actually maul. The problem with the present game is scrum resets that go on for ever followed by the scrum half putting the ball into the second row and if anyone does get a shove on the ref blows a whistle. Rucks that have three people leaving 12 defenders spread across the field requiring an additional 3 man ruck to try and clear some space. Old style driving mauls where the team going forward kept the ball encouraged you to commit players to the maul, again resulting in opening up spaces that are presently filled with defenders. But then again I was a back and am constantly confused by the modern professional game where the flankers keep showing up on the wing.
BULLSHIT old abandoned tactic which never saw much light of day. The "maul" was probably trying to get a penalty call while the defenders had a really long time to recover their breath. And the ref was not encouraging of a flowing game.
this is like a Monty Python skit
Most certainly
It's like both teams weren't quite sure what to do next
This tactic goes back to the 2000's. Pro teams quickly worked out how to get past this tactic. The maul can move forward if the player at the front of the maul is still in possession of the ball. It must only stay stationary if the ball has been transferred to the back as then any movement forward would be obstruction. Modern teams now wait until contact is made by the other team to pass the ball back in the maul. That way if a team doesn't engage like this they can just walk forward. Also, if the team has passed the ball to the back like this and thus can't move forward, there is no offside line and the defense is free to move to the back of the maul and tackle the ball carrier.
Yep. Remember this happening even in local games in Ireland back in mid 2000s
Would it not be a Calvary charge nowadays with the rule change this year of only one latch in the carry
@@matthew-tx6is A good point. Would be interesting to see this happen and how its refereed with the new law changes. There may be an exception in the law or perhaps its something they simply didn't account for and that teams may look to exploit.
Yeh,this doesn't happen in rugby. I don't know wtf going on here,the ref only gives a short time to play the ball if it's stationary. Never seen anything like this before
@@russe19642 Only allowing a short time being stationary only applies in a maul. Because the defensive team did not make contact with the opposition then a maul was never formed and so the attack can stand stationary as long as they want. It's the same as a man standing still on his own with the ball and the defense just standing looking at him - no infringement from either side
Ref should have called to use the ball and given 3 seconds to keep the game flowing. Instead its just a waste of time and something the game doesnt need.
🎯
Unfortunately, even at the highest level, refs now seem to have little understanding of the rules. Most of the problems have been caused by World Rugby itself, who appears to be causing most of the confusion by constantly changing the rules. They even changed the rules in the middle of the IRB World Cup. I don't blame refs for being unable to keep up. This ref was probably wondering if the rules of the game have changed again. When humans don't know what to do, they tend to do nothing. See example in this video.
@@cgfnortje Agreed...I'm old enough to remember when players and refs knew what a tackle was and thus were more able to assess "loose play". This silliness on view here might have ended with the ball put on the ground and rucked forward requiring defenders to join the ruck to keep it from being walked over the line. My common rant for the past 10 years is that the boredom from the sameness of play as there's no space in which to run the ball or grubber kick for that matter comes from the tackled player (which should mean unable to run no squirm and roll along the pitch) has for 15 plus years NOT been required to release ( or even place) the ball IMMEDIATELY as the written Laws required, and make an honest attempt to roll away. That used to be attended to by rucking the down player off the ball....which meant stepped on him or kicking him. Of course, that was not necessary nor should it have been allowed by refs....All that was necessary was for defenders to bind and step over the down player and heel the ball back into him....he's offside and penalty awarded. This also would require defenders to joing the ruck or else watch the ball walked down the pitch. All this is NOT allowed in recent years. The back of the tackler ( even he's had to turn his back when tackled facing forward is the offside marker (not the ball which he once he's tackled is in advance of) and so defenders have little purpose other than to spread about the pitch and create defense....ie take space away so we're left to bash through the defense with bigger and bigger players ( who have 8 subs if this wearies them) and must be defended by bigger and bigger players. To me, who played for 19 years the thrill of the game was watching a break or being part of one that had 6 or 10 or 11 handlers of the ball...suggesting spirited defenders and wonderful support.
@Jake Watt "Use it" is called at 3 situations: 1. A maul (which has firstly been formed) where the ball carrying team has stopped going forward... 2. A ruck, when the ball is easily available and a player is in place to play it... 3. A scrum that has become static, with the ball available and a player in a position to play the ball.
None of these scenarios are relevant here. Demanding a ref to say "use it" followed by a whistle would be a deviation from the lawbook. Now THAT would lead to even MORE uproar from the ill-informed public.
@@cgfnortje ... Raak gou rustig en Lee's mooi wat ek sê.
The only people that have little understanding of the LAWS (not "rules") is the average rugby fan. There are very few rugby referees in the world and the level of performance obviously varies... BUT...you can rest assured that the WORST referee knows WAY MORE than the average one eyed fan. All unions/clubs/schools are briefed on any law changes and even how certain interpretations will be applied. The onus is on the TEAMS to get their teams ready for the match under the current laws of the game.
The ball carrying team was not aware that if the catcher of the ball holds onto the ball that they are allowed to advance that grouping, as any contact from defenders would be on the ball carrier at the front of that group. The defending side is doing well in creating the technicality. Are they aware of the fact that if the ball is shifted back to a ball carrying teammate, they can win a penalty by making contact with the man in front of the grouping, though?
The blame for this little "Stalemate" doesn't lie with the man applying the laws. Blame the teams for their lack of knowledge and adaptability.
Two things here and it has to deal with where the ball is in the bunch. If the ball is with the front-most person of the attacking team, they may move forward. The defending team can either engage to create a maul or tackle the player with the ball. If the ball is transfered to the rear of the attacking player bunch, then the referee must say "use it." The attacking team must either use it immediately or it is a turnover scrum to the defending side.
He can only call "use it" if a maul is formed ie. the other team has engaged. Otherwise he can't call or do anything like in above clip.
@@einsatzgruppen449 in our league that's exactly how it's called. Our team uses the call 'poison' to specifically avoid a latch, and the other team gets called if they hold onto the ball like this team did. It doesn't get used often bc we're better at line outs than most squads in our region, but it creates hesitation and that's the key.
hello from NLC Rugby!!!!!
Could tackling the man, be mistaken for collapsing the maul ?
@@_hxrryyy6794 if the ball is in front then it's not a Maul. A defender may tackle the player with the ball.
The flair of Northern Hemisphere Rugby.
Whenever I see a lineout in Northern Hemisphere Rugby I always know what they're going to do next!! When watching NZ provincial Rugby they seem to have so much more options.
Scintillating Northern Hemisphere rugby.
😂
Ten man rugby at it's best
They are scared to get their kit dirty so that when they get home their mommy's don't shout at them.
This looks like stage one, and like they haven't practiced what should happen next. But I like the fact they are willing to try and experiment.
Hands down the most exciting bit of Rugby I've saw!
Hands down the worst bit of grammar I've seen! 😉
Still better than women’s rugby.
@@Pete_Piper I'll let you field that one mate!
@@Pete_Piper Good ol' Pete. Blinkered, opinionated and stupid. Get back to the dark corner of your rugby club bar where you can sit quietly muttering to yourself as the rest of the world moves on.
@@toowoo6770 i dont know about that @Pete has a point.
It's a funny thing to watch. Like a dance between two aboriginal tribes in some sort of traditional ceremony depicting an ancient battle, warranting anthropological investigation. If only they wore leopard skins and had bones through their noses. Bongo drum music should also be used.
Law change needed, no catch and drive in oppo 22. Must be off the top of line out and played to the 9 from the jumper in the air.
A good rolling maul is a beautiful part of the game, why would you want to see it go?
@@linalmeemow boring & outdated.
@@richardmason2968 It's a fundamental part of the game. Perhaps you'd enjoy rugby league more?
@@linalmeemow perhaps in the 90s, now very one sided and thoughtless. Off the top promotes running rugby.
@@richardmason2968 Rugby isn't just about running though. Remove the forward-dominant aspects of the game and you're left with a one-dimensional sport.
So all I really get from this is that if *both* sides want to prolong a lineout, they may do so indefinitely. You're allowed to pre-bind the jumper -- I played back when you weren't -- and until the ball leaves the line of touch, the lineout goes on, so neither side can step beyond it. I'll assume unless someone says otherwise that if the ball gets past 15 m in-field, that's the same as its leaving the line of touch. The defending side if they wanted to could engage the ballcarrier, but then it's a maul and the attacking side, with all those pre-bound players, has an advantage.
If the ball is with the player at the front of the maul the ball is in play and the players can move forward also the defenders can tackle the front man, if the ball is moved to the back of the maul the player cannot move forward with being of side but the ball carrier again is in play and can be tackled
That's a minute and a half I'll never get back!
It's basically a defensive ploy to isolate the Apex of the maul ( front ball carrier). If the offense had kept the basic shape and simply charged ahead, it would have been deemed as a driving wedge which is an illegal tactic nowadays. If the ball had travelled to the back of the intended maul, the defenders can simply charge into the melee and claiming obstruction, another illegal tactic. That's why, the Apex had to peel off the maul and go himself.
Just by your interpretation you must be young ...
What the hell?? In all my years of playing rugby I've never seen anything like this 😳
Surely that is illegal. You can't bind until there is a tackle made or at least some resistance
Love this clip, the thing i do not understand is that if the guy at the front has the ball, ie the guy facing the camera then they can walk to the line anyway but if the ball has gone back then as the clip shows the guy at the front trys to turn with the ball ball then has there not been a forward pass in him taking the ball back from someone behind him?
First thing I thought was surely that's a forward pass?!
As much as it's entertaining, it is hardly new. I remember teams doing that in the 2000s to counteract rolling mauls when they were a far rarer phenomenon.
No wonder the stands are empty
Thought I was losing my mind
THIS IS WHY THE NO PREBINDING RULE IS AWFUL
New law change, a time limit on this kind of cartoon maul.
Just a pity the law makers can't do something about scrums - talk about wasting 5 minutes!!
Both teams can actually do something depending on which player is currently the ball carrier. Blame coaches and players for being unprepared.
All those defending forwards had a good minute's worth of breather too.
Rolling mauls should be restricted to 10 metres max. Save rugby from this curse.
Surely it's up to the scrum half to think on his feet and make a call
The rolling mall should be abolished. It's a yawn.
What stops the “maul” (I know it’s not a maul as no defenders involved) from simply stepping forward till over the try line? Testudo style. Why can’t they advance?
It becomes obstruction, if they all go forward person has to break off
Against the law in rugby, players need to be in contact with opposition to advance it's not a maul without contact
@@tito-1205 what if they kept the ball at the front.
Couple of variables to your suggestion brings different ref decisions:
1. Jumper holds onto ball. They advance. Opposition engages. PLAY ON. No teammate obstructing tackle to ball carrier.
2. Jumper catches.brings ball down and ball is shifted to players behind him. They advance. Opposition makes no contact. Grouping advances over goal line with ball carrier grounding ball in-goal.TRY. No obstruction as no defender was hindered. It was their CHOICE not to make contact.
3. Jumper catches.shifts ball back to player behind him and relinquishes possession. They advance. Opposition engages from their side of the line-out. PENALTY. Obstruction by players in front of ball carrier.
To answer your question... In THAT specific moment there is NOTHING that prevents them from stepping forward.
@@gavinwolfe3713 Then they can do as they want.
If the team in possession keep the ball with the initial catcher and move forward it becomes a flying wedge which has been illegal for decades now. I know it’s not very “flying” but it is a wedge moving forward, therefore illegal.
If the team in possession pass the ball back, those in front of the ball are guilty of obstruction. No movement is required just shielding the ball carrier is obstruction.
The defenders don’t need to prove they are being obstructed by trying to get the ball.
Scenario one referee calls “Flying wedge, breakup”
Scenario two referee calls “obstruction pass the ball”
Failure to do either immediately is a penalty, current laws cater for both scenarios.
Of course the new latching laws have put paid to this.
So new tactic would be catcher comes to ground and one teammate latches on. Second team mate up has to wait until opposition latch on to make a maul. ( one from each team and the ball carrier)
If defence don’t latch on then only two players involved and they can advance without penalty. Of course the defenders won’t let those in possession advance to the goal line so they will latch on and we get a maul.
Trouble with these clips is the 3rd XV will try to do it with Blind Pugh, who was dragged out of the bar, refereeing. Mayhem will ensue with the barrack room lawyers holding sway.
The new latching laws aren’t applied to the line out. As per the RFU ref training attended at twickenham.
@@pelicanhome correct. I withdraw references in my post which don’t take this into account.
Not much driving; more of a static maul.
I've never seen Headingley this empty for a Rugby match - usually packed for Friday night matches.
I think that's because everyone got bored of watching this and went home early.
It’s because Headingley is more of a rugby league ground.
Waste of the internet and an utterly attrocious displacement of electrons.
Some commentary on whats happening would help.
Assume they are prebound and so can’t go into contact. It’s not a maul (needs players from both sides). Ref should say use it.
I believe, that if, as you rightly point out, it is NOT a maul (because the opposition did not engage) then there is no requirement for the referee to make them "use it". A defending player could actually legally come around and tackle the person with the ball at which point a maul would immediately be called.
Why didn't ref tell them to use the ball and also that's a truck and trailer as no opposing players are connected to legally call that a maul🤔
If I was the coach of that team all 8 forwards would be dropped.
Why didn't the ball carrier just turn around and dive over the line!
I played rugby as a back for over 20 years and I still don't understand the forwards rules
The Italiians did this against the English a few yrs ago!.........
Do you really think the grass grew half an inch??
Is this what Italy did against England.
Why don't they just send it?
Would it be offside if they did?
the refs a muppett just standing there they have2 use it or its a scrum the other way
Incorrect. It is NOT the ref who is the "muppett"
Staged performances are soo brilliant to watch... on Broadway.
Well that was silly hey!
What does the ref not call use it. Ball is not being contested. Would defensive scrum after 5 sec
No maul formed so "use it" doesn't apply.
This is not remotely a new tactic and the ref should've called a penalty after the maul was formed, there was no ball movement within the maul, and the maul itself was stationary for over 5 seconds (beginning ~11 seconds into the video).
so is this a way to run down the clock also?
Why wouldn’t they just walk 5 metres and score?
Great for spectators.
Ref hello!
Use the ball🎉🎉🎉
Nothing new here. Was happening at UK level 7 5+ years ago
Japan should’ve looked at this
what happened to - use it?
This is dire and a travesty for the paying public.
I'd rather wanna see how snails cross a road then this.WR please come up with a law to prohibit this amature move.
There is one already.
@@ebregains Well done💪
USE IT PURPLE!!!
YAWN
This is not new South Africa did this to Argentina a few World Cups ago
"AMAZING NEW WAY TO SEND SPECTATORS TO SLEEP" I think you should have titled this.
use it!!!!
Whats a "calvary charge", a load of Christians running up a hill?
if the ball is at the front of the maul there is not problem shepherding... why they not driving to the line??? wtf??? is there a law change or do they not actually know how to play rugby?
Your 2nd suggestion seems to be the appropriate option.
Why did they stop should of jus went fwd watch them all come in 🤦♂️🤣🤣
Oh wait they can push ay bloody heck been watching union for years lol
Shipping 25pts per game..aint working then..?!
Well that was stupid.
this is another example why Rugby is getting more and more ridiculous, is losing support, and will go in a steady Decline !
Exactly why I would rather watch Super League, what has Union come to ?
Still better than women’s rugby.
They gave it a try.
el arbitro que deberia aver cobrado? o esta bien lo que hizo al no cobrar
Do you want a cup of tea?...U.K teams make me dream guys!See you 6 Nations Tournament ;)
law makers have ruined the game
Not a new tactic.... duh..... as long as the ball stay with the jumper, that maul can even keep going forward.....
Description is way off the mark
There must be something in the rules already to stop this. There are more rules in rugby than in everyday life. Most amateur teams would just charge forward anyway.
If the jumper/catcher is still holding the ball, that would be ok.
"Innovative and new tactic"?
Where? When?
Jeez I could have made brew waiting for something to happen, briefest, get on with it FFS
rugby union peaked in this moment. they should show this instead of Gareth Edwards babas try to show how bad a spectator sport it is now
"Use it" ??
No maul formed
Once they go beyond the line of touch - in this case the 5m line - they need to un-latch and play as individuals. Note there is no maul or ruck so Law 18 continues to apply. Personally, I would give a penalty against Blue for unsportsmanlike behaviour, giving a kick, throw or scrum option to the attacking team. If they did it again I would send someone off.
Not only amazing but you forgot to say exciting, thrilling and great, intelligent addition to the purposeful and deliberate improvement of rugby as a spectator sport.....1:25 of boredom
the epitome of rugby union
Omg can i get my life back
Use it
So, if its not a maul, not contact with opposition, and its not a ruck, ball not on the ground AND no contact with opposition, what is it? If it is neither, than why would there be an offside....which is the tactic or question asked and answered by the defensive deployment of players by Italy against England 4 (?) years ago which sent the "guvernors" up in arms requiring another Law change which looks a lot like this foolishness. Would the problem be eliminated by the ball in a maul only allowed back one row deep, ie the first teammate to be handed the ball after which it MUST become a ruck, ball must go to ground as yonks ago in our lack of imagination most mauls became.....ball carried held up, first supporting player on to the ball and driving forward if he could, looking to work the ball down to the ground when others arrived, OR having freed the ball from the initial maul, passed it back to the scrum half or ran with it oneself.....This 3 and 4 tier maul which put all of one's team in the maul offside and for the most part the ball secure as those players now offside were protection from the opposition, was just NOT a formation seen. I watch old videos from the 1960's until 2000 of international matches and find no instance of this "three-tiered" maul formation from a lineout or any other place on the field. Is there another field sport where the ball cannot be played by the defense nor advanced by the "offense"? Even in basketball this "stymie" would be called "a jump ball"....but here as one person has written, it looks like a Monty Python skit from the "twit Olympics".
That's not a driving maul. It's a shitting turtle
What a load of shit get the game done away with.
This is not a RUclips comment. This is a moment of BRILLIANCE.
5 seconds....
this is why league was invented, they decided to stop this arse sniffing crap and spin the ball out
Call Me funking stupid but is this rugby ?
Ive definitely hit an all time low on what im watching on here!!
Ref should have called 'Use It'. This is not the spirit of rugby.
No maul formed so "use it" doesn't apply.
@@mickeencrua I'm aware of that! But you're right....this is waaaay better.
Yeah the ref needs to step in here, not good for the game, looks awful and quite embarrassing
He would deviate from the lawbook. Maybe COACHES and PLAYERS should prepare themselves a bit better.
No offence is being committed so the Ref can't intervene.
If you remove scrums and rolling mauls from rugby it suddenly becomes 10x more entertaining to watch
"...suddenly becomes Rugby League."
Fixed it for you. X
Or just make the scrum competitive again, and allow players to actually maul. The problem with the present game is scrum resets that go on for ever followed by the scrum half putting the ball into the second row and if anyone does get a shove on the ref blows a whistle. Rucks that have three people leaving 12 defenders spread across the field requiring an additional 3 man ruck to try and clear some space. Old style driving mauls where the team going forward kept the ball encouraged you to commit players to the maul, again resulting in opening up spaces that are presently filled with defenders. But then again I was a back and am constantly confused by the modern professional game where the flankers keep showing up on the wing.
Christ that's dull
I'd rather watch paint dry
Lol 😂 funny
The game's fucked if there's no rucking, as with the Italians and no mauling as here. It's over as a game for me.
theres no rucking somewhere?
@@CCCSaxsonWarmonger ruclips.net/video/RMi_p_n9Pv0/видео.html
Use it or lose it … wtf ref
Why "use it or lose it"? There is no maul.
And this is why rugby is dying
Honestly not a great spectacle. And this why union is such a boring game nowadays
BULLSHIT old abandoned tactic which never saw much light of day. The "maul" was probably trying to get a penalty call while the defenders had a really long time to recover their breath. And the ref was not encouraging of a flowing game.