The flying wedge

Note: this post is on the topic of the "flying wedge" not the "flying wedgie" which is what I'd dearly love to see Chris Ashton receive whilst Mis-timing a swallow dive near a convenient defender.

The flying wedge is a configuration of the human form known to be efficient in combat, police riot work and contact sports. In a rugby context Multiple (two or more) players bind together with a leading ball carrier and run at opponent defenders. The extra momentum makes breaking a tackle more likely, and yields more territory in the ensuing tackle if not broken. It also makes turn over less likely for obvious reasons.

This is supposedly illegal in rugby, for safety reasons.

However I counted three to-remain-nameless teams using this technique both to attack the try line from close range, and to break the gain line in possession close to their own try line.

Are referees missing this one? Or have the laws changed without my knowledge?

Note that this differs from formation of a maul in that the ball carrying players are bound prior to contact of the ball carrier with a defender. It seems like this is intermittently penalised at slow speed from the line out most often but seems to be ignored in open play.

Good point. Have seen that frequently in recent games ( cant remember which teams though) and always wondered if it was a sort of quick maul... Usually 1 forward pushing another forward carrying the ball during a few seconds, enough to gain a few metres.

Yeah, I've seen this a fair bit recently too.

Hartley launched Ashton headfirst in this manner in the Argentina game. I'm not sure he'll be thanking him too much for that.

Other than GE's inevitable dig at England, I think this time he actually has a point - refs seem to be turning a blind eye to attacking players binding together before they make contact with a defender. It's not quite the old-fashioned flying wedge, where three or four players would bind and run at the opposition defence (I remember this being used as a serious option for short-range tap penalties), but certainly there are some occasions where a supporting forward has his arm round the ball carrier before any ruck or maul is formed.

Definitely banned... refs definitely turning a blind eye. It's become quite prevalent at club level recently too.

Which said, it's not the first rugby law that's honoured more in the breach than the observance.

SA use this a lot. Didnt realise it was illegal.

the rule is that you cannot bind onto a team-mate unless there is already an opponent bound to him!

No pre binding allowed!

Thats why you will sometimes see a defending team standing off at lineouts.  When defending, if you do not engage the other team, and they bind to form a Maul, then you get the penalty (well you should)

Scotland did this a year or two ago.  I cannot remember who it was against. On one occasion they got the penalty, on another they didnt. The refs are a bit dodgy with this one!

but isnt it true if a maul is formed but then the opposition all leave the maul the mauling team can continue going forward bound together?

Think thats what Red Stag once said.

I'm a little confused here,

If a maul is formed and no defender makes contact with the front then the penalty is given for offside (players in front of the ball carrier).

However if the ball is not shifted to the back play is allowed to go on (I have been on refs courses that state this clearly) as all players are bound behind the ball carrier.

Infact I know pro coaches who actively coach the support player binding onto another at the ruck before they pick the ball up and then drive together!

The flying wedge is a V formation and is specific to having at least 1 player on each side of the ball carrier, meaning a supporting player can make contact, it's the next guy in that can't.

The SA maul is a close link to this technique, difficult to stop because the point man is singular and the next 2 are either side of him. they then return to singular.

I too have noticed what seems to be a re-emergence of what looks very similar to a flying wedge over the last 6 months.

Unlike the OP I will not limit it to just 3 teams (though I have seen the all of the Top 3 in the IRB rankings do it) and just state that it seems to be happening in pretty much every match I see.

I could have sworn Wales did it on the weekend.

The issue of the flying wedge is that it's not enforcable, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of players who have never even heard of it!

butterfingers wrote:The issue of the flying wedge is that it's not enforcable, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of players who have never even heard of it!

Because it died out after zero tolerance policing - which had come about because of some serious spinal injuries. We are starting to see tip tackles disappear from the game due to zero tolerance - that happened with the flying wedge. It will be up to refs and IRB law panel to decide if what we see now is dangerous and is illegal, and then start enforcing the laws.

GunsGerms wrote:but isnt it true if a maul is formed but then the opposition all leave the maul the mauling team can continue going forward bound together?

Think thats what Red Stag once said.

Quite right GG. If your opponents "leave" the maul then its thier own poopie. It is only penalised if they never engage in the first place

Merci.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

butterfingers wrote:The issue of the flying wedge is that it's not enforcable, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of players who have never even heard of it!

Because it died out after zero tolerance policing - which had come about because of some serious spinal injuries. We are starting to see tip tackles disappear from the game due to zero tolerance - that happened with the flying wedge. It will be up to refs and IRB law panel to decide if what we see now is dangerous and is illegal, and then start enforcing the laws.

But my point was I am not seeing incidents of it, one player binding to the ball carrier isn't illegal, the wedge is named so because of the arrow point formation. I'd say the closest thing I've seen to it is the bok maul, but the ball is transfered to the back so it isn't a wedge per se.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I could have sworn Wales did it on the weekend.

Wales was one team. No dig at England. Didn't see them do it.

NZ was another team. Pumas the other I noticed.

Wales did it to clear their 22. Pumas and NZ used it off the back of a ruck close to the line.

We used to do it from lineouts, n the 70s this was, and it was very effective, specially if the last couple of lineouts we'd spun the ball wide. Then the opposing forwards would have been making their way to cover the backs and we'd wedge onwards at time 30 or 40 yards! Once I remember us scoring a try from it, maybe more than once, or maybe was that more than once against us by the other side's wedges??

I knew you were cheats.

I've seen Paul O'Connell occasionally get up to a similar kind of carry on but he leaves off any bind in the run-up and hits the tackler a second behind his teammate with the ball

ABs do it close to the line, player picks ball up and another joins immediately and they push for the line. That's what's been discussed ay?

It is banned. It regularly goes unpunished. What is worse I have seen a tackler punished for 'bringing down a maul'. There of course can be no maul if defenders are not engaged. The first tackler is entitled to tackle the ball carrier to ground. Any attacker in front of the ball carrier is of course obstructing.

ebop wrote:ABs do it close to the line, player picks ball up and another joins immediately and they push for the line. That's what's been discussed ay?

That isn't a wedge though, thats a support runner. Binding onto the ball carrier isn't an offence, it's the wedge part that makes it illegal, I havn't seen it done in any of the games so far.

I think GE makes a fabulous point - not for the first time (as some have suggested) as I can recall one other example where he was nearly relevant.

Anyway...I have looked into the flying wedge and agree that it is illegal and unfortunately creeping into the game. NZ were the first to develop the technique and, understandably, as the best team in the world others have copied their innovation. Those of us with the moral highground should stamp it out.
 

What stamp out the moral highground by copying it you mean?

One player can bind behind in support of the ball carrier as long as they do not get in front of the ball carrier and impede defenders.

I think it becomes a wedge/illegal situation when more than 1 person is supporting the ball carrier.

Just out of interests sake I did some reading on this. The difference between a flying wedge, and a player being bound to and driven forward is all in interpretation of what constitutes dangerous play. So refs call at the end of the day.

It's a general consensus that a 'flying wedge', or a dangerous formation is formed up at a distance from the opposition which gives them time to get a head of steam up. Example would be a penalty where the defenders are 10m away.

5 players pushing one ball carrier 1m form the line is not considered dangerous play. So not a flying wedge.

Hope this helps  

Good info there thanks knockers. So the ABs are playing in a saintly fashion after all:)

Nice to know we're not cheats! Still dubious about that welsh defensive effort though! Seemed to fit the bill.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nice to know we're not cheats! Still dubious about that welsh defensive effort though! Seemed to fit the bill.

How so? Are you calling the SA maul a type of flying wedge?

Thats good info there knockers, kinda highlights the flying part, I think maybe we were all a little hazy in what constitutes a flying wedge in the first place.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:One player can bind behind in support of the ball carrier as long as they do not get in front of the ball carrier and impede defenders.

I think it becomes a wedge/illegal situation when more than 1 person is supporting the ball carrier.

No they cannot. You are not allowed to pre bind onto your player!

See. Wales vs Tonga.

Justin Tipuric pre binds onto a welsh ball carrier and they KO the Tongan 6

ref never penalised but should

PS - I praised Tips on the match thread for looking after the KO'd Tongan afetr the event!

The flying wedge was a tactic developed for pick and drive penalties, in open play it is a maul.

Its only a maul if someone from the opposition binds on. If no one binds on then its either obsturction if the ball is at athe back or a flying wedge.