A maul that has ceased to exist.

[Mike Whittaker]

Have been browsing some of the regulations on the IRB web site and come across this one...

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/union/RFU/7

Am finding it difficult to get my head around the concept of a maul not having ended successfully or unsuccessfully and yet no longer existing.

Not an everyday occurrence but how do folk handle it in terms of communications?

Sorry,(bad night) just realised this no longer exists - pity it is still listed!

 

[Taff]

That Ruling is now obsolete surely.

17.4(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

.. Not an everyday occurrence but how do folk handle it in terms of communications?

From memory the Italians in particular were pretty good at leaving the maul en masse, then coming round the back to nick the ball. Obviously, since the law was changed, they can't do that anymore.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That Ruling is now obsolete surely.

17.4(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

From memory the Italians in particular were pretty good at leaving the maul en masse, then coming round the back to nick the ball. Obviously, since the law was changed, they can't do that anymore.

The whole point of the clarification was to prevent teams not in possession of the ball in a maul, from leaving the maul in order to end it, thereby getting rid of those pesky offside lines so they could attack the ball carrier from any direction.

However, this clarification did not prevent the Italians from doing what they did, because their technique was to not form a maul in the first place.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Thanks for clarifying that which my brain forgot temporarily!! However the concept of something ending neither successfully or unsuccessfully, yet no longer existing, is my excuse for not thinking straight. :redface:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Hampshire Match Observers pre-season 'fitness test' - counting down 15 to zero and the MMSE tests :biggrin:

 

[Taff]

Thanks for clarifying that which my brain forgot temporarily!! However the concept of something ending neither successfully or unsuccessfully, yet no longer existing, is my excuse for not thinking straight. :redface:

I think what they meant was the maul didn't exist as defined ie a BC, held by an opponent and a team mate binding on. Strictly speaking if all the opponents left the maul voluntarily the maul as defined didn't exist - there was no opponent. What the IRB have in effect said is if you all leave the maul voluntarily - it's still a maul and maul offside lines still exist.

 

[Davet]

...and you can do bu99er all to stop it other than rebind on, you can't tackle the ball carrier (at the back) or anyone else as that would be collapsing the maul - even if you very carefully don't bind on to upper body... there is no question about forming a maul - it already exists.

So - lesson of this is - Once you create a maul, stay with it. If you all break off they just walk upfield with the ball legally protected. All you can do is rejoin. So why leave in the first place?

 

[Phil E]

If you can't stop it, you could always just pull it down and accept the penalty :wow: :redface:

 

[Davet]

True - and the 8 guys landing elbow first on your ribs.

 

[Phil E]

True - and the 8 guys landing elbow first on your ribs.

I know some players that seem to enjoy that?

 

[Davet]

Hmm - Phil E, are you and Dickie E related?

 

[Phil E]

Hmm - Phil E, are you and Dickie E related?

God I hope not!!!

"Who do you think you are" = Nightmare!!

 

[L'irlandais]

Hmm - Phil E, are you and Dickie E related?

Is there any ressemblance between you two chaps?

Phil E
Jack examines the army lists & discovers that his father’s name – & hence his own real name – was in fact Ernest

 

[Cave Dweller]

If you can't stop it, you could always just pull it down and accept the penalty :wow: :redface:

Or you can ask Bakkies Botha to stop it for you