At what point...

[Skids]

...does a lineout become a maul?

I've noticed several times a defending side pulling down what looks like a maul yet not penalised. Clearly, it occurs almost immediately after the catcher touches the ground, but what is the point at which he can no longer be legally brought to ground.

Apols if this is a dumb question, but I've never come across this in a game and don't ever recall any coaching about it.

Thanks. :eng:

 

[Dickie E]

Good question.

A 'sack' occurs when an opponent brings the ball catcher to ground and must occur 'immediately' the ball catcher alights. How long is 'immediately'? YMMV

 

[Taff]

I think theres been a ruling on this. As I understand it, you can only tackle the catcher as soon as he lands and before a maul forms.

IIRC once the mauls formed, it's too late.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Not a dumb question skids, You'll see people trying and generally failing to sack the catcher down at our level.
To keep control just call out, it's a maul as soon as you feel it has become one.

 

[OB..]

If one player tackles the ball carrier below the hips, that is a legal sack.
If he tackles him higher he is deemed to be trying to form a maul.
If two or more players are involved they are deemed to be trying to form a maul.

That's what our referees are taught.

 

[Dickie E]

different here. Sack occurs between waist & shoulders

 

[Taff]

See Ruling 3 - 2003 and Ruling 8 - 2003.

 

[OB..]

different here. Sack occurs between waist & shoulders

Which creates a problem. Ruling 8 of 2003 makes the point that below the hips is not binding, and binding constitutes forming a maul.

 

[Rit Hinners]

If one player tackles the ball carrier below the hips, that is a legal sack.
If he tackles him higher he is deemed to be trying to form a maul.
If two or more players are involved they are deemed to be trying to form a maul.

That's what our referees are taught.

I don't understand this.

As it takes a second attacker for a maul to form I don't see how any action by defenders, no matter their numbers, can be called an attempt to form a maul.

 

[OB..]

I don't understand this.

As it takes a second attacker for a maul to form I don't see how any action by defenders, no matter their numbers, can be called an attempt to form a maul.

I deliberately used the phrase "attempt" precisely because there does need to be a team-mate of the ball carrier bound on to him. In practice this is almost certainly the case if he came to ground still holding the ball.

The real point is simply that if you grab the ball carrier between hips and shoulders you are deemed to be binding, which is part of forming a maul. You have to go low to be attempting a tackle.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Do not agree that if you grab the ball carrier between hips and shoulders you are deemed to be binding.
A player in a line out, crouched and going in below waist height is really going to cause a flashpoint and to be honest I've never seen it happen.
I've only ever seen a sack by dragging the player down from above the waist which is fine by me.

 

[Phil E]

In a discussion with our RDO it was stated that a sack must be at arms length and immediate.

 

[Taff]

A player in a line out, crouched and going in below waist height is really going to cause a flashpoint and to be honest I've never seen it happen.

I honestly wonder how many players know they can do it. I suspect very very few.

I've only ever seen a sack by dragging the player down from above the waist which is fine by me.

As long as a maul hasn't formed first, he's fine. If you think a maul has developed (ie ball carrier, an opponent and a team mate bound together) if a player collapses that, he's asking for trouble.

Conversely, if you want to bring the ball carrier to ground tackle him below the waist ie by definition a maul hasn't formed.

In a discussion with our RDO it was stated that a sack must be at arms length and immediate.

Presumably to get round the definition of a maul; if it's at "arms length" they can't be binding.

 

[Dixie]

...does a lineout become a maul?

Skids, while your question was clear, there's a technical point that's very important to recognise. These are not mutually-exclusive phases; a maul can (and usually does) exist while the lineout is still going on. Only when the maul within the lineout moves fully beyond the line of touch, or outside the lateral lineout zone, or the ball emerges, does the lineout end. So stay on your guard for lineout offences as well as maul ones - particulary offsides by forwards behind the back foot, but beyond the 15m line. In terms of forming a maul within a lineout, the definition is the same as in open play: ball carrier plus one from each side, each bound as per the definition.

different here. Sack occurs between waist & shoulders

Assuming that the jumper was supported by one or more colleagues, what prevents the sacker then forming a maul? Presumably the sacker must grapple in a way that doesn't meet the definition of a bind?

I don't understand this.

As it takes a second attacker for a maul to form I don't see how any action by defenders, no matter their numbers, can be called an attempt to form a maul.

Rit, consider jumper with two supporters, no defender. There's clearly no maul. Now a defender tries to sack the jumper (who is still bound to his supporters) by grasping him firmly with one or both arms to wrestle him to ground. At the moment the arms grasp the ball carrier, the definition of a maul is met: ball carrier bound to at least one from each side. He's got two of his own, and one of the defenders as well. A maul now exists within the lineout.

Skids, this can be a minefield. Coaches coach the tactic without knowing the technicalities, and there is an expectation that this will be permitted. I received a scathing report from a L5 Group assessor for issuing a team offending YC for this offence in a L.8 game: I'd warned twice, bottled the first offence after the 2nd warning as being too inconsequential to card, and the non-offenders kicked for position. At the lineout, the serial offenders attempted a sack, failed and after about 3 metres of a driving maul by the attackers, the sacker achieved his objective of collapsing it. I carded him, and was roundly abused by the assessor for a lack of empathy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In retrospect, it's perhaps best until you reach the national leagues to allow coaches and teams to get away with what they all believe is legal.

 

[OB..]

In retrospect, it's perhaps best until you reach the national leagues to allow coaches and teams to get away with what they all believe is legal.

Not my view. If you do it properly and so do your colleagues, we get consistency. If you decide to let them get away with it, where does that put your colleagues?

 

[Simon Thomas]

If one player tackles the ball carrier below the hips, that is a legal sack.
If he tackles him higher he is deemed to be trying to form a maul.
If two or more players are involved they are deemed to be trying to form a maul.

That's what our referees are taught.[/QUOTE

anything from shoulders down is correct contact areas by a single player is our interpretation - the key thing is that the sacking is immediate and the ball carrier is brought to ground, if not we have a maul developed as other players on both sides make contact.

We will see how a Gloucester Referee interprets it as I am watching Daniel Parrott on Saturday at Amersham.

 

[Dixie]

Not my view. If you do it properly and so do your colleagues, we get consistency.

I hear what you say, OB and agree in pricniple. But in practice IMO it's too much to ask a referee to knowingly screw up one of the few assessments he will get in the season, risking a ND or SD grading, so that over time consistency might be achieved. If you want consistency of refereeing, you first need consistency (and accuracy) of assessment.

 

[Skids]

Thanks for the answers guys...I guess I assumed it was a little more clear cut than it appears. So.....a maul can form even before a lineout ends, as long as there is one player carrying the ball and one player from each side bound, below the neck. This maul can be pulled down as long as it is 'immediate'; after that and it is an offence. Is that about right?

So the mauls I've seen on tv pulled down several seconds after the lineout catcher touches the ground have been pulled down illegally then. :noyc:

 

[Dixie]

So.....a maul can form even before a lineout ends, as long as there is one player carrying the ball and one player from each side bound, below the neck. This maul can be pulled down as long as it is 'immediate'; after that and it is an offence. Is that about right?

That's not my understanding. Technically, you can't pull it down once the maul forms, so the would-be sacker has to take care not to bind and thus not to form the maul. This may mean going in below the waist; or it may mean going in above the waist but without binding (i.e. without a full-arm grapple). In either case, he must act before his team mates form the maul first. In practice, the complexity of all that means that refs seem to allow a degree of latitude - perhaps because they share my experience of being ballocked for being technically accurate.

 

[OB..]

I agree with Dixie.