ELV Maul ruling

[Rawling]

In the IRB's list of ELV clarification rulings, one union asks whether a maul is over if a lone defending player pulls down part of it, but leaves the ball carrier bound on to one or more of his team-mates.

The typically helpful reply:
"If players from the team not in possession of the ball (Team B) are still bound to the maul after a player or players have been pulled to the ground the maul
continues."

This doesn't say that if there aren't any defending players, the maul is over, which is what was asked.

What's your take on this? What was the situation under "old" law if, say, a group of attacking players with the ball broke away from the maul together?

 

[Phil E]

Instructions on this at the ELV lecture are that if the defender pulls down an attacker and all the defenders go down with them, then the attackers are to do the following:

If the ball is at the front of the remaining players, play on.
If the ball is at the back of the remaining players, they are to be told to use it.

This raises the possibility of all the defenders "flopping to the floor" as one defender pulls down one attacker. We were told to manage it.

 

[Rawling]

Excellent, thanks for the reply.

 

[Deeps]

In the IRB's list of ELV clarification rulings, one union asks whether a maul is over if a lone defending player pulls down part of it, but leaves the ball carrier bound on to one or more of his team-mates.

The typically helpful reply:
"If players from the team not in possession of the ball (Team B) are still bound to the maul after a player or players have been pulled to the ground the maul
continues."

This doesn't say that if there aren't any defending players, the maul is over, which is what was asked.

What's your take on this? What was the situation under "old" law if, say, a group of attacking players with the ball broke away from the maul together?

To answer your question, under the ELV if an attacking player who is part of the maul is pulled down by a defender then the maul is over.

 

[Simon Thomas]

To answer your question, under the ELV if an attacking player who is part of the maul is pulled down by a defender then the maul is over.

The maul is only over ("use it or lose it" time) only if all the defenders that join the maul detach through a pull-down of an opponent !

If any one of them detach voluntarily (notr in a pull down activity) then the maul continues to exists (even if no defenders are attached it) as per IRB Law Rulings form last season (see IRB web site Laws section for rulings).

 

[Phil E]

To answer your question, under the ELV if an attacking player who is part of the maul is pulled down by a defender then the maul is over.

If there are still defenders and attackers in contact then the maul is still alive.

Are you seriously saying that if one defender pulls down one attacker from the maul, when several from each team are still on their feet and bound to each other, then the maul is over?

I am assuming you have missed something out or mistyped something here Deeps.

Edit following ST input: In short, the old laws still apply.

 

[SimonSmith]

Here's the guidance from USA Rugby's Laws Guru:
Ruling 1 concerns pulling down mauls, and makes it clear that if an attempt is made that is unsuccessful, and one or more opposing players remains (properly) bound to the maul, the maul continues, even if there is debris on the floor. By implication, if there is no opponent remaining bound, the maul has ended. Leaving all sorts of other issues

• offside lines are no longer there, although players who were offside still need to get on side before playing
• if ball carrier is in the back there's potential for obstruction
• if ball carrier is at the front, opponents can now tackle without the "grasp between hips and shoulders" restriction

Ruling 2 clarifies that at scrums

• the scrum half of the team with possession may move wide of the scrum (behind the hindmost foot) to take a pass from the # 8
• the scrum half of the team not in possession must remain "near" the scrum even if he/she goes to the hindmost foot.

Ruling 3 is self explanatory.

 

[Rawling]

Ruling 1 concerns pulling down mauls, and makes it clear that if an attempt is made that is unsuccessful, and one or more opposing players remains (properly) bound to the maul, the maul continues, even if there is debris on the floor. By implication, if there is no opponent remaining bound, the maul has ended.

See, this is the bit I'm uncomfortable with. (I'm a mathematician, and "A implies B" does not necessarily mean "Not A implies Not B".)

 

[OB..]

I used to argue that if there is no opponent there cannot be a maul because the situation does not fit the criteria.

The IRB has now come up with a weird ruling: If the opponents leave voluntarily, the maul is not over. If they leave involuntarily, the maul is over.

There is no justification in the laws for this distinction, and I see it as a nonsense. I think the idea was to prevent defenders simply withdrawing and then claiming obstruction.

 

[Rawling]

Apparently, a maul ends if a player with the ball leaves the maul.

If all opposing players voluntarily leave the maul, the player in possession hasn't left the maul, so the maul doesn't end.
If all opposing players involuntarily leave the maul... then the other players, including the ball, did the "leaving", so the maul ends? Maybe?

Then, by extension, if the last opposing player tackles someone out of the maul, they have done so voluntarily, and so the maul continues?

Edit:
Now I take a closer look:

ELV 2, remove reference to heads and shoulders no lower than hips, is apparently done because of ELV 3, maul can be collapsed.

This doesn't make much sense - you can collapse a maul with head and shoulders higher than your hips. What's harder is to collapse a maul without breaking 17.2(d) and (e) (endeavour to stay on feet, must not intentionally collapse a maul) - maybe these should have been removed instead? As it stands, there's a direct conflict in the laws now. Grr.

 

[ExHookah]

All of the talk about the "death of the rolling maul" seems to have been premature. From matches I've watched, and from yesterdays New England Div 1 match I've seen that a true rolling maul is still very much alive.

I think the solid wedge of guys trundling down field has gone, but a truely dynamic rolling maul is still a factor. I think this means that teams with well trained, skilled forwards can still maul, but it will require good technique.