Failed maul

[Womble]

I'm starting to get a bit of a bee in my bonnet with posters stating that if the ball is on the ground after a failed maul that it is a ruck!!! As a coach, my players are coached to not roll away at a failed maul to secure the turnover. in 6 of the 10 games we have payed this year they have been pinged for not rolling away at a failed maul.

Please discuss so that we can get it right

 

[OB..]

Clarify the referee's view before the game, and then play accordingly.

 

[Rushforth]

My understanding is that in modern interpretation, the ball-carrier is allowed some leeway to go to ground after the maul has formed, and that if he can do so "immediately" he can place the ball in a matter similar to a ruck, if he can.

That we give them this leeway makes sense to some degree - it usually gets the ball out quite quickly - and I agree it is unfair to ping a "wrapping player" who is dragged down to ground by the BC.

That said, "wrapping players" can and do collapse mauls when the BC is not actively trying to get the ball down on the ground to be put back into play.

From a coaching perspective, it is generally preferable to ruck ASAP if good support is available, and for the ball-carrier to stay on his feet if it isn't until a maul is formed. At this point he can "immediately" go to ground, but that doesn't make it a ruck, IMO.

When mauls go to ground and the ball isn't playable due to a player "unable to roll away", the first time it happens it is a scrum for ball not coming out, but also a "tell" to both sides of "no playing on the ground".

 

[Decorily]

This has been discussed numerous times and methinks another one now wont clear it up either!!

Apart altogether from the ball being on the ground, I understand this is the specific scenario you refer to, I see the collapsed (legally) maul being refereed incorrectly week in week out. I know its incorrect because I see it being done in two entirely different and conflicting ways! It indicates a very poor knowledge of the basics and is very frustrating for both players and coaches alike.

Some referees call for the opposition player(s) on their feet to release the ball carrier and/or ball when they get to ground - usually one knee.

Apart altogether from the ball being on the ground, I understand this is the specific scenario you refer to, I see the collapsed (legally) maul being refereed incorrectly week in week out. I know its incorrect because I see it being done in two entirely different and conflicting ways! It indicates a very poor knowledge of the basics and is very frustrating for both players and coaches alike.

Some referees call for the opposition player(s) on their feet to release the ball carrier and/or ball when they get to ground - usually one knee, others do not. Some call for opposition to roll away on the ground while others don't.

Really is very frustrating!!

 

[Taff]

I'm starting to get a bit of a bee in my bonnet with posters stating that if the ball is on the ground after a failed maul that it is a ruck!!! ... Please discuss so that we can get it right

It's only a ruck if all the requirements for a ruck are met ie

• 2 opposing players bound onto each other
• On their feet
• Over the ball
• which is on the ground.

 

[crossref]

womble,
I don't think your 6/10 refs are saying the maul has become a ruck - it's much worse than that -- they are saying the maul has become a tackle.

It's something that the elite refs started doing last season, and has trickled down -- a maul clearly forms, the ball carrier ends up on the floor and the elite ref shouts 'tackle-only' by which he means he is refereeing this not as collapsed maul, but as a tackle, ie it was OK to pull it down and, now it is down, everyone has to release and roll away etc etc.

I don't think it's right and I think it has led to confusion amongst players and refs alike.

Certainly in my games I have situations where all players agree there was a maul (not least because I called 'maul') but then when it goes to ground there are some quite different expectations of how the situation should be reffed. While very many players are holding on expecting a turnover: others are quite genuinely expecting to win a PK because of the oppo holding on. And why not, as last week they probably did.

 

[Balones]

I'm starting to get a bit of a bee in my bonnet with posters stating that if the ball is on the ground after a failed maul that it is a ruck!!! As a coach, my players are coached to not roll away at a failed maul to secure the turnover. in 6 of the 10 games we have payed this year they have been pinged for not rolling away at a failed maul.

Please discuss so that we can get it right

All I can say Womble is that if I observe a ref doing that then they get it mentioned in their report as a non-compliance.
National Panel refs make this mistake occasionally but perhaps not as much as lower level ones. In debriefs it has been mentioned by the ref that they have been caught up in the moment to try and keep continuity in the game and one ref said that even though he knew it was wrong he couldn't stop himself from calling 'release'/'roll' or pinging!

 

[Balones]

My argument against considering the unsuccessful, collapsed maul as a ruck (Law aside.) is that it would bring into play the 5sec rule and cause further action by the players in what is an uncontrolled situation where a player may have landed awkwardly or in a dangerous position. The reason we have a whistle if the ball isn't immediately available Law is a matter safety. It is important to stop play as soon as possible in such an uncontrolled situation.

 

[Wedgie]

I had a variation on this yesterday. Maul formed, I call "Maul. Taken in by White". Maul moves forwards with maybe 4 Whites vs 5 Reds. It then splinters a little, White get the ball to ground, place it backwards and the ball is "immediately" playable with White 9 about to pick up and distribute ........ or he would have done had 2 Red players not fallen over/on/beyond the ball (in my view, deliberately), killing it. I penalise Red for going off their feet at the ruck-type-thingy. The (switched on) Red captain asks why the penalty as a maul was clearly formed and they didn't have to roll away/release. I made a distinction between not releasing when they were in already in contact with the ball carrier vs. actively seeking out to obtain the ball in the ex-maul/ruck-type-thingy and then not release.

Correct? Would a white scrum been a better option? Or (thinking about it now whilst typing), if the maul had successfully ended, should the PK have been given under Law 14.2?

 

[crossref]

I had a variation on this yesterday. Maul formed, I call "Maul. Taken in by White". Maul moves forwards with maybe 4 Whites vs 5 Reds. It then splinters a little, White get the ball to ground, place it backwards and the ball is "immediately" playable with White 9 about to pick up and distribute ........ or he would have done had 2 Red players not fallen over/on/beyond the ball (in my view, deliberately), killing it. I penalise Red for going off their feet at the ruck-type-thingy. The (switched on) Red captain asks why the penalty as a maul was clearly formed and they didn't have to roll away/release. I made a distinction between not releasing when they were in already in contact with the ball carrier vs. actively seeking out to obtain the ball in the ex-maul/ruck-type-thingy and then not release.

Correct? Would a white scrum been a better option? Or (thinking about it now whilst typing), if the maul had successfully ended, should the PK have been given under Law 14.2?

technically a PK I guess.
you were saying it was open play, in open play you can dive on a ball but you can't then just lie on the ground hanging on to it.

 

[Phil E]

I have heard Premiership referees say on more thanks one occasion that.....
If the maul goes down players don't have to roll away. But what they can't do is kill the ball as an afterthought.

 

[ChrisR]

I had a variation on this yesterday. Maul formed, I call "Maul. Taken in by White". Maul moves forwards with maybe 4 Whites vs 5 Reds. It then splinters a little, White get the ball to ground, place it backwards and the ball is "immediately" playable with White 9 about to pick up and distribute ........ or he would have done had 2 Red players not fallen over/on/beyond the ball (in my view, deliberately), killing it. I penalise Red for going off their feet at the ruck-type-thingy. The (switched on) Red captain asks why the penalty as a maul was clearly formed and they didn't have to roll away/release. I made a distinction between not releasing when they were in already in contact with the ball carrier vs. actively seeking out to obtain the ball in the ex-maul/ruck-type-thingy and then not release.

Correct? Would a white scrum been a better option? Or (thinking about it now whilst typing), if the maul had successfully ended, should the PK have been given under Law 14.2?

Wedgie, Ruck Law16.4(e) covers it.

White place ball on ground. converting maul to ruck, ball is emerging from ruck, Red dive on it, PK to Red.

This is not a "failed maul". it is a maul converted to ruck.

 

[Womble]

Wedgie, Ruck Law16.4(e) covers it.

White place ball on ground. converting maul to ruck, ball is emerging from ruck, Red dive on it, PK to Red.

This is not a "failed maul". it is a maul converted to ruck.

Putting the ball on the ground does not form a ruck ! My exact point for starting this thread !!!

 

[Drift]

[LAWS]17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

If the ball is on the ground and there are players bound over the top of it, don't we have a ruck?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

 

[Womble]

[LAWS]17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

If the ball is on the ground and there are players bound over the top of it, don't we have a ruck?

I'm just playing devils advocate here.

Yes, i misread wedgies post, only the ball on the ground i agree, player and ball is a failed maul imo

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Womble - you're quite right. What this thread would suggest is that there is a lack of clarity regarding the different obligations in a "choke" tackle situation where the tackled player manages to get to ground (including just by getting a knee to ground) and a true maul.

In a true maul, if the ball carrier goes to ground, there is no obligation on the opponents to release.

In a "choke" tackle scenario, if a maul has not formed and the tackled player gets to ground, the tacklers/tackle assists must release.

The key, therefore, for both referee and players is to identify when there is a maul and when it is only a tackle. It is for this reason that it is good management to identify every maul with a call and, similarly, to identify situations which some players may perceive to be a maul with a clear call of "tackle" (NOTE: avoid "tackle only" in this circumstance. "Tackle only" is generally used to clarify that there is no ruck and therefore no ruck offside line has been established).

I will commonly call "tackle. Blue release" to clarify my thought process for players. This way, even if I am wrong, any decision I ultimately make should not be a surprise to the defenders and, generally, I find my call will immediately be repeated by about three defenders around the breakdown so that it gets through to their team-mates.

What I think is clear is that there are a number of situations in which we see referees call "tackle" even where a situation which TECHNICALLY meets the law book definition of a maul has developed. Primarily, this tends to be where the ball carrying player has (often with the help of a driving teammate who one might argue is responsible for turning the scenario into a TECHNICAL maul by binding to the ball carrier) maintained momentum and leg drive through the contact. In part, I think this approach has emerged precisely because the failed maul turnover could be seen to be inequitable in those circumstances (ie, the attacking team is still winning the contest, playing the better rugby etc. and so should be rewarded), whereas in a choke tackle which develops into a "held-up", static maul, the defending team is winning the contest and so the failed maul turnover is considered equitable.
A separate issue is that whilst in a failed maul situation there is no obligation for defenders (used in the law book sense) to release, I do not want:

1. Defenders collapsing the maul in order to make it a failed maul (seems to happen quite a lot which mauls which develop from choke tackles in open); or
2. Defenders flopping over or latching onto the ball AFTER the maul has gone to ground.

With respect to the latter scenario, Greg Garner managed just such an incident very well on Friday night. A Saints player who had not been "on the ball" as the maul went to ground reached out and wrapped his arm around the ball once it was on the ground (after a call of maul). GG just took two steps into the action and said, in conversational tone, "Just let it go.". The player did, Gloucester played the ball and at the next lineout GG sought out the Saints player and just said, "Yeah, you can stay on the ball at a maul, but you only went for the wrap once the ball was on the ground." Player accepted, everyone moved on.

The above was, after about two years, my first attempt at an explanatory post on these boards (as opposed to queries, musings etc.). I hope it is helpful and that I have not pulled the pin on a grenade from which I don't know how to run!

 

[chbg]

I believe that the issue may be caused by Wortld Rugby's 12 year old. In the last few days I have seen another discussion on much the same lines, requiring the ball carrier in a maul who goes to ground but does NOT successfully make the ball available to be penalised, because the exception for him to go to ground is only available if the ball is available immediately and play continues:

[LAWS]17.2(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues. Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

That interpretation flies in the face of 17.(g). No-one has yet countered my correction.

 

[Womble]

Happy with those thoughts Dave, well thought out .

 

[crossref]

What I think is clear is that there are a number of situations in which we see referees call "tackle" even where a situation which TECHNICALLY meets the law book definition of a maul has developed. Primarily, this tends to be where the ball carrying player has (often with the help of a driving teammate who one might argue is responsible for turning the scenario into a TECHNICAL maul by binding to the ball carrier) maintained momentum and leg drive through the contact. In part, I think this approach has emerged precisely because the failed maul turnover could be seen to be inequitable in those circumstances (ie, the attacking team is still winning the contest, playing the better rugby etc. and so should be rewarded),

I suspect the reason is to make everyone release and the ball come free, and to avoid having a scrum, which in the pro game is seen as boring / lacking in entertainment value.

 

[Taff]

Yes, i misread wedgies post, only the ball on the ground i agree, player and ball is a failed maul imo

Even if there are two opposing players - on their feet - and in physical contact - over the ball, which by now is on the ground?