[Maul] Forming the maul

[nylluma]

Hey all,

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M3mfag9r4Y[/YOUTUBE]

In 20:25, the ref calls maul when the teammate isn't bound to the ball carrier. I couldn't find anything related to this in the new laws, but 2017 laws said that the teammate should be bound to the ball carrier.

And if this is a maul, where are the offside lines?

Thanks,

nyll

 

[thepercy]

Its either a maul or white are playing a man without the ball.

Last body part of a player from either team is the offside line.

Also looks like if maul was called, then Blue could be done for collapsing the maul.

 

[ChrisR]

From 2017 Maul definitions:

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.

From 2018 Maul - Forming a maul:

2. It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

Note that the part in red has been removed in 2018. This is one of the 2017 to 2018 changes documented by crossref in his table for changes. See Law Changes' on this forum.

 

[Taff]

... In 20:25, the ref calls maul when the teammate isn't bound to the ball carrier. I couldn't find anything related to this in the new laws, but 2017 laws said that the teammate should be bound to the ball carrier.

There are no "new laws" - just "simplified" laws. They are intended to help more people understand the law book, but IMO have had the exact opposite effect. Anyway, that's a different topic. :biggrin:

To me there was a maul and then White leave the maul, which raises a really interesting point.

We know that if there is a maul and Blue were to leave the maul, it is still considered a maul. Now, does the same apply if White were to leave the maul? Is this covered in the law book? I don't think it is - possibly because the people in authority didn't think team-mates of the player who took the ball in would want to leave the maul. :chin:

Personally I think it should still be considered a maul - why should one side benefit from leaving the maul when their opponents can't?

... And if this is a maul, where are the offside lines?

Hindmost foot for both sides; ie there will be 2 parallel lines (the width of the maul) running across the pitch with a "no-mans land" in the middle.

.... Also looks like if maul was called, then Blue could be done for collapsing the maul.

In theory yes, but I don't think I have ever seen this penalised. And when I've penalised players for it, they just look at me daft. When a maul is called the team who didn't take the ball into the maul seem to think they can collapse the maul with impunity. It's a pet hate of mine because collapsing a maul is dangerous play, but they just seem to constantly get away with it.