Japan v Tonga

[Beanz]

Hi all, this is my first post so please be gentle.

There was a situation during this game that I'm not sure about.

32mins in and Tonga take a catch from a kick off and form a driving maul, all the Japan players disengage from the maul so that the Tongan ball carrier at the back of the maul has about 5 of his teammates in front of him, he then passed the ball immediately, could he have held the ball and Tonga carried on going forward without any opposition in the maul????

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Adam]

Welcome to the forum. This situation was covered by a ruling a couple of years ago. I cannot remember the exact text but if the defenders 'voluntarily' disengage from the maul then the maul continues, with the defending offside line being the frontmost foot of the frontmost attacker. If they disengage involuntarily then the attackers that are in front of the maul are subsequently offside (whether this is material in the situation I have no idea).

This ruling may be enshrined in law now, I'll have a look.

Hope this clears things up.

EDIT: Found the relevant laws.

[LAWS]17.4 OFFSIDE AT THE MAUL

(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

g) 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, players of that team may rejoin the maul providing that the first player binds on the foremost player of the team in possession of the ball.

Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[KML1]

Welcome Beanz!! It's already in law which describes clearly how a maul can end. The defenders leaving the maul isn't one of them, so yes, they could have carried on.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Welcome Beenz

The only time this does not apply is when a maul does not form in the first place.

Italy used this tactic with some limited success a few years ago, i.e., they deliberately avoided forming a maul so they could then whip around to the back of the oppositions formation and tackle the ball carrier. All perfectly legal as there was no maul formed so it is general play.


Here is a small sample

 

[didds]

If they disengage involuntarily then the attackers that are in front of the maul are subsequently offside (whether this is material in the situation I have no idea).

my undertanding is the ref gives the ball carrying team a chance to plahy the ball away, or blows for accidental offside ie they don't concede a PK just because their mauling skiils were so superior, tho they do lose possession.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

15th minute. Poor decision by TMO to award try. Clearly double movement.

 

[OB..]

my undertanding is the ref gives the ball carrying team a chance to plahy the ball away, or blows for accidental offside ie they don't concede a PK just because their mauling skiils were so superior, tho they do lose possession.

didds

I think Law 17.4 (f) & (g) is pretty clear that the maul continues if the opposition leaves voluntarily. It even gives instructions for how to rejoin.

The tactic of leaving the maul was becoming popular as a way of trying to win a penalty for obstruction or at least forcing the maulers to release the ball. AIUI the IRB decide it was potentially dangerous and certainly unfair, hence the law change.

 

[Dickie E]

31st minute. Shocking call for the YC. Japanese player clearly onside when ball left ruck.

 

[Davet]

If they leave INvoluntarily, then the maul is over.

Good reffing would give them a moment to adjust and play the ball.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Looking at match in totality, thought Dave Pearson had another excellent performance. Combined firmness, fairness, empathy etc in a balanced way such that neither team can have many complaints. He could have whistled it to a standstill at the breakdown but instead it was a game worth watching.

 

[Speedbird]

felt there were too many late or high tackles from the Tongans, and the Japanese sin bin was just wrong, it deprived them of their key playmaker in the ten minutes before half time. it was a critical incident, esp being a world cup game he should have got that one right. i know offsides one of the big five; but it seems players don't actually have to be offside to be pinged!

 

[woody]

Having only seen the highlights, I wondered about the Tonga try at 53:45. Was Tonga #6 in front of the ball and impeding Japan from getting in position? I've been in a few discussions lately about how far away obstruction can occur and am keen to hear some other input.

 

[didds]

15th minute. Poor decision by TMO to award try. Clearly double movement.

was that the one where player basically got shunted over the line having finished short of it, laying on the ball at the time?

If so, I thought that was a fairly iffy too.

Then two tries from some fairly easy forward passes (even allowing for monentum ;-). Difficult to understand why the AR would have missed them even if DP was unsighted.

But an enjoyable game.

didds

 

[Agustin]

31st minute. Shocking call for the YC. Japanese player clearly onside when ball left ruck.

Strongly agree!

 

[Robert Burns]

31st minute. Shocking call for the YC. Japanese player clearly onside when ball left ruck.

I'm not so sure, I know the Fox replay showed it, but it looks like he starts too high up the ruck in the first place so may have been offside before the ball was out (I have a feeling he was).

I agree the TMO decision was terrible, easily propelled himself further forward using his feet after being on the floor, TMO should be given a slap for that.

I thought Dave had an OK game here, not his best performance but wasn't a shocker either. I don't think he did his chances of a good game in the Qtr's huch harm. Overall from me will be a 7.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not so sure, I know the Fox replay showed it, but it looks like he starts too high up the ruck in the first place so may have been offside before the ball was out (I have a feeling he was).

While I don't agree with you I can see your point. However, a marginal offside wouldn't warrant a YC, PK only. I think DP was fooled by the Tongan ball carrier running into a team mate.

 

[Robert Burns]

Yes, you could be right. The YC was harsh for the offence.

 

[Drift]

Yes, you could be right. The YC was harsh for the offence.

However they had been warned about penalties in the 22, sure it was a harsh PK to give a YC but if he hadn't then it would've looked worse IMO.

 

[Speedbird]

I don't see how that should come in to any decision, even if it "looks bad" if its the right decision or non decision then surely it must be made?

 

[Drift]

I don't see how that should come in to any decision, even if it "looks bad" if its the right decision or non decision then surely it must be made?

From a "presence and credibility" standpoint I make the statement that DP made to a captain, "We have had too many penalties at the breakdowns in this area, if it continues I will have to go to higher sanctions", and the opposition captain hears this. Next penalty in the 22m for a TRM offence and I don't go to higher sanctions I have just lost credibility to the opposition captain and have failed to follow through on one of the ARU core competencies for referees:
Follow through on your promises - Don't say anthing you are unwilling to act on.

I am not saying that the penalty was the right decision (he looked onside to me), however with the clear boundaries that DP set out with the Japanese captain I think he had to give the card to maintain presence in the game.