Maul peeling off

[winchesterref]

A maul has formed and is moving forwards. 2 attacking players peel off the back.

A) a defender is still holding on to the two attackers with a hand only, is this still a maul? Or not, as there is no bind?

B) if they peel with no defender attached (2 attackers bound) and a defender comes in and pulls them to the floor, has he formed and then collapsed a maul?

C) 2 bound attackers break off a maul, if a defender binds on and this is immediately forming a maul, I assume normal methods of stopping a maul legally applies, correct?

D) defenders leave the maul, in law the maul still continues. Should the back 2 players then peel off, I assume they are ending the maul, and we are back to a B scenario above?

Just trying to clarify a few points in my head! Thanks!

 

[OB..]

A maul has formed and is moving forwards. 2 attacking players peel off the back.

I infer from what follows that the one in front has the ball.

A) a defender is still holding on to the two attackers with a hand only, is this still a maul? Or not, as there is no bind?

Judgement call.

B) if they peel with no defender attached (2 attackers bound) and a defender comes in and pulls them to the floor, has he formed and then collapsed a maul?

I would follow the lineout rule: tackle is below the hips and legal; bind is above the hips and forms a maul.

C) 2 bound attackers break off a maul, if a defender binds on and this is immediately forming a maul, I assume normal methods of stopping a maul legally applies, correct?

Yes.

D) defenders leave the maul, in law the maul still continues. Should the back 2 players then peel off, I assume they are ending the maul, and we are back to a B scenario above?

Yes.

 

[Dixie]

Judgement call.

Unhelpful. What are the factors that influence that judgement? To me, the last two intended to end the maul. If the grasp had occurred a millisecond after the acheived that intent, there would be no doubt. But the grasp seems to have been a constant. It is not a bind:

[LAWS]17.2(c) Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

We therefore have an ex-maul (the ball having left it), with all ex-maulers now free to pursue the following phase. At this point, there is nothing to indicate that this phase is anything other than open play.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

B) if they peel with no defender attached (2 attackers bound) and a defender comes in and pulls them to the floor, has he formed and then collapsed a maul?

I'd say the defender can do what he wants. This is a tackle in open field. The Attacker without the ball has not joined it so for me is not forming a maul.
If the defender tackled the man without the ball he could clainm obstruction as he was trying to get to the man with the ball

 

[OB..]

Judgement call.

Unhelpful. What are the factors that influence that judgement?

Your situation was transitional. What you do depends on what happens next.

The criteria were in my next

I would follow the lineout rule: tackle is below the hips and legal; bind is above the hips and forms a maul.

However there are two schools of thought. Some people believe that grabbing a player's shoulder and pulling him to the ground is a valid tackle in such circumstances.

 

[winchesterref]

Yes, ball carrier in front

 

[winchesterref]

B) if they peel with no defender attached (2 attackers bound) and a defender comes in and pulls them to the floor, has he formed and then collapsed a maul?

I'd say the defender can do what he wants. This is a tackle in open field. The Attacker without the ball has not joined it so for me is not forming a maul.
If the defender tackled the man without the ball he could clainm obstruction as he was trying to get to the man with the ball

Ball carrier is the man in front. The problem I have with your answer is that a maul does not have to be attacker + defender then another attacker joining these, it just says "and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier" without describing an order. So if a defender joins two attacking players and binds, I assume this constitutes a maul too and therefore he can't collapse it?

 

[winchesterref]

With scenario B is this another incident that causes divided opinions?

Basically A happened, then B with another defender binding on to enforce a tackle. If by extension from Dixie's post there was no maul firstly as there was no bind, but then a defender came in - I want to know if I'm correct in assuming he formed a maul. He hit them and from above the waist dragged downwards and 4-5 metres away from the goal line pulled it down. I deemed him to be collapsing a maul

 

[OB..]

Ball carrier is the man in front. The problem I have with your answer is that a maul does not have to be attacker + defender then another attacker joining these, it just says "and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier" without describing an order. So if a defender joins two attacking players and binds, I assume this constitutes a maul too and therefore he can't collapse it?

Agreed.

Basically A happened, then B with another defender binding on to enforce a tackle. If by extension from Dixie's post there was no maul firstly as there was no bind, but then a defender came in - I want to know if I'm correct in assuming he formed a maul.

Ball carrier plus at least one player from each side bound on.

He hit them and from above the waist dragged downwards and 4-5 metres away from the goal line pulled it down. I deemed him to be collapsing a maul

If a maul was formed when he bound on (or before), he collapsed it.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Sorry guys but if you go with this "a maul is formed scenario" any two attackers in open play who are bound together can force a penalty from any potential defender who brings them to ground.
Sorry, I'm not having it, play on!!

 

[OB..]

Sorry guys but if you go with this "a maul is formed scenario" any two attackers in open play who are bound together can force a penalty from any potential defender who brings them to ground.
Sorry, I'm not having it, play on!!

How do you deal with the technique popularised by Ireland of deliberately holding up a "tackled" player with the aim of winning the ball at an unsuccessful maul? The ball carrier counters this by trying to go to ground, assisted by team mates.

You can also get the situation where the would-be tackler tries a ball-and-all tackle but gets run over by the attacker, who falls over in the process.

These scenarios merge into one another. The referee can have a difficult judgement call as to whether or not what happened really constituted a maul. The highly technical definition in Law 17 does not correspond satisfactorily to all cases.

 

[Dixie]

Sorry guys but if you go with this "a maul is formed scenario" any two attackers in open play who are bound together can force a penalty from any potential defender who brings them to ground.

Not true if the defender elects to tackle rather than bind. The ones who bind have to accept that they can't then pull down the resulting maul. Do you take the same line if the supporting player is not bound, but running only half a metre behind - forming the maul a fraction of a second after the defender goes high? Do you still allow the defender to collapse the maul?

 

[Felk]

Surely in example B the two attackers need to unbind. You can't just crash down the middle of the pitch bound on to a team mate so why is it acceptable just because it has broken from the maul ?

 

[Dixie]

Surely in example B the two attackers need to unbind. You can't just crash down the middle of the pitch bound on to a team mate so why is it acceptable just because it has broken from the maul ?

Are you sure about this? It happens all the time in elite rugby when a mini-ruck has forwards standing off as "hammers".

 

[winchesterref]

Surely in example B the two attackers need to unbind. You can't just crash down the middle of the pitch bound on to a team mate so why is it acceptable just because it has broken from the maul ?

I believe providing the supporting player is bound on behind the ball carrier then they are perfectly ok

 

[winchesterref]

So providing the defender makes contact below the waist we can be happy he is trying to complete a tackle?

What about it he hits above and acts immediately to bring the defender to ground? Is that back to a judgement call, or is a maul formed the instant he makes contact?

 

[GeorgeR]

Yesterday, I had an attacking red maul about 5 m from the goal line when the ball carrier and another red player peeled off the back of the maul and the ball carrier was very clearly behind his other player and still bound together. they went stright for the goal line where the defenders (in my mind) were obstructed from the ball carrier. I penalised the red players for obstruction and at half time had a lot of grief from the red coach who was adamant that the move was legitimate. I sent him packing but there is then that seed of doubt was I right?

He didnt challenge me after the match as he was invited to.

 

[Phil E]

You were right.
Coach was wrong.

What a surprise!

 

[GeorgeR]

Funny that...and from a major rugby college!

 

[TheBFG]

spot on, PK for obstruction or if you're in a really good mood you could give "accidental off-side" and a scrum to the defending side :wink: