maul question

[Dickie E]

is this statement true?

once a maul forms, the failure of one team to further participate in the maul does not bring the maul to an end.

If so, 5 Red players in possession of the ball and 5 Blue opponents. 5 Blue players fall by the wayside so 5 Red players merrily march up the field all bound together. All Blue can do now is recontest the maul. They can't tackle the ball carrier or it is collapsing the maul.

What is the minimum number in this pod of Red players? Could it be 1?

 

[Andrew1974]

Regarding your second question, if the blue players all 'drop off' and you also only have 1 red player then surely it's just play on, as you have a single man in possession of the ball. The maul is over.

 

[Dickie E]

Regarding your second question, if the blue players all 'drop off' and you also only have 1 red player then surely it's just play on, as you have a single man in possession of the ball. The maul is over.

So 2 Red players remains as a maul but 1 doesn't?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I presume this is a logical follow on from your thread on the one-man unplayable maul?

Good question Dickie. Technically, the maul is not over according to the clarification (number?) that says a split maul is with no opponents is still a maul.

I think the out is that when a single player ends up with the ball, he has effectively left the maul with the ball and the maul is over. How is this any different from the man at the back of the maul detaching with the ball.

[LAWS]17.5 SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
A maul ends successfully when :
• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

is this statement true?

once a maul forms, the failure of one team to further participate in the maul does not bring the maul to an end. Correct

If so, 5 Red players in possession of the ball and 5 Blue opponents. 5 Blue players fall by the wayside so 5 Red players merrily march up the field all bound together. All Blue can do now is recontest the maul. They can't tackle the ball carrier or it is collapsing the maul. Correct

What is the minimum number in this pod of Red players? Could it be 1?

No. One player would be maul over and now general play. The minimum number of players to keep the maul going would be 2. i.e. the ball carrier and a team mate bound to each other (likely to be the ball carrier following and bound with one arm to his team mate. If blue players want to recontest the maul in this situation (and why wouldn't they?), they must come fro their own side and bind to the foremost red player in the maul.

Now here is something else to consider.
Let's say the 5 blue team players "fell off" the maul, i.e. didn't leave it voluntarily, and are now between the maul and the red DBL. As they get to their feet and move to get onside, the BC detaches and passes the ball to a support player who in turn passes to another red player. As that player passes to another red team mate, one of the original 5 blue players from the maul who is retiring, ends up with the ball coming straight to him. He turns and starts to run towards red's goal line. What do you do as the referee?

 

[menace]

Now here is something else to consider.
Let's say the 5 blue team players "fell off" the maul, i.e. didn't leave it voluntarily, and are now between the maul and the red DBL. As they get to their feet and move to get onside, the BC detaches and passes the ball to a support player who in turn passes to another red player. As that player passes to another red team mate, one of the original 5 blue players from the maul who is retiring, ends up with the ball coming straight to him. He turns and starts to run towards red's goal line. What do you do as the referee?

Hopefully I would PK him for offside under 11.8

[LAWS]When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player's team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside.
Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

 

[OB..]

At one time we had a guideline that a maul was not over if the defenders left it voluntarily. However this no longer appears to be the case
[LAWS]Clarification 4 2008
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling 4-2008
Union RFU
Law Reference 17
Date 24 September 2008

Request
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

Law 17 Maul, Definition
A maul occurs 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. A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.

As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul.

The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

[/LAWS]

 

[Womble]

That was 6 years ago OB, Sure there must be something after that

 

[OB..]

That was 6 years ago OB, Sure there must be something after that

Why?

Nothing in the Law Clarifications or the Law Book that I can see.

 

[The Fat]

At one time we had a guideline that a maul was not over if the defenders left it voluntarily. However this no longer appears to be the case
[LAWS]Clarification 4 2008
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling 4-2008
Union RFU
Law Reference 17
Date 24 September 2008

Request
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

Law 17 Maul, Definition
A maul occurs 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. A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.

As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul.

The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

[/LAWS]

It is still in the Law book OB.


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


However, your post has made me reconsider my response in post #5. The OP says that the 5 blue players fall by the wayside and I take that to mean that they didn't necessarily leave the maul voluntarily. So can a maul exist if no defenders are left in the maul and they did not voluntarily leave it? And if so, can another defender, who is onside, now run around to the back of the pod and tackle the ball carrier?

 

[Womble]

The RFU have been telling us for about 5 years now, that a team without the ball can not stop a maul being a maul or a ruck being a ruck by leaving either! Maybe another law clarification from the IRB is needed!

 

[chrismtl]

However, your post has made me reconsider my response in post #5. The OP says that the 5 blue players fall by the wayside and I take that to mean that they didn't necessarily leave the maul voluntarily. So can a maul exist if no defenders are left in the maul and they did not voluntarily leave it? And if so, can another defender, who is onside, now run around to the back of the pod and tackle the ball carrier?

This situation would penalize the attacking team who clearly had a much more dominant maul formed and moving forward in accordance with the laws. My understanding is that once a ruck or maul is formed, it doesn't end until the ball is taken out.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

See this all the time in show biz rugby. There are numerous occasions usually after a line out where the attacking team set and then "roll" a maul and the showbiz refs call same maul.
It isn't, they have usually voluntarily left the maul with the ball but hey that's showbiz not the laws.

 

[Browner]

With 4/2008 ..."The maul ceases to exist"

Directly contradicting

17.4 (f) ..... "The maul may continue"


Which one do RR members prefer/use on a weekly basis? & does the decision depend on which level match you've got?

 

[Dickie E]

The RFU have been telling us for about 5 years now, that a team without the ball can not stop a maul being a maul or a ruck being a ruck by leaving either! Maybe another law clarification from the IRB is needed!

welcome back. Have you been on summer hols?

 

[The Fat]

This situation would penalize the attacking team who clearly had a much more dominant maul formed and moving forward in accordance with the laws. My understanding is that once a ruck or maul is formed, it doesn't end until the ball is taken out.

I tend to agree with you.
As Browner points out, the 2008 clarification and current law 17 wording are contradictory. I would be going with current LoTG, but it is another example of the law makers not wording current law to adequately cover the previous clarification.

 

[Adam]

The RFU have been telling us for about 5 years now, that a team without the ball can not stop a maul being a maul or a ruck being a ruck by leaving either! Maybe another law clarification from the IRB is needed!

For me here, the key phrase is 'leaving' as that implies a conscious action (read voluntarily).

Practically, as referees, when these situations happen it is prudent to either call:

- "same maul" if opposition has left voluntarily
- "use it" if opposition have ended up out of the maul involuntarily

 

[chrismtl]

I tend to agree with you.
As Browner points out, the 2008 clarification and current law 17 wording are contradictory. I would be going with current LoTG, but it is another example of the law makers not wording current law to adequately cover the previous clarification.

The problem I see with the 2008 clarification is that the game has changed quite a bit since then. As well, It's an RFU clarification, not an IRB one and is therefore the way the RFU wanted their referees to ref this particular aspect of the game. I'd be curious to see what the IRB law book looked like in 2008 and see if the maul section has been updated since then. If it has, then I would say the RFU clarification would no longer be valid as the law is no longer written the same way it was 6 years ago. I think this needs to be established before we can decide which way to ref this aspect. As well, has the RFU released an updated clarification? Has another union released a similar clarification since 2008?

As for my opinion, once a maul has started, unless the ball is removed, there is still a maul.

 

[The Fat]

The problem I see with the 2008 clarification is that the game has changed quite a bit since then. As well, It's an RFU clarification, not an IRB one and is therefore the way the RFU wanted their referees to ref this particular aspect of the game. I'd be curious to see what the IRB law book looked like in 2008 and see if the maul section has been updated since then. If it has, then I would say the RFU clarification would no longer be valid as the law is no longer written the same way it was 6 years ago. I think this needs to be established before we can decide which way to ref this aspect. As well, has the RFU released an updated clarification? Has another union released a similar clarification since 2008?

As for my opinion, once a maul has started, unless the ball is removed, there is still a maul.

I think you will find it was an IRB clarification from a RFU request and not a RFU clarification

- - - Updated - - -

The problem I see with the 2008 clarification is that the game has changed quite a bit since then. As well, It's an RFU clarification, not an IRB one and is therefore the way the RFU wanted their referees to ref this particular aspect of the game. I'd be curious to see what the IRB law book looked like in 2008 and see if the maul section has been updated since then. If it has, then I would say the RFU clarification would no longer be valid as the law is no longer written the same way it was 6 years ago. I think this needs to be established before we can decide which way to ref this aspect. As well, has the RFU released an updated clarification? Has another union released a similar clarification since 2008?

As for my opinion, once a maul has started, unless the ball is removed, there is still a maul.

I think you will find it was an IRB clarification from a RFU request and not a RFU clarification

 

[Browner]

The problem I see with the 2008 clarification is that the game has changed quite a bit since then. As well, It's an RFU clarification, not an IRB one and is therefore the way the RFU wanted their referees to ref this particular aspect of the game. I'd be curious to see what the IRB law book looked like in 2008 and see if the maul section has been updated since then. If it has, then I would say the RFU clarification would no longer be valid as the law is no longer written the same way it was 6 years ago. I think this needs to be established before we can decide which way to ref this aspect. As well, has the RFU released an updated clarification? Has another union released a similar clarification since 2008?h.

IRB law clarification .... http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=17&clarification=7&language=EN