Mauls in the modern day

[damo]

I think the lawmakers and referee officials may need to have a bit of a look at how the maul is being refereed these days. It seems that the team with the ball is able to commit whatever illegality it likes but referees are very quick to ping the defending team.

Here is a classic example, courtesy of SAReferees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhBluVdhV8Y

I can count at least 4 PK offences by Red before one by Blue; 2 entry issues, and the ball carrier at the back unbinds at least twice (if in fact he was ever really bound at all).

I assume the PK was given against Blue 7, which for my money wasn't even a penalty because he was bound at all material times and then tackled the ball carrier who had detached from the maul. If that is a penalty (and I stand un-convinced), then the law should be rewritten.

Thoughts?

 

[The Fat]

I think the lawmakers and referee officials may need to have a bit of a look at how the maul is being refereed these days. It seems that the team with the ball is able to commit whatever illegality it likes but referees are very quick to ping the defending team.

Here is a classic example, courtesy of SAReferees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhBluVdhV8Y

I can count at least 4 PK offences by Red before one by Blue; 2 entry issues, and the ball carrier at the back unbinds at least twice (if in fact he was ever really bound at all).

I assume the PK was given against Blue 7, which for my money wasn't even a penalty because he was bound at all material times and then tackled the ball carrier who had detached from the maul. If that is a penalty (and I stand un-convinced), then the law should be rewritten.

Thoughts?

Ali Williams made the comment in a post match interview about the referee's "interpretation" on that decision costing them the match. I tend to agree with him. Ali Williams was one of the instigators of the maul and was always bound or caught in the maul. I thought Luke Braid was through the middle and caught in the maul and only grabbed the ball carrier after the ball carrier detached from the rear of the maul. On numerous occasions I have seen elite referees tell a defending player who was legally bound to detach and go back around as the maul has rotated and seemingly put that player on "the wrong side".

On a similar theme in last night's Chiefs v Rebels game, I thought that the attacking side was given "privileges" at the breakdown for things that would earn a PK if done by the defenders. Pillars walking into the path of defenders and grasping them to prevent the defender entering the ruck was the most blatent along with one particular side entry were the worst and most obvious to all but the To3.

 

[Browner]

I think the lawmakers and referee officials may need to have a bit of a look at how the maul is being refereed these days. It seems that the team with the ball is able to commit whatever illegality it likes but referees are very quick to ping the defending team.

Here is a classic example, courtesy of SAReferees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhBluVdhV8Y

I can count at least 4 PK offences by Red before one by Blue; 2 entry issues, and the ball carrier at the back unbinds at least twice (if in fact he was ever really bound at all).

I assume the PK was given against Blue 7, which for my money wasn't even a penalty because he was bound at all material times and then tackled the ball carrier who had detached from the maul. If that is a penalty (and I stand un-convinced), then the law should be rewritten.

Thoughts?

The Call was "swimming up the side of the maul" against 7, & in issolation it's a decent decision. But like you I'm unimpressed by the ball carrying tail players bind.

I don't believe law needs rewritting, just enforcing properly, & that's Head of Elite Refereeing downwards by all means smuggle the ball backwards, but if you're going to smuggle the player to the back of the maul then be damn certain his 'full arm' bind is maintained.

Solution = Loud shout of MAUL OVER as soon as the full arm isn't on the next player. Players will self improve.
Add this to the collapsed maul/crooked feed/flanker blocking that are all ignored by referees - one can only imagine it's cos showbiz say they dont want the whistle.

Ali Williams did great, bound & span the maul legitimately, no wonder he was irked with 7 blue.

 

[damo]

The Call was "swimming up the side of the maul" against 7, & in issolation it's a decent decision. But like you I'm unimpressed by the ball carrying tail players bind.

I don't believe law needs rewritting, just enforcing properly, & that's Head of Elite Refereeing downwards by all means smuggle the ball backwards, but if you're going to smuggle the player to the back of the maul then be damn certain his 'full arm' bind is maintained.

Solution = Loud shout of MAUL OVER as soon as the full arm isn't on the next player. Players will self improve.
Add this to the collapsed maul/crooked feed/flanker blocking that are all ignored by referees - one can only imagine it's cos showbiz say they dont want the whistle.

Ali Williams did great, bound & span the maul legitimately, no wonder he was irked with 7 blue.

That's interesting, I thought Ali would have been illegal if he had carried on, but I thought Braid did nothing wrong at all.

I don't like this new phrase "swimming around" because it doesn't seem to describe the legal position, which is only that "a player must be caught up in or bound to a maul" [17.2(b)] I think he was and this "swimming around" business is a bit of a crock to get at people who look wrong but are actually fine.

On a related note, I think that if you are caught up in a maul, and then the maul spins so that you are able to get at the ball carrier whilst still bound, you should be able to do so. Far too many referees at the pro level tell players to get out when they shouldn't have to.

 

[The Fat]

The term "swimming around" refers to when a player on the side of a maul releases his left arm bind then rebinds with his right then his left and so on all the time making his way around the side to the back of the maul. I didn't think Braid was guilty of that.

 

[Account Deleted]

Poor call by the ref it's as simple as that, for me. Typical of mauls at the elite level Refereeing to get what the ref "wants" (in terms of "tidiness") rather than the law.



As mentioned player "in the maul" being told to get back and the tail gunner binding on by the finger nails are standard practice. It is little wonder supporters accuse all of us of not knowing the laws.

Of course it is not just the maul:

"Ruck" called when there are no players on their feet and the ball is in the hand.

Feeding.

The "HIT".

Pillars.

The "directive" re tip tackles. Does it exist anymore can anyone actually post a copy or link?

Play-ons and advantage following scrums collapse or pop up. This despite the use of the words "MUST BLOW" and "MUST NOT PLAY ADVANTAGE" which,for me takes away a referee's options to do anything other than specifically act strictly in accordance with the law book.

Just some of the things that makes the blood boil on the terraces. What's the point of moaning that fans do not know the laws when the evidence from the field suggests that the referee does not either?

 

[Browner]

The term "swimming around" refers to when a player on the side of a maul releases his left arm bind then rebinds with his right then his left and so on all the time making his way around the side to the back of the maul. I didn't think Braid was guilty of that.

Swimming doesn't have to be 'around' , it's an attempt to disguise binding slippage & can be equally attempted through the middle of ruck & maul. Any player who releases his 'full arm' bind, needs to go to the back of the maul & re-join , the majority of swimmers are trying to create the illusion that they are binding....

Definitions:
Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

IMO Braid was practicing this con, but got caught - correctly IMO

 

[Phil E]

Swimming doesn't have to be 'around' , it's an attempt to disguise binding slippage & can be equally attempted through the middle of ruck & maul. Any player who releases his 'full arm' bind, needs to go to the back of the maul & re-join

If you are in the middle of a maul you are 'caught in' the maul, which is legal. You don't have to be bound as well.

 

[OB..]

The word "bound" when used of players in a scrum needs to be understood literally according to the definition.

In a maul practicality suggests it needs to be interpreted more loosely. A player at the back holding the ball cannot bind as firmly and so might come loose from time to time. As long as he is realistically trying to remain bound, I would not advise getting too picky.

 

[Davet]

you don't need to be bound in a maul.

Law allows for you to be "caught in".

 

[Browner]

you don't need to be bound in a maul.

Law allows for you to be "caught in".

sure........, but doesn't this mean a player who is being bound onto/held[or driven] by the opposition when he himself isn't actively binding?
if so, then swimming doesn't happen, it only happens when players who aren't being held [ie..bonafide 'caught in'] do the front crawl creeping disguise?

least that what I was advised when I discussed this with my last assessor. or maybe he's slightly off mark?

 

[damo]

The word "bound" when used of players in a scrum needs to be understood literally according to the definition.

In a maul practicality suggests it needs to be interpreted more loosely. A player at the back holding the ball cannot bind as firmly and so might come loose from time to time. As long as he is realistically trying to remain bound, I would not advise getting too picky.

I'm not so sure about that OB. If we are going to be picky about policing the defensive team to the nth degree then surely we should reciprocate with the attacking team. The ball carrier should either be bound into to the maul, or he should be running free out of a maul. This business where he is just hanging on with one arm and with his head up looking around to see what is going on shouldn't be permitted. Defending mauls is hard enough without just ignoring the laws that make it possible.

There was a beauty last night in the Force v Reds game where the ball carrier completely detached and then went back into his own man. I am beginning to suspect that at the top level refs are being instructed to ignore the truck and trailer law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm not so sure about that OB. If we are going to be picky about policing the defensive team to the nth degree then surely we should reciprocate with the attacking team. The ball carrier should either be bound into to the maul, or he should be running free out of a maul. This business where he is just hanging on with one arm and with his head up looking around to see what is going on shouldn't be permitted. Defending mauls is hard enough without just ignoring the laws that make it possible.

There was a beauty last night in the Force v Reds game where the ball carrier completely detached and then went back into his own man. I am beginning to suspect that at the top level refs are being instructed to ignore the truck and trailer law.

I agree. The referees appear to be unfairly holding the defending sided to a much more stringent standard than that which they hold the attacking side to. A properly set up maul is already nearly impossible to defend against anyway without having the referee weighting everything against the defence.

A few years ago a risky ELV trial was trailed out to allow legal collapsing of the maul. The result was that mauling virtually disappeared from the game.

IMO, as soon as the ball carrier is not bound, it should be the same as the No. 8 unbinding from a scrum...phase over.

Also, I would ditch the 5 second allowance to restart the maul. Once the referee calls "MAUL", the side with the ball has to keep the maul moving forward. If it stops, then the referee calls "USE IT" and they have 5 seconds to clear the ball from the maul, or its a turnover.

 

[Davet]

And if the ball carrier at the back is not binding to the maul, but his team mate beside him is bound to the maul with one hand and to the ball carrier with the other, does that make the ball carrier caught in?

 

[damo]

And if the ball carrier at the back is not binding to the maul, but his team mate beside him is bound to the maul with one hand and to the ball carrier with the other, does that make the ball carrier caught in?

If the teammate is bound to the maul up to his shoulder, and the ball carrier is bound to the teammate up to his shoulder then yes.

Bit fanciful though surely? An alignment like that wouldn't last very long before coming unstuck. At the point it comes unstuck IMO the maul is over.

 

[Account Deleted]

I agree. The referees appear to be unfairly holding the defending sided to a much more stringent standard than that which they hold the attacking side to. A properly set up maul is already nearly impossible to defend against anyway without having the referee weighting everything against the defence.

A few years ago a risky ELV trial was trailed out to allow legal collapsing of the maul. The result was that mauling virtually disappeared from the game.

IMO, as soon as the ball carrier is not bound, it should be the same as the No. 8 unbinding from a scrum...phase over.

Also, I would ditch the 5 second allowance to restart the maul. Once the referee calls "MAUL", the side with the ball has to keep the maul moving forward. If it stops, then the referee calls "USE IT" and they have 5 seconds to clear the ball from the maul, or its a turnover.

Totally agree.

 

[Account Deleted]

Caught in means that you are surrounded "inside" the maul. A player on the back in the way DaveT describes is not caught in for me.

 

[Rassie]

Its a good call. Penalty that. Teams have noticed that NZ went Harlem Globetrotters and the Maul is being not given attention to as in the past. Now teams are going use it against Kiwi teams. Williams go on the side till he is close to ball carrier then tried to put his hand on ball. Which is illegal. The Reds are moving forward towards the goal line with a leg drive maul. Its not a rolling maul. Williams is not driving towards the goal line he is doing a rolling motion and its aimed towards the touchline not opponents goal line

 

[Rassie]

This was them against the Bulls. Look at Ali there on the side the other lock jumped on the maul. They have no clue how to defend a maul!

 

[Davet]

Caught in means that you are surrounded "inside" the maul. A player on the back in the way DaveT describes is not caught in for me.

Does it mean that?

So the player at the back with both hands on the ball, but who has a team mate bound onto him is not caught in the maul?

Not sure I agree. There are no degrees of "caught in", and just like being a little bit pregnant, a little bit caught in is surely caught in?