Mauls in the modern day

[Ian_Cook]

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?

I agree with you... lets look at what the law actually says

[LAWS]LAW 17.2 JOINING A MAUL

(b) A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]


It doesn't actually say that the player has to do the binding.

Surely if Player A is in contact with the maul, and another caught-in player, B, is fully bound to him with a free arm, then Player A is bound to the maul?

 

[damo]

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

Perhaps if you stick to the issues and avoided making inflammatory comments designed to provoke we might improve as referees. Describing teams and countries in derogatory terms is fine on some sites, but this is one really about learning as referees and improving ones understanding of the law.

As for your comments on Williams, the penalty was against Braid. Williams unbound and moved away on the instructions of the ref. Not entirely sure why you have focussed on Williams.

 

[Rassie]

Perhaps if you stick to the issues and avoided making inflammatory comments designed to provoke we might improve as referees. Describing teams and countries in derogatory terms is fine on some sites, but this is one really about learning as referees and improving ones understanding of the law.

As for your comments on Williams, the penalty was against Braid. Williams unbound and moved away on the instructions of the ref. Not entirely sure why you have focussed on Williams.

I do not see where I have made any inflammatory comments. Just a tactic picked up by some professionals to exploit a other teams weakness. Then to make the law cleared you need to understand the game as well. If you do not it will always remain a grey area.

Then please listen to the referee, No. 5 he yells then when Braid got to the ball carrier he blew and said swimming on the side. Braid looked bemused but nowhere does Joubert point him out. He just gave a explanation for the penalty. But Ali Williams was the culprit there.

 

[damo]

I do not see where I have made any inflammatory comments. Just a tactic picked up by some professionals to exploit a other teams weakness. Then to make the law cleared you need to understand the game as well. If you do not it will always remain a grey area.

Then please listen to the referee, No. 5 he yells then when Braid got to the ball carrier he blew and said swimming on the side. Braid looked bemused but nowhere does Joubert point him out. He just gave a explanation for the penalty. But Ali Williams was the culprit there.

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.

Is unnecessary in a conversation about rugby laws. The discussion is about the laws and how to apply them, not about teams and countries and trolling. I have noticed that virtually everything you have written on this forum has contained a dig of some sort. Perhaps if you just stuck to the refereeing side of things it might help improve your refereeing.

In the games that you do, do you find the maul an issue?

 

[Rassie]

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.

Is unnecessary in a conversation about rugby laws. The discussion is about the laws and how to apply them, not about teams and countries and trolling. I have noticed that virtually everything you have written on this forum has contained a dig of some sort. Perhaps if you just stuck to the refereeing side of things it might help improve your refereeing.

In the games that you do, do you find the maul an issue?

FIrst off all the Harlem Globe trotters is a complement as its suggesting highly skilled individuals.
2nd off all answer me the following. Are a player allowed to come around a leg drive maul that moving forward towards the goal line and grab the ball carrier? The defenders are doing the rolling action to get into that position. But its not a rolling maul. Its a straight leg drive maul. It moves one direction and that is forward.

 

[damo]

Are a player allowed to come around a leg drive maul that moving forward towards the goal line and grab the ball carrier? The defenders are doing the rolling action to get into that position. But its not a rolling maul. Its a straight leg drive maul. It moves one direction and that is forward.

Well, I would take the position that if a player is bound or caught up in the maul then so long as they never unbind or become uncaught up they are fine, regardless of whether the maul splits or turns or twists.

Blue 5 begins bound to the maul but then unbinds and then retires. Had he continued then he would have been liable to penalty for sure.

Blue 7 is always bound into the maul and comes through and tackles a Red ballcarrier who was arguably never bound to the maul and is penalised.

I don't quite understand why the "rolling" or otherwise nature of a maul is relevant. There is no offence in twisting a maul - either side may do so. Perhaps if you provide a law reference for that it might become clearer.

 

[RussRef]

Seems to me the real problem with the maul was the ballcarrier, who early on has only one teammate in front, then appears to unbind and slip backwards behind 1-2 more teammates. Failure to call that calculated unbinding is much more of a problem to me than pinging the guy who loses his full-arm bind at the back of the maul but fixes the problem immediately.

Whatever Blue 5 and 7 did came later. Should've been PK to Blue.

 

[The Fat]

I do not see where I have made any inflammatory comments. Just a tactic picked up by some professionals to exploit a other teams weakness. Then to make the law cleared you need to understand the game as well. If you do not it will always remain a grey area.

Then please listen to the referee, No. 5 he yells then when Braid got to the ball carrier he blew and said swimming on the side. Braid looked bemused but nowhere does Joubert point him out. He just gave a explanation for the penalty. But Ali Williams was the culprit there.

Joubert bottled this decision and clearly is penalising Luke Braid (#7) and not Ali Williams (#5). That's what makes his decision even harder to sell. The Blues should ask for a clarification from SANZAR on this to highlight the mistakes that some elite refs are making at mauls.
Both blue players were legal and entitled to be where they were.

 

[ChrisR]

RussRef - welcome to the modern maul. This has become common practice as a way of more securely moving the ball to the back position as it doesn't require ball exchanges.

Legal? Yes as the BC would meet the requirement of "caught in or bound". Logically you can't ask the BC, with both hands on the ball, to bind.

However, when he gets to be the last man at the back and tucks the ball under one arm we should expect him to bind or have a team mate along side of him who binds him in. I'd give the players a chance to get to the back and get bound. And I'd allow him to switch arms and rebind. I'd be generous if it were done quickly for the purpose of continuing the maul.

Sometimes there gets to be a clear separation between BC and maul and the BC, both hands on the ball, is just hiding back there. Take it from there. Manage it with "Maul over", "Use it"? Or PK for obstruction? Not sure at this point.

Swimmers are another issue. Clearly, swimmers are subverting the requirement to join alongside the hind most player. Are they swimming legally? To do that they'd need to be able to unbind and rebind keeping full contact with the entire arm (show me how) or have a team mate bind me in as I change my bind.

I don't think swimming around the maul improves the game but the Laws need to address it.

 

[Davet]

Marauder - pretty much agree with that.

Damo - a rolling maul isn't really about twisting the maul, its about changing the point of attack, and mostly happens by creating a series of mauls rather than a continuous one. The maul is shunted round a bit, then the ball carrier at the back breaks bind and moves quickly up the side of the maul (technically now in open play) and then connects with an opponent on the flnak for the old maul, and is immediately bound onto (if he wasn't already) by a teammate, creating a new maul where the opposition resistance is weakest, and this being able to continue the drive and retain the advantage of maul offside lines. It also resets any use it or lose it clock that may have been in operation.

It relies in timing and co-ordination and lost of practice and done properly is a joy to behold, as any Tigers fan will tell you. It ain't just grunt and shove - as the actress said to the bishop.

 

[damo]

Marauder - pretty much agree with that.

Damo - a rolling maul isn't really about twisting the maul, its about changing the point of attack, and mostly happens by creating a series of mauls rather than a continuous one. The maul is shunted round a bit, then the ball carrier at the back breaks bind and moves quickly up the side of the maul (technically now in open play) and then connects with an opponent on the flnak for the old maul, and is immediately bound onto (if he wasn't already) by a teammate, creating a new maul where the opposition resistance is weakest, and this being able to continue the drive and retain the advantage of maul offside lines. It also resets any use it or lose it clock that may have been in operation.

It relies in timing and co-ordination and lost of practice and done properly is a joy to behold, as any Tigers fan will tell you. It ain't just grunt and shove - as the actress said to the bishop.

Sounds like that practice would need to be monitored very carefully to ensure there is no obstruction of a would-be tackler. I presume that any defender would be able to tackle and pull down this new maul before they bound on if they chose? In practice anyone that tried would most likely be pinged for collapsing.

 

[didds]

i wouldn't describe a rolling maul as one where the ball carrier breaks off and recreates a maul.

rather one where the point of attack is moved (as dave suggests) from one one direction up the field (eg towards the right most goal post) to another (eg 2m to the right of the rightmost goal post) buy rolling the bakll around "inside" the maul to move it to one side, then driving straight again.

This being done by the ball carrier whilst bound/caught in the maul spinning off to one side, still entirely caught in etc, and somebody else becoming the ball carrier, possibly continuing the roll around etc and eventually a new ball carrier being the focus of a drive up the pitch.

The initial BC being in an "up pitch" stance, but rolling around via their back to face down field.

Its not easy to describe!

didds