[Maul] Not sure what to call this to be honest

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
So why have the laws continued to avoid, other than the flying wedge perhaps, any real mention of binding on to your own payer in the absence of prior contact, tackle or otherwise, by an opponent?

It does seem a bit of a hole that needs to be filled!
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Earlier in the match, a similar stand off occurred. ( At 45 seconds into these short highlights (in French)). The 8 versus 1 maul got off to a flying start and drove over for a try. Which explains their reluctance the second time of asking, perhaps.
A further question, in the short highlights, the first try is scored from a line-out maul. (20 seconds into the clip). White2 breaks away from the maul, with W7 still bound in front of him, is W7 not offside, since the maul has ended? He obstructs defenders access to the ball carrier.

[LAWS]Law 11 Definitions - Offside in general play
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game[/LAWS]Or does the defender's action create a second maul?
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
A further question, in the short highlights, the first try is scored from a line-out maul. (20 seconds into the clip). White2 breaks away from the maul, with W7 still bound in front of him, is W7 not offside, since the maul has ended? He obstructs defenders access to the ball carrier.

[LAWS]Law 11 Definitions - Offside in general play
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game[/LAWS]Or does the defender's action create a second maul?

Back in open play and as the law says, if they are not taking part in the game they are only then liable to be penalised. I supect most refs will be seeing this as they are not necessarily preventing access to a ball carrier who is now free, assuming of course the BC goes left or right and the defender has both angles covered. If not, as defending coach, I want to know my team has left a space!
 
Last edited:

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
White 7, drags Red13 out of the ball carrier's way, allowing his team mate over for the try, that's taking part in play.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
White 7, drags Red13 out of the ball carrier's way, allowing his team mate over for the try, that's taking part in play.

Without the absolute detail, your scenario suggests, yes, PK. He is both offside, i.e, taking part in play and, playing a man without the ball.
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
It's in the match highlights linked above. I only ask, as the match referee had no hesitation in awarding the try, so I suspect my interpretation is wrong.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
It's in the match highlights linked above. I only ask, as the match referee had no hesitation in awarding the try, so I suspect my interpretation is wrong.

Yes W7 is attached in front of the ball carrier but red 9 is not obstructed from making the contact which he does, even though Red 11 is, and ends up in his own tussle with W7.

As likely call from ref after any TMO: "Not sufficient in it for me to disallow the try.".
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    16.8 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
.......and what does this really mean? "In both cases, these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed". How can you form a maul without some form of tackle attempt anyway?

isn't this the nuance of where the defender grasps the ball carrier - below or above the waist?

didds
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Timeline of sorts :
At 11 minutes plus into the game White have a line-out 15 meters from the goalline.
11'16" they set-up a lineout maul
11'24" Ref signals advantage White
11'25" The hooker breaks away from the back of the maul 6 meters out.
11'27" White2 is tackled by Red(9?) while White 7 in front of the ball-carrier jostles with the last defender
Your screen shot is 11'28" the action is 7 or 8 meters away from the original maul.
White 2 has not been brought to ground, he turns for the line, going thru' the gap created by White7's "interference" in play.


My question is ; does Red 9's attempted "tackle" constitute a second maul. Or perhaps White 7's staying bound means it's still the original maul without any defenders in. Or is White 7 offside and interfering with play? ...on part of both players.

[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]

Anyway isn't his tussle with Red13 playing the man without the ball? ...on the part of both players, for that matter.
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
isn't this the nuance of where the defender grasps the ball carrier - below or above the waist?

didds

It's a possibility?

"Defending at a lineout. (k)

A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the lineout may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.



A player who gains possession of the ball in a lineout without jumping may be tackled immediately.


In both cases, these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed.


Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line"

So opponent may attempt a tackle but "don't think about going below the waist" for fear it could quickly become a maul and as you are likely to be taking the ball carrier to ground anyway, you are penalised for a risk of collapse without it necessarily actually happening.

Can a maul ever be called that quickly?


Might be a good reason to stand off then!
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
A further question, in the short highlights, the first try is scored from a line-out maul. (20 seconds into the clip). White2 breaks away from the maul, with W7 still bound in front of him, is W7 not offside, since the maul has ended? He obstructs defenders access to the ball carrier.?

It certainly looks like truck and trailer to me.

didds
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Timeline of sorts :
At 11 minutes plus into the game White have a line-out 15 meters from the goalline.
11'16" they set-up a lineout maul
11'24" Ref signals advantage White
11'25" The hooker breaks away from the back of the maul 6 meters out.
11'27" White2 is tackled by Red(9?) while White 7 in front of the ball-carrier jostles with the last defender
Your screen shot is 11'28" the action is 7 or 8 meters away from the original maul.
White 2 has not been brought to ground, he turns for the line, going thru' the gap created by White7's "interference" in play.


My question is ; does Red 9's attempted "tackle" constitute a second maul. Or perhaps White 7's staying bound means it's still the original maul without any defenders in. Or is White 7 offside and interfering with play?

I did try to delete the screen shot as I had a different response to start with. Sorry!

My view is the first maul was ended and there was no second maul. Technically it would be hard to suggest a second maul as in effect it was just the two players, BC and tackler #9 contesting.

However a quick check of the IRB Working group on mauls:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=1&language=EN

Does seem to allow, that if it is deemed a maul then 7, still being bound in front, does not necessarily mean he is acting as a shield and hence may not be causing an obstruction, or for that matter be deemed offside. (now that might be strange!)

See clip 2a, where the maul seems to have broken up and a defender tries to attach a fresh to the bc but there is an attacker in front of the bc still bound from the initial maul

I am happy stick with my view that there was not sufficient in it to call an obstruction as W7/R11 became embroiled in a separate tussle anyway which was incidental albeit W7 was still bound to the bc in the first instance. And I have a precedent in the laws that seems to support it.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
Actually - fair enough. It is a case probably of the maul effectively having all the opposition fall off it so the original maul continues and 7 is legal.

didds
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Difficult game to ref. I think the "splinter" off the maul, means it is effectively over. The ball-carrier is now in open play albeit only for a few seconds, but long enough for White 7 to unbind and get behind the ball-carrier if he was so inclined. The advantage being played, means White's infringement brings play back for the earlier maul offense.
Although this Discussion from Archive from 12 years ago, didn't get consensus either.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Hold on, ChuckieB & didds. I think you have to make a distinction between the defenders in a maul leaving voluntarily and an attacker breaking away with a binder attached.

In the first case the maul still exists but in the second it has most definitely ended and if the binder is in front of the BC he is obstructing.

If the binder is behind the BC then a new maul is formed if the "tackle" is above the waist. (On this I'll defer to OB's previous posts on the subject).

This gets tricky if the tackler grasps the BC and immediately takes him to ground. Has a maul really formed? I'd say not.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Hold on, ChuckieB & didds. I think you have to make a distinction between the defenders in a maul leaving voluntarily and an attacker breaking away with a binder attached.

In the first case the maul still exists but in the second it has most definitely ended and if the binder is in front of the BC he is obstructing.

If the binder is behind the BC then a new maul is formed if the "tackle" is above the waist. (On this I'll defer to OB's previous posts on the subject).

This gets tricky if the tackler grasps the BC and immediately takes him to ground. Has a maul really formed? I'd say not.

This thread has splintered into two components which are similar but are now addressing slightly different issues, both of which Didds and I have commented on. I can't immediately tell if you are addressing one or the other or have mixed both together?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,034
Post Likes
1,775
I think ChrisR was talking about the try scored at 20 seconds in the video here
http://video.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/pro...e-narbonne-vannes-16-24_vid966163/video.shtml

which is what I meant by splintering off and have changed my mind about. ChrisR's point here is central of course... have 2 & 7 broken off (=truck and trailer) or has the rest of the maul splintered away from them voluntarily (hence play on).

Ive changed my m,ind again ! 2 & 7 splinter off. the defenders don;t voluntarily leave the maul, they mearley get moved to an ineffectual position. and 2 & 7 end up splitting from the initail maul, because the intial maul is "over there" now


didds
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think ChrisR was talking about the try scored at 20 seconds in the video here
http://video.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/pro...e-narbonne-vannes-16-24_vid966163/video.shtml

which is what I meant by splintering off and have changed my mind about. ChrisR's point here is central of course... have 2 & 7 broken off (=truck and trailer) or has the rest of the maul splintered away from them voluntarily (hence play on).

Ive changed my m,ind again ! 2 & 7 splinter off. the defenders don;t voluntarily leave the maul, they mearley get moved to an ineffectual position. and 2 & 7 end up splitting from the initail maul, because the intial maul is "over there" now


didds


If you then consider a second maul, i.e. 7W bound onto his own player and 9R attacking the bc then and go back to the IRB MWG ( I'm am doing my best here remember and this was the closest I could get!):

Capture.JPG

This is observably a splinter from the first maul. Blue, out of easy view, has literally just looked to attack the ball carrier (arrowed), not the player (the guy in the top knot) in front of the ball carrier and it has been declared legal, i.e. that the ball carrier may be bound in by other players involved in the maul (and without in this instance his own player being penalised for any obstruction).

However, had blue perhaps attacked the player with the top knot there could very well be a better case for obstruction. It's that fine line of what you do as a player and what you see as a ref in the moment!
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think ChrisR was talking about the try scored at 20 seconds in the video here
http://video.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/pro...e-narbonne-vannes-16-24_vid966163/video.shtml

which is what I meant by splintering off and have changed my mind about. ChrisR's point here is central of course... have 2 & 7 broken off (=truck and trailer) or has the rest of the maul splintered away from them voluntarily (hence play on).

Ive changed my m,ind again ! 2 & 7 splinter off. the defenders don;t voluntarily leave the maul, they mearley get moved to an ineffectual position. and 2 & 7 end up splitting from the initail maul, because the intial maul is "over there" now


didds

From the IRBWG:

"5. The concern about ‘truck and trailer’ is not about the ball being one or two players back from the ball carrier when the maul is moving forward, as that replicates a scrum. The concern is about the player ‘hanging’ on the back of the maul. Strict application of the definition of a bind may assist in resolving this issue:....."

So its about the "bind" before any detachment or break from the back of the maul and not the break, or the option to break, itself.
 
Last edited:
Top