[Maul] Offside and joining the maul inside goal line, any differences?

[The Fat]

Most defenders not already in the maul will be on the goal line looking for the ball carrier if the maul looks like it's about to cross to goal line. Not much point bothering to join at the back a metre behind the goal line if the opposition hooker is about to drop on the goal line.

 

[ChrisR]

The following laws apply to a maul being driven into goal:

17.5 Successful end to a maul
. the ball is on or over the goal line

17.4 Offside at the maul
(a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul. If the
hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the
defending team is the goal line.

(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the
hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player
joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player
is offside.

These laws tell us that the maul exists until the ball crosses into goal.

The off side line for players not in the maul is the goal line.

17.4(c) still applies until the maul has ended so any player joining the maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul.

Once the ball crosses into goal players can run around, dive in from the side etc, etc but by then it will moot unless he can get under the ball for a 'held up'.

 

[Taff]

If the maul no longer exists, then presumably there can be no maul offences - which means a defender could ... collapse the not-a-maul, and hold up the ball?

... If it ever happened that way, which I doubt, if I were an attacking coach, I would want to know why my team hadn't collapsed the "mass" to ground the ball!

I reckon that although the not-maul scraps the maul laws, don't forget that Foul Play laws still apply. Bear with me here folks.

A few years ago, the then IRB trialled allowing mauls to be collapsed; the trial was scrapped as they considered it to be dangerous. Now if it's dangerous to collapse a maul, my logic would be that it is equally dangerous to collapse a not-maul. It makes little sense to me to PK a player for collapsing a maul in the FoP, then saying it's OK to do the exact same thing as soon as the ball crosses the goal line. See my point?

OK, we wouldn't call it "Collapsing the maul" (because by the time the ball has crossed the goal line, there is no more maul) but we can still call it "Dangerous Play" and the sanction is the same.

 

[ChuckieB]

I reckon that although the not-maul scraps the maul laws, don't forget that Foul Play laws still apply. Bear with me here folks.

A few years ago, the then IRB trialled allowing mauls to be collapsed; the trial was scrapped as they considered it to be dangerous. Now if it's dangerous to collapse a maul, my logic would be that it is equally dangerous to collapse a not-maul. It makes little sense to me to PK a player for collapsing a maul in the FoP, then saying it's OK to do the exact same thing as soon as the ball crosses the goal line. See my point?

OK, we wouldn't call it "Collapsing the maul" (because by the time the ball has crossed the goal line, there is no more maul) but we can still call it "Dangerous Play" and the sanction is the same.

An interesting challenge. There is often much to be queried as poetential dangerous play as regards last ditch attempts to prevent a try from being scored. Once the ball is over the line how might a player effectively ground the ball without some sort of collapse?

 

[cccref]

In the absence of guidance, I sense that a strict interpretation of the Laws (due to OB's gap) is that players should still join from behind the hindmost foot (I do not like the idea that there can be a not-a-maul joined to a not completed maul), whilst they can stand beside it behind the GL. HOWEVER, more importantly, until it occurs in first-class rugby and draws the discussion into the wider public arena, it would be a referee's 'Gotcha' moment if he penalised for it. Would any player (or coach, or 90% of referees / assessors) really expect it to be penalised? Empathy for the game would surpass such detailed knowledge of the Law intricacies.

I'm impressed with the OP's forensic analysis of the Laws, and then asking for clarification. Can we send cccref to take over from the 12 yo proof readers?

Sorry, english is not my language. Is that sarcasm?

 

[didds]

cccref - as a native english speaker, I'd say that was a big clap on the back #

didds

 

[Taff]

An interesting challenge. There is often much to be queried as poetential dangerous play as regards last ditch attempts to prevent a try from being scored. Once the ball is over the line how might a player effectively ground the ball without some sort of collapse?

The BC is allowed to go to ground.

 

[cccref]

cccref - as a native english speaker, I'd say that was a big clap on the back #

didds

Thank you didds, i misunderstood the sentence

 

[ChuckieB]

The BC is allowed to go to ground.

Never said he wasn't. But I recognise the distinction you have pointed out. Just trying to suggest that if he is being held up, he might not be in a position to take it to ground and his team mates might have to give a helping hand! With the maul ending once the ball is over the line collapsing the mass might not necessarily be considered specifically dangerous in that last ditch effort and when compared to other attempts to ground the ball or hold it up. Jumping on top might be out though!:wink:.

just not sure this isn't one that falls in the grey area of things that are not specifically disallowed in goal, unless there is guidance to be had outside what is in the laws.

In the spirit of the game and our forefathers, in goal laws are quite lax as regards anything that migght be deemed unacceptable in the field of play being carried into in goal and preventing the scoring of a try. Why not just say the Maul does not end when the ball goes over the line?

 

[didds]

I'v seen a ref PK an attacking team for collapsing the maul.

30 players all looked at him with incomprehension on their face.

I've seen that occure exactly ... once.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

If the ball is secure at the back of the maul then there's not much the defenders can do to prevent the try.

However, if the BC in the maul is in the grasp of an opponent then there are options. One is to go to ground with the BC to create a 'held up' result giving the attacking side the 5m scrum.

An alternative tactic is to keep the BC from going to ground and to drive the non-maul into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line.

That then raises a question that has been addressed here more than once but I'll ask it again for the benefit of those who are new to RR. Is the call a 5m attacking scrum for held up or is it a defending 22DO for making the ball dead?

 

[ChuckieB]

If the ball is secure at the back of the maul then there's not much the defenders can do to prevent the try.

However, if the BC in the maul is in the grasp of an opponent then there are options. One is to go to ground with the BC to create a 'held up' result giving the attacking side the 5m scrum.

An alternative tactic is to keep the BC from going to ground and to drive the non-maul into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line.

That then raises a question that has been addressed here more than once but I'll ask it again for the benefit of those who are new to RR. Is the call a 5m attacking scrum for held up or is it a defending 22DO for making the ball dead?

Can't both be held up and taken dead at the same time.

 

[OB..]

Once the ball is over the line how might a player effectively ground the ball without some sort of collapse?

It only matters if the collapse is dangerous. The difference from a maul (in the field of play therefore) is that the dynamics change from trying to drive to trying to ground the ball.

 

[ChrisR]

Can't both be held up and taken dead at the same time.

Exactly. So which is it? A maul enters goal and before the ball can be grounded it is driven dead. 5m or 22?

 

[ChuckieB]

Exactly. So which is it? A maul enters goal and before the ball can be grounded it is driven dead. 5m or 22?

If it is not held up or grounded and then driven dead, what do you think?

 

[ChrisR]

I asked you first.

 

[ChuckieB]

I asked you first.

.........trying to get you to get the answer yourself. You'll feel better for it!:wink:

 

[BikingBud]

Exactly. So which is it? A maul enters goal and before the ball can be grounded it is driven dead. 5m or 22?

22 Drop, I would say held up requires the melee to be static, i.e. it recognises a stalemate position whereas driving a maul into touch or a "non-maul" dead defines an end point due to exiting the FOP.

 

[ChrisR]

ChuckieB, I left you a clue. Now your turn.

 

[ChuckieB]

ChuckieB, I left you a clue. Now your turn.

Well done!