Reaching Over in the Maul

[RickG]

I’m a new ref, appreciate some guidance on this point. To what extent can a defender who is ‘caught in’ to the centre of a maul, reach over to try to rip the ball, ie one arm or two?

 

[Christy]

He can try & rip ball from an opposition player ..
As you describe caught in middle of maul .

But remember , this same player can only allow a team mate of his , to receive ball.
Providing his team mate player is attached to himself ..

So he can over reach to take ball from opposition .
But cant over reach his team mates , to put ball at back of his side of maul

 

[Decorily]

But cant over reach his team mates , to put ball at back of his side of maul

Why not?

 

[Decorily]

I’m a new ref, appreciate some guidance on this point. To what extent can a defender who is ‘caught in’ to the centre of a maul, reach over to try to rip the ball, ie one arm or two?

Just be aware in a scenario like this that the 'reacher' is not climbing on top of other players to do so.

 

[Christy]

Why not?

I believe its called long arm placements / similar .
Its been a penaly for last couple of seasons .
So they guy in middle can reach over & take ball from opposition ( who would be in front of him ).

But he can only pass the ball , to his own team mate , who is bound to him self also .

So a long arm placement to his team mate ( he stretches over 1 player & gives to player further back )
This is now a penalty .
I beleive there are videos on world rugby web page ..

 

[Treadmore]

I believe its called long arm placements / similar .
Its been a penaly for last couple of seasons .
So they guy in middle can reach over & take ball from opposition ( who would be in front of him ).

But he can only pass the ball , to his own team mate , who is bound to him self also .

So a long arm placement to his team mate ( he stretches over 1 player & gives to player further back )
This is now a penalty .
I beleive there are videos on world rugby web page ..

Laws guideline from 2016

it is worded oddly:

[LAWS]Long placements are to be avoided as they often lead to obstruction and invite attacking players to join in front of the ball. In the future this will be PENALISED
[/LAWS]

we've had laws re-writes etc since then and nothing to formalise this extant guideline

 

[Decorily]

My understanding of the 'long placement ' is that it's only applicable at the initial formation of the maul.
In OP the maul is already formed.

I stand to be corrected! !

 

[Flish]

If he’s bound in, and can reach the ball then he can absolutely try to rip it, as soon as he becomes unbound then he needs to get out.

 

[RickG]

Thanks fellas, that’s pretty clear now, but can the bound/caught in defender use two arms to reach over or must he keep one arm bound to team mate!

 

[Flish]

If he’s bound then he has to maintain that bind (and can’t swap arms), so one arm only. If caught in then can use both

 

[Zebra1922]

And how frequently do we see (mainly second row) players using 2 arms, or alternate arms, to grab the rearmost players in a maul? There cannot be properly bound yet are allowed to do this. Any ideas why?

 

[RickG]

Thanks fellas, got it now!

 

[Decorily]

And how frequently do we see (mainly second row) players using 2 arms, or alternate arms, to grab the rearmost players in a maul? There cannot be properly bound yet are allowed to do this. Any ideas why?

They are probably bound in to the maul by other players.

 

[didds]

How many of you would PK a white player caught in a maul, that grabbed the ball form a red player (reached over) and passed it back to his #9 ie missing his own players bound behind him?

Seems a tough call in these circumstances - surely that isn't what the long reach law is to prevent?

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

And how frequently do we see (mainly second row) players using 2 arms, or alternate arms, to grab the rearmost players in a maul? There cannot be properly bound yet are allowed to do this. Any ideas why?

I cannot find a law that forbids it, this one below actually permits it.

DURING A MAUL

All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.

 

[Decorily]

How many of you would PK a white player caught in a maul, that grabbed the ball form a red player (reached over) and passed it back to his #9 ie missing his own players bound behind him?

Seems a tough call in these circumstances - surely that isn't what the long reach law is to prevent?

didds

I wouldn't penalise that...as I said in earlier post I don't believe the long arm reach applies once the maul is formed, rather it only applies at the formation stage or just before formation.

Edit....for instance the 2nd row has the ball with the hooker wrapped around him at waist level with his head at 2nd rows hips. Do we really expect the 2nd row to have to get hooker to come up for the ball or are we happy to see hooker bypassed and ball given to next player?

 

[beckett50]

How many of you would PK a white player caught in a maul, that grabbed the ball form a red player (reached over) and passed it back to his #9 ie missing his own players bound behind him?

Seems a tough call in these circumstances - surely that isn't what the long reach law is to prevent?

didds

The 'Long Reach' to which a few have referred only pertains to the initial set up.

By way of back ground, a few years back it was normal for the catcher in the line out to pass the ball all the way back to the hindmost man - usually the #2 - in the maul. This would bypass both the supporters/lifters and the other line out players. i was argued - quite rightly (by FFR IIRC) - that this action was illegal since the the support players were creating a block for the defenders and so were offside.
After consideration WR deemed that this action was indeed illegal and required that the ball be passed back from player to player. It was also the time that they clarified about the 'slipping back' on the driving maul and reiterated that all joining players must bind on behind the ball carrier (although I notice that in recent Internationals and Premiership matches that this is not really being penalised)

Hope this all helps?

 

[didds]

FWIW I concur entirely with decorily and becket50

 

[ChuckieB]

The 'Long Reach' to which a few have referred only pertains to the initial set up.

By way of back ground, a few years back it was normal for the catcher in the line out to pass the ball all the way back to the hindmost man - usually the #2 - in the maul. This would bypass both the supporters/lifters and the other line out players. i was argued - quite rightly (by FFR IIRC) - that this action was illegal since the the support players were creating a block for the defenders and so were offside.
After consideration WR deemed that this action was indeed illegal and required that the ball be passed back from player to player. It was also the time that they clarified about the 'slipping back' on the driving maul and reiterated that all joining players must bind on behind the ball carrier (although I notice that in recent Internationals and Premiership matches that this is not really being penalised)

Hope this all helps?

To be totally correct they can bind on alongside (having come form that onside position) so long as they have bound on to that hindmost player.

Definitely agree with the view we are seeing more and more of this this is not being policed at the higher levels and they are bypassing that hindmost player and binding on to anyone else but that player if it suits the direction of the drive or the defending of the maul.

 

[Taff]

They are probably bound in to the maul by other players.

Exactly. Players in the maul can be "caught in" I think the wording is, rather than bind onto the maul itself.

If EVERY player in the maul had to be bound in, then the BC himself couldn't legally be part of the maul because he's too busy trying to keep possession of the ball.

Sorry gents, but I think thread is in danger of confusing the hell out of a Ref starting out.