SH Tackled After Maul - Eng v Arg

[belladonna]

71st mimute of the game.

Arg SH receives the ball from the base of the maul and moves away, quickly followed by Eng forward who was part of the maul, who wraps him up.

Both go to ground, with Eng player on wrong side of the tackle, killing the ball.

I was expecting PK to Arg but Nick Berry gave scrum to Arg.

No PK because he said "you're fine there because he's always part of the maul there and he's taken it out, so you can do that."

But the SH was never part of the maul. What am I missing?!?

 

[Dickie E]

Yes, I posted about this on another thread.
Berry was saying the Eng player was legal to tackle the SH which I agree with. Berry also decided the England player was unable to move away from the tackle hence the unplayable ruck decision.
I disagreed when the scrum went to Arg. Eng clearly moving forward.
IMO Berry is a 70 minute ref. He loses concentration & composure in the last 10 minutes when he really needs to be at his best. Seen it on many occasions. A further example later in the game when a scrum free kick magically turns into no-fault collapse

 

[Dickie E]

Cheika not happy

 

[belladonna]

Yes, I posted about this on another thread.
Berry was saying the Eng player was legal to tackle the SH which I agree with. Berry also decided the England player was unable to move away from the tackle hence the unplayable ruck decision.
I disagreed when the scrum went to Arg. Eng clearly moving forward.
IMO Berry is a 70 minute ref. He loses concentration & composure in the last 10 minutes when he really needs to be at his best. Seen it on many occasions. A further example later in the game when a scrum free kick magically turns into no-fault collapse

So do you think NB got confused, and thought the BC was the Arg player at the back of the maul, rather than the SH... and that the Eng player was bound on the whole time, making it a same-maul situation?

If so, that should be scrum Eng, because Arg took the ball in to the maul which became unplayable (and it was from a line-out, not kick in open play.)

If it's not a same-maul situation it's a clear PK to Arg for not releasing/not rolling away.

I can't come up with any scenario in which it's scrum Arg, even if they were "the team in possession".

 

[Dickie E]

What happens in The Hatchet's head is a mystery

 

[didds]

I wonder if he meant by "part fo the maul" comment (and I havent seen the gam,e yet ) that Curry was part of the maul so whehn the ball was played away he could come forwards form that position ie wasn't offside ?
that is pure conjecture on my part of course

 

[Stu10]

So do you think NB got confused, and thought the BC was the Arg player at the back of the maul, rather than the SH... and that the Eng player was bound on the whole time, making it a same-maul situation?

If so, that should be scrum Eng, because Arg took the ball in to the maul which became unplayable (and it was from a line-out, not kick in open play.)

If it's not a same-maul situation it's a clear PK to Arg for not releasing/not rolling away.

I can't come up with any scenario in which it's scrum Arg, even if they were "the team in possession".

I agree with your comments, though I am also unsure about the player in the maul being onside and allowed to tackle the 9.

I also expected a penalty for Eng not rolling away, because the Eng player clearly fell on the wrong side of the tackle... if not a penalty, then it should have been an Eng scrum because Eng were the team last moving forward.

Futhermore, there was another occasion (I can't remember which game) during the knock-out games that the same thing happened but the player in the maul was penalised for changing his bind in the maul, however, he was bound in the maul (not on the side), therefore it was my understanding that you can freely move your arms.

Going back to my uncertainty about a player in the maul playing the SH, I raised this in my Society WhatsApp group, but didn't get a satisfactory answer...
Clarification 3-2021 confirms that a player in the ruck remains offside when the ball is removed and cannot immediately play the scrum half. My Society colleagues were of the opinion that this clarification does not apply to a maul, and that a player "cannot be offside if bound into or on to a maul".
However, coming back to Clarification 3-2021, WR stated that "If a player is fully bound and they have moved beyond the offside line then they must return to be behind the hindmost foot before being able to be involved in play, once the ball is out or is played from the ruck." After reading the law book, the only law I can find that directly aligns with this statement is law 10.9, which applies to a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout ("A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.")

 

[Camquin]

If they break their bind before the maul ends, they need to retire.
If they stay bound until after the ball is out, the maul is over, so they can advance on the nine.

As with all offside, it is all about timing.

It is similar to being able to strip the ball from the ball carrier while they are on their feet, but needing to release once the knee hits the ground.
The referee has t make a call, and most do not have a TMO to check their decision, so we have to go with the usual measure of "does it look right".

 

[Stu10]

If they break their bind before the maul ends, they need to retire.
If they stay bound until after the ball is out, the maul is over, so they can advance on the nine.

As with all offside, it is all about timing.

It is similar to being able to strip the ball from the ball carrier while they are on their feet, but needing to release once the knee hits the ground.
The referee has t make a call, and most do not have a TMO to check their decision, so we have to go with the usual measure of "does it look right".

"If they stay bound until after the ball is out, the maul is over, so they can advance on the nine."

This is not allowed from a ruck though... why is it different between maul and ruck?

 

[jdeagro]

"If they stay bound until after the ball is out, the maul is over, so they can advance on the nine."

This is not allowed from a ruck though... why is it different between maul and ruck?

Interesting. And despite the law clarification:

If a player is fully bound and they have moved beyond the offside line then they must return to be behind the hindmost foot before being able to be involved in play, once the ball is out or is played from the ruck.

...I'm not sure I see anything in the law book to support this clarification. I used to assume there was a law around rucks dictating that one must drive straight through, which then I could see applied here. But that's not written in law either, so I believe the laws need updating if this clarification holds true.

Specifically this:

have moved beyond the offside line

...is confusing, given that they are the one's setting the offside line.

 

[Stu10]

Interesting. And despite the law clarification:



...I'm not sure I see anything in the law book to support this clarification. I used to assume there was a law around rucks dictating that one must drive straight through, which then I could see applied here. But that's not written in law either, so I believe the laws need updating if this clarification holds true.

Specifically this:



...is confusing, given that they are the one's setting the offside line.

As I posted above, the only related law I can identify is law 10.9, which applies to a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout - "A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Hence we I am confused why my local Society colleagues insist that a player bound to/in the maul can go straight for the 9, as we saw in the Eng v Arg game, but not from a ruck (as per clarification 3-2021).

 

[belladonna]

As I posted above, the only related law I can identify is law 10.9, which applies to a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout - "A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Hence we I am confused why my local Society colleagues insist that a player bound to/in the maul can go straight for the 9, as we saw in the Eng v Arg game, but not from a ruck (as per clarification 3-2021).

Maybe because a player bound into a maul is not "a player who is offside at a maul"?

 

[Locke]

Maybe because a player bound into a maul is not "a player who is offside at a maul"?

I don’t even understand the law clarification. If a player is legally bound into a ruck, they aren’t offside. I don’t understand why they can’t move forward from their spot once the ruck has ended.

 

[jdeagro]

I don’t even understand the law clarification. If a player is legally bound into a ruck, they aren’t offside. I don’t understand why they can’t move forward from their spot once the ruck has ended.

The ruck one is quite odd. I agree.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

This is an example of something that has been avoided, or unspoken of, or believed so long that it actually became true. i'm referring to players in ruck or maul who are offside yet are still able to compete for possession whilst being in that offside position. Then when someone questions the validity of this avoided, or unspoken of, or believed something, it is admonished or ridiculed just enough that questioner gives up the argument.

This, believe it or not, is the beauty and comedy of rugby so much so it could only be played enjoyably by schoolboys and amatuers.

 

[Locke]

The law book has the definition of offside as, “a positional offense meaning that the player can take no part in the game without being liable to sanction”.
If a player has legally entered a ruck or maul and are legally bound into it, they are not offside, by definition, whether they are past the “hindmost point” or the ball or anything else. Once the ruck or maul ends, the offside lines cease to exist and I can find no basis in law or in logic to conclude that such a player suddenly becomes offside at that moment nor anything that prevents them from playing or advancing immediately from that spot. Nor do I see it being refereed this way.

 

[didds]

The law book has the definition of offside as, “a positional offense meaning that the player can take no part in the game without being liable to sanction”.
If a player has legally entered a ruck or maul and are legally bound into it, they are not offside, by definition, whether they are past the “hindmost point” or the ball or anything else. Once the ruck or maul ends, the offside lines cease to exist and I can find no basis in law or in logic to conclude that such a player suddenly becomes offside at that moment nor anything that prevents them from playing or advancing immediately from that spot. Nor do I see it being refereed this way.

I would agree with you entirely - except for Stu10's p[ost #7

"However, coming back to Clarification 3-2021, WR stated that "If a player is fully bound and they have moved beyond the offside line then they must return to be behind the hindmost foot before being able to be involved in play, once the ball is out or is played from the ruck."

So WR have made it so but not seen fit to up[date the law book to relflect it.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The law book has the definition of offside as, “a positional offense meaning that the player can take no part in the game without being liable to sanction”.
If a player has legally entered a ruck or maul and are legally bound into it, they are not offside, by definition, whether they are past the “hindmost point” or the ball or anything else. Once the ruck or maul ends, the offside lines cease to exist and I can find no basis in law or in logic to conclude that such a player suddenly becomes offside at that moment nor anything that prevents them from playing or advancing immediately from that spot. Nor do I see it being refereed this way.

In bold, is precisely my previous post. Consider, just consider the referrees you see are doing it incorrectly. It is along similar lines as, If you tell a lie long enough eventually it becomes true. It is the bandwagon fallacy.

Here is a quick attempt at basis for logic to indentify players in a ruck as offside. #1 the clearly specific offside line at a ruck. #2 although a different phase, the scrum in 2 different places identifies all players on onside #3 the players in the ruck are given based on their virtue of competing for the ball dispensation from offside line only to compete for the ball. i.e. a "loose scrum"

I agree with you that once the ball is out, especially by a pass, all players are onside. Maybe also a kick or an intentional touch of ball puts players onside immed. I'll need to sort that out,

 

[buff]

ISTR that clarification was made to deal with that sort of sideways defensive caterpillar ruck thingy the Saracens came up with to counter the box kick from the caterpillar ruck. I don't think I have ever seen it enforced.

 

[Dickie E]

Having a look at Clarification 3-21, it seems to me the designated members are specifically trying to prevent the tactic of widening ruck for the sole purpose of getting closer to the SH (as per Buff's post #19). How they have done this is a bit clumsy.

Maybe another way to look at it is that this ruck widening tactic does not meet the purpose of a ruck which is "... to allow players to compete for the ball which is on the ground" & hence illegal.