Uncontested Maul after Line out

[wolfie]

Took a L.8 game yesterday and the home Captain informed me in a defensive line out they will not engage the maul and asked what my decision would be.

I confirmed what there action would be and he then added "so it will be a Free-kick for obstruction." I disagreed and said I would probably award a scrum for accidental off-side.

I will admit at this point although I have read about this and seen it happen mid-field as an AR I was caught off-guard by his question.

The incident happened twice during the game and I awarded scrum defence.
Away captain confused, I explained in detail and he got on with it.

Questions:

1. Was I right?
2. Would the decision differ if the ball was at the back or front of the maul?
3. There will also be no off-side lines so a defending player could come in from any position and contest for the ball without getting penalised?
4. As it is not a maul the defending team could tackle the ball carrier and bring the whole thing to the ground?
5. Surely it can't be right that a team can win possesion of the ball by not contesting or taking part in the game?

Thanks in anticipation.

 

[Phil E]

Depends on how you saw it.

A penalty (for obstruction) or a scrum (for accidental offside) are both possible.

Law ruling 8 of 2009 refers.

2009 rulings

 

[Davet]

I would also suggest that you call out to side in posession, "No maul... Use it".

You could have either obstruction (penalty offence, NOT free kick), or accidental offside.

 

[keithewilson]

I had a similar question last week and it reminded me of an international match, I think it was Italy that did not compete at the lineout and the ball was caught and passed to the back of the "maul" as there was no maul because the defennding side had not engaged, they tackled the player at the back of the "maul" from the side, but as there was no maul they could not have come in from the side and they where allowed to play on. I thought that this was ok in my game and allowed the defending no ball winning side to do this. What are the thoughts?

 

[OB..]

Rulings 7 & 9 of 2006 also covers the matter of obstruction at a lineout "maul".

Unless the ball is being carried by the foremost player, it is obstruction.

The foremost player can be tackled by a single opponent who takes his legs. If that opponent grabs him above the waist, he has formed a maul. If two opponents attempt to tackle him, they have created a maul.

After the ball has been played or hit the ground, the offside line for those participating in the lineout runs through the ball. A player cannot go past that line until the lineout is over. If this pseudo-maul forms and moves forward, it is not clear quite when the lineout ends, but it certainly does when the whole of that body has moved past the line of touch (and may have done so when the ball carrier has crossed it), so an opponent can run round the "wrong" side to go for the ball.

Summary:-
If it happens, first look to see there is no attempt to bind by the opposition. If there is, it becomes a maul.
Then check to see that the foremost player is the ball carrier. If not – obstruction.
Then wait for the "maul" to move far enough so that the lineout is over before an opponent runs round it. If he moves too early, he is offside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Took a L.8 game yesterday and the home Captain informed me in a defensive line out they will not engage the maul and asked what my decision would be.

I confirmed what there action would be and he then added "so it will be a Free-kick for obstruction." I disagreed and said I would probably award a scrum for accidental off-side.

I will admit at this point although I have read about this and seen it happen mid-field as an AR I was caught off-guard by his question.

The incident happened twice during the game and I awarded scrum defence.
Away captain confused, I explained in detail and he got on with it.

Questions:

1. Was I right?
2. Would the decision differ if the ball was at the back or front of the maul?
3. There will also be no off-side lines so a defending player could come in from any position and contest for the ball without getting penalised?
4. As it is not a maul the defending team could tackle the ball carrier and bring the whole thing to the ground?
5. Surely it can't be right that a team can win possesion of the ball by not contesting or taking part in the game?

Thanks in anticipation.

1. I can't say because you haven't described exactly what happened, but to my mind it should be a PK for obstruction.

2. Its not a maul, so lets call it a "group"
► ball at the front of the group, play on
► ball anywhere in the group other than the front, PK for obstruction

3. Correct

4. Correct

5. It may not seem right, but it is.

Watch this video. Its a good example of what you are asking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-jWfm8z1c

 

[GeorgeR]

Looking at the video, england tried to pull one of the italians into the "body" of players, presumably this also an offense as the england players is playing someone without the ball?

 

[Dixie]

5. Surely it can't be right that a team can win possesion of the ball by not contesting or taking part in the game?

You seem to suggest that the defending side has played negatively. I view it entirely differently. They are clearly both contesting and taking part in the game - they have come round to steal the ball. That they have done so in a way not normally done and not anticipated by the attacking side seems to me to be entirely positive - it's called tactical thinking, and is a sensible way for a smaller team to contest the lineout. Sides like the Japanese need us to keep all options open to them if they are to be able to compete with physically larger and more imposing sides through the inventive use of tactical innovation. Never ignore the top two inches!

 

[Phil E]

Sides like the Japanese need us to keep all options open to them if they are to be able to compete with physically larger and more imposing sides through the inventive use of tactical innovation. Never ignore the top two inches!

Are you trying to say that the Japanese can only win by doing something sneaky, like an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbour.............er I mean the back of the non-maul :wow:

 

[menace]

1. 2. Its not a maul, so lets call it a "group"
► ball at the front of the group, play on
► ball anywhere in the group other than the front, PK for obstruction

not sure if anyone still looking at this thread..but
Isn't point 1 here also form of a "flying wedge" (10.4 (o))..and PK result rather than play on?

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the
goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or
by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side
of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front
of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.
Penalty: Penalty Kick at the place of the original infringement

Sure it wasn't near the line or from a FK..but they're just 'usual' ways a flying wedge start..not the only way?
To me you can ping them for PK on either obstruction when ball at back or foul play or up front...or is this really wrong?

 

[OB..]

menace - it seems to be generally agreed that the Flying Wedge is outlawed because building up a charge of that sort is dangerous. The lineout situation is different - they bumble rather than charge. Ping it if it looks dangerous.

BTW I think most people use the New Posts tab and so will pick up all the latest posts even on old threads

 

[menace]

menace - it seems to be generally agreed that the Flying Wedge is outlawed because building up a charge of that sort is dangerous. The lineout situation is different - they bumble rather than charge. Ping it if it looks dangerous.

BTW I think most people use the New Posts tab and so will pick up all the latest posts even on old threads

Thanks OB -for both tips...ah so it's more the charge (speed with momentum?) than the "wedge" the bound players form?

I've only seen it once in one of my junior semi-final games. Came from a FK..pinged it straight away..kids looked at me like deers-in-the-head-lights when I called what the the PK was for. They must have relayed it to their coach as I over-heard him mention at half time huddle why it was a problem. I'm sure he coached it in the hope of getting a sneaky try awarded. He proabably expected a junior ref appointed to his game who may have not been up with the LoTG. Doubt he named the move either to protect the innocent boys blurting it out.

Kids are great when you tell them they can't and they tell you their coach told them too do it.

 

[ExiledinTexas]

not sure if anyone still looking at this thread..but
Isn't point 1 here also form of a "flying wedge" (10.4 (o))..and PK result rather than play on?

I would say that is trickier to apply here. If the ball IS at that the front AND the line-out is NOT over, then the lifters can be in contact, but as soon as the line-out is over and if there is still no challenge by the defenders, the lifters must release the ball-carrier or 10.4 does apply.

 

[Brit50]

USA management guidelines for refs recognizes the defence not engaging at maul system, yet only suggests ref should make the 'mauling' team 'use it'
I think it is wrong.
As others have stated.
Ball sent all the way to back is deliberate and therefore must be obstruction and thus a PK.
In the scenario;
Ball at front with player and bound by 2 others. Ref should allow a tackle to the legs. Defending team is only enforcing its right to tackle the ball carrier.

 

[Phil E]

USA management guidelines for refs recognizes the defence not engaging at maul system, yet only suggests ref should make the 'mauling' team 'use it'

How can you make them use it, when it's NOT a maul?

 

[SimonSmith]

Have you met USA Rugby?!