uncontested maul thingy

[The Fat]

Everyone needs to remember the intent of the memo in terms of how non-engagement of the maul at a line out is to be refereed.
The IRB felt that not engaging was contrary to having a true contest and therefore the directive is skewed slightly in favour of the attacking team, hence the scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction.

Still no takers on the unthought of scenario from my earlier post.
You guys are either slipping or sleeping

 

[Crucial]

And you have to get out of the way of a player carrying the ball?

If you don't want to form the maul you must step aside (instead of back) so as to leave a clear channel for the opponents. Essentially, that is getting out of the way of the player carrying the ball.

How do you think this will be (or should be) addressed post RWC?

I don't think it will need to be addressed.

The whole reason this scenario has required GMGs is that some teams feel that their options to legitimately negate a driving maul are next to nothing due to a perceived imbalance by match officials at the time.

Attacking team members have had impunity in joining ahead of the ball carrier and from the side, the ball carrier is allowed to swim to the back, the ball carrier is attached only by a hand, the players in front of him turn the maul and split away etc etc
Meanwhile any discretion from the defending team is blown, including players being legitimately bound who don't move their bind yet end up on the 'wrong' side being told they must remove themselves.

This isn't necessarily to blame the ref. Too much to see at once and the incentive for illegality is deemed to be mainly with the defenders. But you can see that the imbalance has caused the defending team to try other 'impure' methods to combat what they see as a disadvantage.

The reason I state that there may be no need to change Laws or directives is that the issue appears to have been discussed and over the past couple of weeks in Super Rugby there has been a noticeable shift in the reffing of the maul. To most fan's astonishment, we have seen the attacking team penalised for breaking away, the BC not being bound correctly and players joining ahead of the ball. Long may this continue.

Rugby prides itself on fair contest of the ball and the maul as it was, was far from fair.

 

[ChrisR]

Here's one scenario.

Red throw, catch, bring ball down by catcher, Red peel to form a maul, Blue (not wanting a maul and obeying the letter of the directive) step to the side (the "Moses Move") leaving no one in front of the non-maul.

Red, instead of binding also step aside and hand off the ball to a peeling forward at pace who crashes through the hole in the lineout.

Yes, that seems quite fair and equitable.

TF, was that your scenario?

 

[Crucial]

Here's one scenario.

Red throw, catch, bring ball down by catcher, Red peel to form a maul, Blue (not wanting a maul and obeying the letter of the directive) step to the side (the "Moses Move") leaving no one in front of the non-maul.

Red, instead of binding also step aside and hand off the ball to a peeling forward at pace who crashes through the hole in the lineout.

Yes, that seems quite fair and equitable.

TF, was that your scenario?

Not a lot different to the 'T-Bag' move that put Tony Woodcock across the line in the last RWC final except the gap created was by feigning to set a maul at the back of the lineout meaning the defence went there to defend and the ball was handed off.

 

[The Fat]

Here's one scenario.

Red throw, catch, bring ball down by catcher, Red peel to form a maul, Blue (not wanting a maul and obeying the letter of the directive) step to the side (the "Moses Move") leaving no one in front of the non-maul.

Red, instead of binding also step aside and hand off the ball to a peeling forward at pace who crashes through the hole in the lineout.

Yes, that seems quite fair and equitable.

TF, was that your scenario?

No cigar yet

 

[didds]

The IRB felt that not engaging was contrary to having a true contest

what did they say about not engaging at a breakdown, to not form a ruck, and not thus having a true contest?

didds

 

[FlipFlop]

what did they say about not engaging at a breakdown, to not form a ruck, and not thus having a true contest?

didds

Not engaging at the lineout "maul" - the only way you get the ball is via the ref blowing the whistle.

Not engaging at the ruck - you get an advantage (no offside lines), and the ball has to come out of the ruck, so you can contest it then.

They are very different scenarios.

I agree - the better response is to change the Maul Law to make it easier to defend. Personally I would prefer to see a law which makes a player changing their bind illegal - the ball has to be passed back, not the player moving back etc. Hate seeing the ball carrier moved back in a maul. At least if the ball needs to be moved, there is the chance of the ball being dropped etc, or the defenders getting a hand on it.

 

[ChrisR]

Not a lot different to the 'T-Bag' move that put Tony Woodcock across the line in the last RWC final except the gap created was by feigning to set a maul at the back of the lineout meaning the defence went there to defend and the ball was handed off.

Except in the "Moses Move" the defenders are required to move to the side (instead of taking one step off the line of touch).

 

[ChrisR]

No cigar yet

TF, I'm getting along in years. Post, or get off the pot.

 

[OB..]

And you have to get out of the way of a player carrying the ball?

If you don't want to form the maul you must step aside (instead of back) so as to leave a clear channel for the opponents. Essentially, that is getting out of the way of the player carrying the ball.

And my point is still valid that you can tackle him, which is NOT the same as getting out of his way.

How do you think this will be (or should be) addressed post RWC?

I doubt if any of us will have any input! I would like to see them clarify "leaving the lineout": it is not defined so it would be easy to say that taking a small step away to make it clear you are not contesting initially is legal if you remain "near" the lineout (= within 1m).

 

[ChrisR]

Not engaging at the lineout "maul" - the only way you get the ball is via the ref blowing the whistle.

Not engaging at the ruck - you get an advantage (no offside lines), and the ball has to come out of the ruck, so you can contest it then.

They are very different scenarios.

I agree - the better response is to change the Maul Law to make it easier to defend. Personally I would prefer to see a law which makes a player changing their bind illegal - the ball has to be passed back, not the player moving back etc. Hate seeing the ball carrier moved back in a maul. At least if the ball needs to be moved, there is the chance of the ball being dropped etc, or the defenders getting a hand on it.

By not engaging in the maul you are simply forcing the opponent into a different attack, one in which you do have a chance of getting the ball back. The highest level of contest is at the tactical level, playing the game to your strengths and manipulating the opponent away from his.

In this way not engaging at the ruck and preventing the opponent from using his mauling strength are exactly the same.

Leave the laws exactly as they are. Trash the GMG directive. Allow the defenders to step back from the LOT. PK the attackers for obstruction. Allow time for teams to devise the means of dealing with it. Trust me, they will.

 

[didds]

Not engaging at the lineout "maul" - the only way you get the ball is via the ref blowing the whistle.

Not engaging at the ruck - you get an advantage (no offside lines), and the ball has to come out of the ruck, so you can contest it then.

They are very different scenarios. .

Of course they are different scenarios But if the IRB are going to start bandying terms like "true contest" around then its stupid to then unilaterally apply it.

didds

 

[The Fat]

TF, I'm getting along in years. Post, or get off the pot.

Hahaha.

OK. I'm interested to hear how the referee should manage a different scenario when there is no engagement of the maul at the LO. This may not happen often but I bet that at community level, at least while teams are getting their heads around their options/tactics/counter tactics, it will happen. Most likely, in one of your games.

Scenario:
White win the LO on their throw in and form a "maul thingamyjig" with the ball still with the front man/jumper.
Red team open a gap to clear a space and don't engage to form a maul.
White have a powerful maul technique and really want red to engage so they stand their ground.
Red know how powerful the white team are in mauls so they want white to start to drive downfield so they can have a go at tackling the ball carrier or alternatively hope that white will move the ball back and get a "use it" call from the ref.
Neither team budge. We have a Mexican stand-off.

You are the referee.
You think to yourself, "Shit! This wasn't mentioned in the bloody memo".
What do you do?

 

[menace]

Nothing. Grab a coke and popcorn and wait for something to happen.

 

[crossref]

Hahaha.

OK. I'm interested to hear how the referee should manage a different scenario when there is no engagement of the maul at the LO. This may not happen often but I bet that at community level, at least while teams are getting their heads around their options/tactics/counter tactics, it will happen. Most likely, in one of your games.

Scenario:
White win the LO on their throw in and form a "maul thingamyjig" with the ball still with the front man/jumper.
Red team open a gap to clear a space and don't engage to form a maul.
White have a powerful maul technique and really want red to engage so they stand their ground.
Red know how powerful the white team are in mauls so they want white to start to drive downfield so they can have a go at tackling the ball carrier or alternatively hope that white will move the ball back and get a "use it" call from the ref.
Neither team budge. We have a Mexican stand-off.

You are the referee.
You think to yourself, "Shit! This wasn't mentioned in the bloody memo".
What do you do?

call 'use it' ?

 

[FlipFlop]

Hahaha.

OK. I'm interested to hear how the referee should manage a different scenario when there is no engagement of the maul at the LO. This may not happen often but I bet that at community level, at least while teams are getting their heads around their options/tactics/counter tactics, it will happen. Most likely, in one of your games.

Scenario:
White win the LO on their throw in and form a "maul thingamyjig" with the ball still with the front man/jumper.
Red team open a gap to clear a space and don't engage to form a maul.
White have a powerful maul technique and really want red to engage so they stand their ground.
Red know how powerful the white team are in mauls so they want white to start to drive downfield so they can have a go at tackling the ball carrier or alternatively hope that white will move the ball back and get a "use it" call from the ref.
Neither team budge. We have a Mexican stand-off.

You are the referee.
You think to yourself, "Shit! This wasn't mentioned in the bloody memo".
What do you do?

Red can currently tackle the ball carrier if they wish. They can do that without forming a maul
If white move down the field, Red must either tackle the ball carrier, form a maul, or concede a try!

The situation you describe is in the memo, where it says - if the ball is at the front then it is play on.

 

[Phil E]

Nothing. Grab a coke and popcorn and wait for something to happen.

+1


..............and what FF said.

 

[Browner]

the LO hasn't ended , the MSO is continuing....... Both sides have equal right to SO

Maybe other laws give a guide .....

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]or if the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]reason[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]able time, the referee must order a scrum.[/FONT]

a consistent approach ?

 

[The Fat]

Red can currently tackle the ball carrier if they wish. They can do that without forming a maul
If white move down the field, Red must either tackle the ball carrier, form a maul, or concede a try!

The situation you describe is in the memo, where it says - if the ball is at the front then it is play on.

Can they tackle the jumper if white don't move?
If they want to sack the jumper, they must do it as soon as the jumper lands.
There was a game last weekend or the weekend before in the NH (maybe Aviva???) where a team was penalised (Greg Garner?) for tackling the jumper "Too late".

The memo says something slightly different to what you have posted with regard to when you may tackle the front man.

2) If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up
a gap and creating space, and not leaving the line out, the following process would be
followed:
a) Attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive downfield
(therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul,
or tackle the ball carrier only)

 

[crossref]

Can they tackle the jumper if white don't move?
If they want to sack the jumper, they must do it as soon as the jumper lands.
There was a game last weekend or the weekend before in the NH (maybe Aviva???) where a team was penalised (Greg Garner?) for tackling the jumper "Too late"

that's different - that's because a maul had formed... you can't collapse a maul