[Maul] What laws apply in this (common?) situation.

[Martin Doughty]

Law 17 (Maul) states that “A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one of more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind onto the ball carrier”.

What I frequently see is the ball carrier surrounded by opponents and isolated from his team mates. The BC’s team mates then arrive and join the ‘pile of players’. They bind onto opponents, because they cannot reach the BC.

I usually treat these as being mauls, but they do not meet the definition in the books.

My questions:
What laws apply in this situation? {It is not a tackle, it is not a maul, what is it?}
If a BC’s team mate pulls the ‘pile of players’ down then is he committing an offence? {Suppose it is being driven back downfield, he might do this to stop the drive.}
Can an opponent pull the ‘pile of players’ down (i.e. completes the tackle) or is he committing an offence?

If anyone can give Law References for this situation then please do so.

 

[Taff]

As long as you have a BC, an opponent and a teammate bound to each other, I think we would all treat it as a Maul (for what it's worth I would anyway) even though technically it may not be.

Maul: A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier.

Imagine a BC being surrounded and smothered by 4 opponents on their feet, so that a team mate couldn't physically bind on the BC. If he bound on as best he could, I'm pretty sure I would call it a Maul.

 

[ChuckieB]

I am being steered the same. A similar situation cropped up in another thread.

 

[OB..]

I think we need to go with the concept behind the law rather than pick the words apart. The basic idea is a ball carrier and a player from each side bound together and on their feet. That's a maul.

 

[Guyseep]

I would also consider not calling a maul immediately.

I raised a similar question in the past about the formation of a maul. The debate was wether or not a maul had formed or it was a tackle that wasn't completed yet.

Example - Red ball carrier goes into contact with a support player in the "hammer position" vs Blue defender. Red support player drives on and the group of players almost immediately goes to ground. Is this a maul or the midst of a tackle?

I think the consensus then was to wait a moment or so to see that the ball and ball carrier are actually held up before calling it a maul.

Here's the thread:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...ul-or-a-tackle-that-hasn-t-been-completed-yet

 

[didds]

I would also consider not calling a maul immediately.

I raised a similar question in the past about the formation of a maul. The debate was wether or not a maul had formed or it was a tackle that wasn't completed yet.

Example - Red ball carrier goes into contact with a support player in the "hammer position" vs Blue defender. Red support player drives on and the group of players almost immediately goes to ground. Is this a maul or the midst of a tackle?

I think the consensus then was to wait a moment or so to see that the ball and ball carrier are actually held up before calling it a maul.

whilst I entirely agree with the approach, for debating purposes would that not also strictly rely on where the blue defender grasps the ball carrier? ie around the knees versus around the chest?

didds

 

[damo]

I would also consider not calling a maul immediately.

I raised a similar question in the past about the formation of a maul. The debate was wether or not a maul had formed or it was a tackle that wasn't completed yet.

Example - Red ball carrier goes into contact with a support player in the "hammer position" vs Blue defender. Red support player drives on and the group of players almost immediately goes to ground. Is this a maul or the midst of a tackle?

I think the consensus then was to wait a moment or so to see that the ball and ball carrier are actually held up before calling it a maul.

Here's the thread:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...ul-or-a-tackle-that-hasn-t-been-completed-yet

Yes a very sensible approach in my opinion. Let the situation breathe before deciding it's a maul. If you call it too quickly you end up with a whole lot of mauls the whole match and the game turns into a scrumfest with no enterprise. The key feature of a maul is that once it collapses the players don't have to roll away and let the ball come out. The players and spectators will not thank you for ruining their game.

 

[didds]

The players and spectators will not thank you for ruining their game.

I don;t disagree with the overall sentiment - but I'd baulk at describing such a situation as ruining the _players_ game. It would be the players that after all had created the situations. They cold hardly blame the ref for collapsed mauls that they themselves had collapsed

As for the spectators - they have toi better understand why a referee blows a whistle.

didds

 

[damo]

I don;t disagree with the overall sentiment - but I'd baulk at describing such a situation as ruining the _players_ game. It would be the players that after all had created the situations. They cold hardly blame the ref for collapsed mauls that they themselves had collapsed

As for the spectators - they have toi better understand why a referee blows a whistle.

didds

Yes fair point. I debated about that last sentence for that reason, but left it in.

My point was that if there are two plausible ways to referee a game, the referee should normally side with the way that permits the ball to emerge from the breakdown as much as possible rather than encouraging situations where the ball is more likely to get trapped (legally) and force a scrum.

Speaking from my experience from a few years ago when I was strict on maul formation:

If you set a precedent early in the game that these "split-second-mauls" are mauls then you end up with the situation that the defending teams will try to hold up a good number of ball carriers all game. They'll know that they only have to hold the ball carrier up for long enough that team mate of the ball carrier is required to join in momentarily and they get a maul situation (and they can then lie over the ball and stop it coming out, or at least slow it right down).

I had an assessor point this exact thing out to me after a game, and encouraged me to be more liberal. When I made the change it seemed to really improve the quality of the games. I'd like to think I improved the players enjoyment of the game (and spectators if there were any).

 

[Christy]

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=...y.html&usg=AFQjCNGsfu9srf0eDtQGVRWTP5LkHVVIlQ

ireland & munster used this for a few years { see above link }

usually 2 people will wrap around ball carrier { we all know its not a maul }
i would ref by seeing how it develops , its often still used in club rugby in ireland .
the chokers are relying on opponents of the wrapped ball carrier to not compete .
however , if opponents of ball carrier decide to engage and push chokers & their wrapped up team mate towards opponents try line .
you will see the chokers now want to drop ball carrier to ground . { because its not want they were looking for }
again i wouldnt call maul , to give clarity to what technically not a maul . { by doing so , you would be rewarding chokers too soon }

 

[Paule23]

So say we have a BC surrounded by 4 opposition players, all on their feet and fairly stationary, what do we have (apart from a stalemate)? This is not a maul as only 1 from the BC team, not a tackles as no-one has gone to ground. How would you deal with/manage this?

 

[Phil E]

So say we have a BC surrounded by 4 opposition players, all on their feet and fairly stationary, what do we have (apart from a stalemate)? This is not a maul as only 1 from the BC team, not a tackles as no-one has gone to ground. How would you deal with/manage this?

Nothing to manage, it's open play. Just wait to see what happens next.

 

[didds]

what Phil said ^^^

 

[chbg]

Nothing to manage, it's open play. Just wait to see what happens next.

And if nothing happens next, then the ball has become unplayable, scrum to team in possession.

 

[VM75]

And if nothing happens next, then the ball has become unplayable, scrum to team in possession.

Not engaging & creating a maul would (in that scenario) be a better possession retaining option than creating one.

I've seen the ' held up-almost tackled' in 7's but not 15's, & it's never happened in any match I've referee'd in the last 5 years.

 

[ChuckieB]

...as the bc is ripped apart by a pack of wolves!

As I think I have alluded into in other similar situations, he'll not be thanking either his teammates or his coach for such a lack of support!

 

[didds]

Not engaging & creating a maul would (in that scenario) be a better possession retaining option than creating one.

except with 4 v 1, holding up the BC, surely the defenders would just march the man and ball towards the BC's DBL. Eventually the attackers would have to do something about it and engage because if not they will end up conceding a 5m scrum from their own tryline. At best!

didds

 

[Pinky]

In the op situation, if you don't treat it as a maul or potential maul, then you have to deal with players grasping others who are not the bc, and that is not permitted in open play.