[Maul] Where in the laws is Fringing around a maul outlawed?

[Martin Doughty]

I have a maul related question... I've been reading through the laws (Maul laws - 17), and I cannot find anything that stops 'Fringing', where players creep around the outside of a maul.


Consider this: Blue are in possession and have got the ball to the back of the maul. A red player joins the maul at his side and binds with arm 1 onto a team mate, all perfectly legal. He then binds further round the outside of the maul with arm 2 and has two full arm binds. He releases arm 1 and moves it up to bind with arms 1 & 2 together. Then he unbinds arm 2 and moves it further round to repeat the action, including binding onto opponents, but always keeping a full arm bind.


Assuming he does not get bound in by a blue player, what is there to stop him moving all the way round to the ball carrier?


I cannot find anything that prevents this, but it does not seem right.


Opinions?

 

[Christy]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)

A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.


[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Sanction: Penalty kick

Hi martin .
I would say above might cover your scenario. ( in law )
Players cant swim around a maul ( as some call it ) ..
They can move up through centre of maul , as long as they are caught in maul .
To try & gain access to ball .



[/FONT]

 

[Martin Doughty]

But in my description they are always full arm bound, but they carefully (and one would assume quickly) single bind - double bind - single bind - double bind. It is a kind of swimming around the maul, but the binding is never illegal.
I hope I am not giving coaches any ideas...

 

[menace]

I would say what you're describing, by remaining bound at every 'stroke' is legal...but in the real world they are not doing it carefully nor slowly and the result is that in their haste or action they actually lose the bind. And as soon as they do that and reattach to the side of the maul they have rejoined the maul in front of the most hind foot.

 

[Nigib]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)

A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.


[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Sanction: Penalty kick

Hi martin .
I would say above might cover your scenario. ( in law )
Players cant swim around a maul ( as some call it ) ..
They can move up through centre of maul , as long as they are caught in maul .
To try & gain access to ball .



[/FONT]

'Alongside' means not bound. The OP description has the player legally bound throughout, and the Law Book does not specifically forbid it. However it's accepted that it is not allowed, and it certainly 'looks wrong'.

 

[Taff]

From the definitions.

Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

I reckon only a contortionist could legally do what you suggest. :biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

I would say what you're describing, by remaining bound at every 'stroke' is legal...but in the real world they are not doing it carefully nor slowly and the result is that in their haste or action they actually lose the bind. And as soon as they do that and reattach to the side of the maul they have rejoined the maul in front of the most hind foot.

Specifically covered in ARU GMGs:

[LAWS]Players bound on the side of the maul may not ‘slide’ forward or ‘swim’ around the maul. These players are not remaining bound and are not caught up in the maul, and are therefore offside.[/LAWS]

 

[Ian_Cook]

The only way a maul player can get to the opposition ball carrier legitimately, is by having been bound into the maul by team mates, and having pushed his way though the maul. When this happens, you sometimes hear the referee say "he came through the middle". He is telling the opposition that this mauler is entitled to be where he is.

 

[crossref]

The only way a maul player can get to the opposition ball carrier legitimately, is by having been bound into the maul by team mates, and having pushed his way though the maul. When this happens, you sometimes hear the referee say "he came through the middle". He is telling the opposition that this mauler is entitled to be where he is.

what the OP wanted was a Law Reference to support that.
but like so many things there isn't really one, and it's more of a convention than a specific Law

 

[Dickie E]

what the OP wanted was a Law Reference to support that.
but like so many things there isn't really one, and it's more of a convention than a specific Law

it is in our game management guidelines and that is as good as law here. I appreciate that this isn't global

 

[Ian_Cook]

what the OP wanted was a Law Reference to support that.
but like so many things there isn't really one, and it's more of a convention than a specific Law

And here it is

[LAWS]17.2 JOINING A MAUL
(b) A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]


And for reference

[LAWS]Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with
the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.[/LAWS]

I challenge any rugby player to "swim" around the side of the maul while maintaing a bind according to the LotG General Definition of binding.... no "slipping" allowed (if you're slipping, there you're not "grasping firmly").

Contortionists and/or amazing rubber men from Ringling Brothers don't count!!!!

 

[DocY]

A player could single-double-single bind around a maul as described and comply with the letter of the law, but would be clearly violating the spirit of the law and should be penalised.

Why do you ask, out of interest? Someone give you a hard time for penalising it?

 

[didds]

I think it would generally speaking be possible to achieve a totally legal "swim", but you;d have to be very very precise while doing it which may well undermine its effectiveness as to getting where you need to be in a timeframe that works. You may be better off just blinking pushing!

didds

 

[Martin Doughty]

Thanks for the answers. I agree it might require some advanced circus skills to achieve, but then I have seen players (and coaches) that will try and achieve the impossible. It does seem to be something that is legally possible (all the joining and binding) but we all know it is 'wrong'.

That grey area between being bound (tightly clenched fist) onto a shirt with your arm in full contact and sliding; versus slipping with all in contact but no precise grip...

I have not (yet) experienced this in a game situation. I am just reading through the laws as I my latest job role involves 2 hours on a train every day.

 

[Nigib]

From the definitions.

Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

I reckon only a contortionist could legally do what you suggest. :biggrin:

How many players conform to this when joining ruck or maul? Or even back of the scrum?

 

[Taff]

How many players conform to this when joining ruck or maul? Or even back of the scrum?

I reckon most make a good fist of it. I mean, we don't see many players shoulder-charging into a ruck or maul, and when they do, they usually get pulled up for it. :chin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

How many players conform to this when joining ruck or maul? Or even back of the scrum?

I'd be really concerned if you were allowing other players to join the back of a scrum at all!!

I reckon most make a good fist of it. I mean, we don't see many players shoulder-charging into a ruck or maul, and when they do, they usually get pulled up for it. :chin:

I agree, and when they don't, it usually isn't material, but swimming around the side of a maul would be, because their failure to bind legally is giving them a material advantage.

 

[VM75]

I was more inclined to allow 'semi disguised swimming' as virtually the only way to counteract the ball carrier repeatedly being squeezed backwards by teammates to a perm-position on the rear of a maul. [don't get me started on those joiners beyond the ball!]

In my mind it made the maul too far in the attacking teams favour & wasn't a equitable contest.

thankfully sanctioning that technique has largely eradicated it, although i did see ireland do it unpunished v italy.

i'm tougher on C&O bindings now, mauls are much better more equitable [& more fun] IME.

 

[ChrisR]

Usually I'm on the side of allowing things that are not specifically prohibited by Law. This is an exception as I see no positive aspect to it.

 

[menace]

Specifically covered in ARU GMGs:

[LAWS]Players bound on the side of the maul may not ‘slide’ forward or ‘swim’ around the maul. These players are not remaining bound and are not caught up in the maul, and are therefore offside.[/LAWS]

precactly! and luckily 'slide' and 'swim' are well defined in that document too. :wink: