WR Clarifications not being applied at top level

[OB..]

In a scrum , it is rare for a team to win back lost possession. Should pushover scrums be declared illegal?

For there to be a genuine contest for possession in a maul, the ball cannot be moved to the back - which also means the team in possession cannot get it out.

I think we have to accept that after the maul has been successfully formed, the contest is for field position.

 

[OB..]

Stuart Berry: Hi Simon, thanks for your mail, good question. There is no real new law here, just a recap of what the law was. Players need to join a maul from next to or behind the ball-carrier – the ball-carrier can then ‘slip’ back in the maul behind these players accordingly to ensure he is protected at the back.

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-501--stuart-berry/2829633/

 

[Accylad]

Well, that tells me I am wrong then OB.........!

 

[Rich_NL]

For there to be a genuine contest for possession in a maul, the ball cannot be moved to the back - which also means the team in possession cannot get it out.

I think we have to accept that after the maul has been successfully formed, the contest is for field position.

A static maul results in a scrum against the team bringing the ball in - surely the non-carrying team still contest for possession this way?

 

[OB..]

A static maul results in a scrum against the team bringing the ball in - surely the non-carrying team still contest for possession this way?

That is not a contest for possession within the maul, which was my point.

 

[Phil E]

The contest for possession of the ball at a maul is usually at the inception where more than one players have their hands on the ball.
Once the ball is at the back of the maul it is effectively won. The maul then becomes a pushing contest for territory; like a scrum once the ball is won.

 

[Crucial]

The contest for possession of the ball at a maul is usually at the inception where more than one players have their hands on the ball.
Once the ball is at the back of the maul it is effectively won. The maul then becomes a pushing contest for territory; like a scrum once the ball is won.

I'd be happy with that viewpoint, that a maul becomes a territory contest, as long as the major territory gain advantage to the team in possession is somehow kept in check.

In a scrum the team with the ball cannot reorganize, split away or add players to drive to one side of the defenders, so the laws of offside serve good purpose.
In a driving maul the BC team can add players and shift the point of the drive with the advantage that defending players (waiting behind last feet to see which way they will go) cannot join to the side (or swim up, which is effectively allowed to the attacking team by the BC sliding back). The attacking side gets a 5m roll on before a defender can make it a pushing contest again.

So the maul either needs better balance between being a legit attacking tactic unique to the game and being uncontestable or as a pushing contest must be push straight just like a scrum.

 

[OB..]

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-501--stuart-berry/2829633/

Interesting session at this evening's meeting. Briefing by Claire Daniels on the WR Directives for the RWC. She explained that once a maul has formed, it is agreed that the BC can slide back provided he remains bound in.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In a scrum the team with the ball cannot reorganize, split away or add players to drive to one side of the defenders, so the laws of offside serve good purpose.
In a driving maul the BC team can add players and shift the point of the drive with the advantage that defending players (waiting behind last feet to see which way they will go) cannot join to the side (or swim up, which is effectively allowed to the attacking team by the BC sliding back). The attacking side gets a 5m roll on before a defender can make it a pushing contest again.

So the maul either needs better balance between being a legit attacking tactic unique to the game and being uncontestable or as a pushing contest must be push straight just like a scrum.

Also, in a scrum, the team being pushed back cannot remove players to reposition them when it goes sideways, or station them as defenders at the offside line. A scrum is more difficult as a pushing contest because the hindmost player has to dribble the ball to keep it in rather than pick it up and still be effectively bound to the scrum.


The similarity between a maul and scrum ends at the term "pushing contest". The only thing they have in common are that a ball and players are involved.

If WR really want a maul to be a fair contest, then they ought to allow one player, the acting scrum half, to "follow the ball" and to disallow this business of splitting the maul. and driving in a new direction.

 

[TheBFG]

Interesting session at this evening's meeting. Briefing by Claire Daniels on the WR Directives for the RWC. She explained that once a maul has formed, it is agreed that the BC can slide back provided he remains bound in.

So why in the clarification videos do we see Barnes pinging the side for "accidental offside" for doing exactly that :chin:

 

[Phil E]

So why in the clarification videos do we see Barnes pinging the side for "accidental offside" for doing exactly that :chin:

Because in the WB video the ball carrier detached from the maul and then rejoined.
It had nothing to do with the ball carrier sliding back through the maul.

 

[OB..]

So why in the clarification videos do we see Barnes pinging the side for "accidental offside" for doing exactly that :chin:

Because he lost contact.