PDA

View Full Version : A non-ruck followed by a non-maul



ChrisR
05-05-15, 13:05
There is some interesting refereeing in this 10 minute match highlights from the Chiefs v. Cheetahs.

www.superxv.tv/video/chiefs-v-cheetahs-rd-7-2015-super-rugby-video-highlights_05716d4c6.html

Start at 1.24. Black gets tackled and get plenty of support over and behind the ball. Blue stay out of it so no ruck forms.

Black picks up the ball and is bound by a player each side. A lone Blue player comes in to make the tackle as black hands the ball back to Black 6 who drives forward.

A second Blue player is brushed off by a black player in front of and to the side of the Black BC who breaks through and scores.

Clearly, by Blue not committing to the ruck opened the door for Black.

However, here is the critical question: Did the Blue player, in attempting to tackle the Black player who picked up the ball, form a maul?

If the answer is NO (he was tackling the legs not binding on the body) then then the players in front of Black 6 were either obstructing or accidently offside.

What is your call?

Here is another one from the Chiefs:

www.superxv.tv/video/chiefs-v-western-force-rd-11-2015-super-rugby-video-highlights-2015_16356057a.html

Another non-ruck with a pick-up by Black. Here the ball is smuggled back before any White players joins to create the maul. The White who dives in from the side doesn't count.

crossref
05-05-15, 13:05
great clip.

also of note is in the first phase, the non-ruck, blue actually observe offside lines as if it is a ruck. So perhaps they considered that they had formed a ruck, and left it.

didds
05-05-15, 13:05
interesting.

As oft discussed here, an attempt to TACKLE doesn't start a maul. There are no blues othewise connected. The ball can clearly be seen being helfd by a player not at the front and the players to the frionge at the front are blocking a view/access to the BC when he appears to run free and staright on.

All I can say is that in the real time view of it, it just looked a bit maul like and hence play on.

Did the ref go upstairs with this ?

didds

The Fat
05-05-15, 14:05
[QUOTE=Marauder;298142]There is some interesting refereeing in this 10 minute match highlights from the Chiefs v. Cheetahs.

www.superxv.tv/video/chiefs-v-cheetahs-rd-7-2015-super-rugby-video-highlights_05716d4c6.html

Start at 1.24. Black gets tackled and get plenty of support over and behind the ball. Blue stay out of it so no ruck forms.

Black picks up the ball and is bound by a player each side. A lone Blue player comes in to make the tackle as black hands the ball back to Black 6 who drives forward.

A second Blue player is brushed off by a black player in front of and to the side of the Black BC who breaks through and scores.

Clearly, by Blue not committing to the ruck opened the door for Black.

However, here is the critical question: Did the Blue player, in attempting to tackle the Black player who picked up the ball, form a maul?

If the answer is NO (he was tackling the legs not binding on the body) then then the players in front of Black 6 were either obstructing or accidently offside.

What is your call?

QUOTE]

That is obstruction for me. Although the referee doesn't need to call "maul" when one does form, Joubert will normally make that call. Blue is clearly attempting a low tackle. Black players in front of the ball carrier actually grab the would be tackler by the jumper when he is on the ground to try to make it look like he is somehow part of a maul. It would have been interesting to see Joubert's ruling had the initial tackle been successful. I believe this is an error by the referee but it is not the biggest mistake that he made in this game. You only see the very last of the non-maul following a lineout where blue score a try. I have previously posted the video of that try in one of the non-engagement at the lineout threads. Black decide not to engage the maul following a lineout. Blue start to move the ball back thinking black will form the maul. When they realise that black is standing off and have opened a gap, blue transfer the ball back to the front man and Craig Joubert calls play on making the strange call of "Play on. The ball carrier had the ball", or words to that effect. Joubert wrongly awards the try. At one stage, the original front man has both hands on the backs of some of the players bound to him before he has the ball given back to him. Definitely not one of his best games but it does highlight that the referee must know where the ball is when there is anything that remotely resembles a maul even though the two we are discussing here seemed reasonably straight forward. Would love to have seen his report card if he had an assessor for that game.

beckett50
06-05-15, 10:05
To me it is obstruction, as the ball carrier is being shielded by his team mates.. CJ got it wrong IMO.

However, I think that his explanation to Michael Fitzgerald as to why he was being penalised and then getting a YC was a good example of effective game management. Nice touch.

Rich_NL
06-05-15, 12:05
New user (and new ref) here, hello!

That looks like obstruction. There was a question recently with the Six Nations match between England and Ireland that is similar:
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-ireland-england-maul-1968803-Mar2015/

The tackle on its own was jeudged not a problem, but (as I understood it) other team mates joining on made it a maul. If the tackle had failed and the tackler had stayed hanging on though... it's not really clear whether or at what point a tackle becomes a bind. Presumably not unless the tackler is on his feet.

ChrisR
06-05-15, 14:05
Rich, welcome to RR and thanx for the link.

This aspect of the game is becoming increasingly difficult to referee and the more examples we have to review the better.

I agree with "obstruction". "Accidental offsides" is a whole different animal.