PDA

View Full Version : [Maul] Forming a Maul - Or not?



talbazar
28-08-16, 16:08
Hi All,

I did have a look but didn't find this exact subject. So accept my apologies if it's already somewhere.

That could happen in open play, but most often than not in a line out, so that's the scenario I'll describe.

Blue vs. Red
Line out, Blue throw in.

Blue Second pod jumps and catches (no issue with the throw or the catch)
Blue jumper gets down, ball in hand and support players bind in a maul-like formation (binding is done behind the ball carrier, all legal there)
Red decide not to challenge the maul-like formation. They do not leave the line out (so no PK there)
Blue Jumper keeps the ball (all good there)

Red #2, alone, goes and tackle the ball carrier.

In your view, what just happened?
a) If the tackle is successful
1.a. Maul formed and collapsed in the same move?
or
2.a. Just a tackle, play on with that
b) If the tackle is not successful and only Red #2 goes to ground
1.b. Maul formed?
or
2.b Attempted tackle, no maul formed, we are still in this maul-like formation and admitting Blue haven't moved, the line out hasn't ended?

I do have my views on this, but I would love to have a broader "poll" on this...

Thanks a lot,
Pierre.

Christy
28-08-16, 18:08
Hi pierre
From what you describe.
What just happened is red 2 just made a tackle.
Maul not formed & collapsed in same move .as it is a tackle only situation.

You say if tackle not succsesfull and red 2 only goes to ground ,
To answer your percific question , i would say still no maul formed.
Im sure reds team mates at this stage would of moved by now to help red 2 , and either form maul or re tackle attempt again .

chbg
28-08-16, 23:08
World Rugby Clarification 9 2006:

3. During a lineout, the players who won the ball from a maul but no opponent goes to join this group of players.
a. Does this group of players constitute a maul?
b. Can an opponent tackle the ball carrier?
c. Does the ball carrier have to be the lead player?

The answer to 3b was "Yes".

L'irlandais
29-08-16, 13:08
Salut Pierre,
This harps back to a 2007 Italian tactic, which though risky, worked for them.
Watch these linked clips (http://ovaldigest.com/index.php/return-magnificent-lineout-maul-withdrawl/), in the third clip we see Jérome Garces getting it wrong in Thommond Park.

To my mind, if top refs can get it wrong, it is because the law makers haven't really explained it ; but perhaps somebody can find a more relevant clarifications than the following :
Some clarification - question 3 (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=17&clarification=34)
a little more light shed (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=17&clarification=60)

talbazar
30-08-16, 04:08
Thanks a lot guys...

Even though, yet again, the law writers have managed to confuse the hell out of me...

Clarification 9-2006 states that you can tackle the ball carrier (in my OP) --> Then successful or not, in an attempt tackle, no maul has been formed.

but

Clarification 8-2003 states that if one opponent binds onto the ball carrier (in my OP) then a maul is formed. So if the "tackle" is successful he is collapsing the maul, if it is not successful then he is not staying on his feet; both possibly sanctioned by a PK.
The important bit to me in this clarification is the emphasis on the definition of binding: between hips and shoulder.


In conclusion and from now on, let's judge the fact and not the intent


1. Grasping the ball carrier above the hips (and below shoulders of course) --> Maul formed (collapsed or not)

2. Grasping the ball carrier below the hips --> Attempt tackle (successful or not)

But

3. If it's a line out, and the grasping and bringing to ground is done immediately, then it's a tackle no matter where the grasping is

4. If it's a line out, and the grasping is above the hips and the bringing to ground is not successful then a maul has been formed.



:deadhorse:

didds
30-08-16, 09:08
AIUI ..

tackle = grasps BELOW the waist
bind = grasps ABOVE the waist

and this is supported in law by the definition of binding.

However, I was under the impression that at the stage of the catcher landing, and his team mates surrounding him "maul like" but no oppo binding/forming a maul, then the offside line was still the LoT, and so the defenders CANNOT just run around the back.

Instead the catching team have to drive/move beyond the LoT for open play to now be operative.

AND...

If the defenders merely "bump" the mass of bodies IF the ball has been transferred behind the front player then its an immediate UIOLI call and the defenders have negated a driving maul situation.

The question then comes if the catchers form a "non-maul" with the ball at the front still but do not move forwards, and the defenders thus stand still and wait...

... what happens then as we have stalemate?


didds

beckett50
30-08-16, 09:08
For my mind Didds has is it spot on. But with regard to the tackle I wouldn't get so distracted by the type of bind, but more so that the act of the tackle and bringing the ball carrier to ground happens immediately. Just pause for breath before calling the Maul just in case the 'sack' is successful and you don't have the proverbial egg on your face

However, for the scenario where the ball is still in the possession of the catcher I would suggest that he/she is stood so close to the LoT to enable a tackle to take place :biggrin:

didds
30-08-16, 09:08
However, for the scenario where the ball is still in the possession of the catcher I would suggest that he/she is stood so close to the LoT to enable a tackle to take place :biggrin:

If the ball is with the catcher then its presumably at the front so a tackle can take place. LoT is ireelevant. its when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul, but the non-maul doens;t move the the offside oline is LoT and defenders cannot cross it to tackle the now BC

didds

ChrisR
30-08-16, 12:08
19.14 Offside when taking part in the lineout.(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if, after the ball has touched a player or the ground, that player steps in front of the ball,unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent. Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.Until the maul forms a player "taking part in the lineout" can move beyond the offside line (the ball) to tackle the BC.Unstated, but assumed (???), this will include:The player throwing in the ball.Any player with the ball, not just the catcher.

- - - Updated - - -

19.14 Offside when taking part in the lineout.(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if, after the ball has touched a player or the ground, that player steps in front of the ball,unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent. Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.Until the maul forms a player "taking part in the lineout" can move beyond the offside line (the ball) to tackle the BC.Unstated, but assumed (???), this will include:The player throwing in the ball.Any player with the ball, not just the catcher.

chbg
30-08-16, 18:08
when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul, but the non-maul doens't move, the the offside oline is LoT and defenders cannot cross it to tackle the now BCdidds

That is then Obstruction, deemed accidental, so a scrum to non-catching side. But I can't find any specific Law Reference or Clarification.

L'irlandais
30-08-16, 22:08
- - - Updated - - -


... what happens then as we have stalemate?


diddsIt is what happens in the POC clip, the Ball carrier (Paulie) keeps the ball at the front, and binds to an unwilling defender, to form a maul. Only to be penalized by the match referee for truck and trailer.

The Fat
31-08-16, 02:08
If the ball is with the catcher then its presumably at the front so a tackle can take place. LoT is ireelevant. its when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul, but the non-maul doens;t move the the offside oline is LoT and defenders cannot cross it to tackle the now BC

didds

Not quite.
".........when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul........."
the lineout is over at that point and we are in general play.
Any defender can now run around the "non-maul/pack of players" etc., and attempt to tackle the ball carrier.
The offside line only continues to be the LoT if the jumper/BC remains at the front of his group of players (i.e. the non-maul thingamyjig), unless of course they decide to move forward in which case the offside line disappears when the ball carrier moves beyond the LoT

The Fat
31-08-16, 03:08
AIUI ..

tackle = grasps BELOW the waist
bind = grasps ABOVE the waist

and this is supported in law by the definition of binding.



Just remember that for a maul to form we need the ball carrier to be HELD by one or more opposition players and for at least one team mate of the BC to BIND onto him.
The defender is not required to bind.

talbazar
31-08-16, 05:08
Maul definition
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. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

So are we saying that until the maul-like formation moves towards one of the goal lines, there is no maul. No matter how many players are involved and how they held/bind/other... ?

:deadhorse:

Christy
31-08-16, 09:08
Not quite.
".........when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul........."
the lineout is over at that point and we are in general play.
Any defender can now run around the "non-maul/pack of players" etc., and attempt to tackle the ball carrier.
The offside line only continues to be the LoT if the jumper/BC remains at the front of his group of players (i.e. the non-maul thingamyjig), unless of course they decide to move forward in which case the offside line disappears when the ball carrier moves beyond the LoT

not quite a bit more
if ball goes to back of non maul pack of players .
this is now blocking --penalty .

The Fat
31-08-16, 09:08
not quite a bit more
if ball goes to back of non maul pack of players .
this is now blocking --penalty .

Not quite .... and some.

if the ball goes to the back of the non-maul pack of players,
the referee will call "Use it".
If they don't comply immediately, it is a turn-over scrum for "accidental offside" i.e. not a PK for obstruction.

My earlier point was to highlight that once the ball is moved away from the LoT, unless a maul forms, the lineout has ended and offside lines disappear.

Christy
31-08-16, 11:08
Not quite .... and some.

if the ball goes to the back of the non-maul pack of players,
the referee will call "Use it".
If they don't comply immediately, it is a turn-over scrum for "accidental offside" i.e. not a PK for obstruction.

My earlier point was to highlight that once the ball is moved away from the LoT, unless a maul forms, the lineout has ended and offside lines disappear.

quite .
yes agree , better game management , good empathy for team who legitimately probably went to enter a maul .
dont punish them too much , for opposition looking to gain penalty { from me }
which i now conquer would be too harsh .

The Fat
31-08-16, 13:08
quite .
yes agree , better game management , good empathy for team who legitimately probably went to enter a maul .
dont punish them too much , for opposition looking to gain penalty { from me }
which i now conquer would be too harsh .

Which is why World Rugby decided that a scrum for accidental offside was a better outcome for the team winning the lineout and wanting to create a contest than a PK to the non-engaging opposition.
Everything I have posted is simply as per WR's memo from 2014

chbg
31-08-16, 16:08
Everything I have posted is simply as per WR's memo from 2014

Have you still got that memo? Because I don't, not because I disagree with amything you say; I need to remind myself of it in detail.

Thanks.

DocY
31-08-16, 16:08
I think this is the one:

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout
- if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, PK to attacking team;
- 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:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
- if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to use it which they must do immediately...
- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for accidental offside rather than PK for obstruction.

didds
31-08-16, 22:08
So - summarising:

Red are defending, blue throwing.
Blue jumps and catches, all legit, then lands. Blue players form around blue catcher in a quasi maul like structure, henceforth known as the "blob"

1) Ball at front of blob.
Red options = form maul / tackle blue BC / do nothing, force blue to do something (presumably march upfield!)

2) Ball moved to middle of blob
Red option = "bounce" into front of blob, earn scrum, for accidental offside

3) Ball moved to rear of blob, irrespective of blob moving or not
Red option = run around back, tackle rear BC / "bounce" into front of blob, earn scrum, for accidental offside

anything I've missed?

didds

beckett50
31-08-16, 22:08
If the ball is with the catcher then its presumably at the front so a tackle can take place. LoT is ireelevant. its when the ball gets transferred to the rear of the non-maul, but the non-maul doens;t move the the offside oline is LoT and defenders cannot cross it to tackle the now BC didds

D'oh! Thanks for putting me straight Didds.

The Fat
01-09-16, 00:09
D'oh! Thanks for putting me straight Didds.

You need to re read the last few posts of mine re offside line

talbazar
01-09-16, 03:09
So - summarising:

Red are defending, blue throwing.
Blue jumps and catches, all legit, then lands. Blue players form around blue catcher in a quasi maul like structure, henceforth known as the "blob"

1) Ball at front of blob.
Red options = form maul / tackle blue BC / do nothing, force blue to do something (presumably march upfield!)

2) Ball moved to middle of blob
Red option = "bounce" into front of blob, earn scrum, for accidental offside

3) Ball moved to rear of blob, irrespective of blob moving or not
Red option = run around back, tackle rear BC / "bounce" into front of blob, earn scrum, for accidental offside

anything I've missed?

didds

I think you got it all here, but the one question I really have:

Take 1) above and one of the red players (say Red #2) chooses to tackle the BC.
But
Tackle fails and Red #2 ends up on the ground alone.

What do we have?
a) still a blob
b) a maul
c) a blob or a maul depending on where the contact was made by Red #2 onto BC
d) a blob or a maul depending on either we believe it looked like Red #2 was attempting to tackle or attempting to create a maul (with the same outcome of him on the deck)

Drum roll....

didds
01-09-16, 09:09
D'oh! Thanks for putting me straight Didds.


from what others have said I am wrong on that point - so I summarised it all later for confirmation.

didds

DocY
01-09-16, 09:09
I think you got it all here, but the one question I really have:

Take 1) above and one of the red players (say Red #2) chooses to tackle the BC.
But
Tackle fails and Red #2 ends up on the ground alone.

What do we have?
a) still a blob
b) a maul
c) a blob or a maul depending on where the contact was made by Red #2 onto BC
d) a blob or a maul depending on either we believe it looked like Red #2 was attempting to tackle or attempting to create a maul (with the same outcome of him on the deck)

Drum roll....

Still a blob for me - no opposition player bound = no maul.

OB..
01-09-16, 09:09
I think you got it all here, but the one question I really have:

Take 1) above and one of the red players (say Red #2) chooses to tackle the BC.
But
Tackle fails and Red #2 ends up on the ground alone.In previous discussions I think we have agreed that
(1) if #2 tackles below the hips, that does not constitute a bind, so therefore no maul.
(2) if #2 grabs the shoulders to pull the player over, that does not constitute a bind either, so again no maul.
(3) if #2 grabs around the torso, that is a bind and we have a maul, not a tackle.

didds
01-09-16, 09:09
so what if red definitely binds to BC at front of blob and tries to drive them back (solo!) - that's a maul surely.

If that solo red defender then falls down and disengages the maul AIUI is not over.

So when does talbazar's scenario meet mine... is the question he is asking I guess

didds

DocY
01-09-16, 10:09
so what if red definitely binds to BC at front of blob and tries to drive them back (solo!) - that's a maul surely.

If that solo red defender then falls down and disengages the maul AIUI is not over.


Yep, if he's bound as you describe, it's a maul, but if he disengages, leaving no opposition players, then the maul is over - the BC is no longer part of a maul, so it's a successful end.

didds
01-09-16, 10:09
ah - mea culpa. I thought I recalled a law clarification that said if all the defneders disanegage and run away the maul as a legal entity continues?

didds

Phil E
01-09-16, 10:09
ah - mea culpa. I thought I recalled a law clarification that said if all the defneders disanegage and run away the maul as a legal entity continues?

didds

You are correct.

It's still a maul.

DocY
01-09-16, 10:09
ah - mea culpa. I thought I recalled a law clarification that said if all the defneders disanegage and run away the maul as a legal entity continues?

didds

Now you mention it, I do remember something, but I think it referred to voluntary en-masse disengagement (though I guess when you have one opponent who leaves it would be a masse of one player) - it was to stop the team not in possession disengaging, then claiming there was obstruction when they can't get to the BC, IIRC.

DocY
01-09-16, 11:09
Here you go. Not quite as I remember



Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling4-2008
Union / HP Ref ManagerRFU
Law Reference17
Date24 September 200

Request
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?


Law 17 Maul, Definition
A maul occurs 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. A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.

As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul.


The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

Phil E
01-09-16, 11:09
It's part of the law now, that clarification was superseded.

Law 17
(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave
the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may
continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs
through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in
possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the
team in possession at the maul.

DocY
01-09-16, 11:09
It's part of the law now, that clarification was superseded.

Law 17
(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave
the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may
continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs
through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in
possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the
team in possession at the maul.

Do you have the sub-section? I can't find that bit in the 2016 lawbook.

Phil E
01-09-16, 12:09
Do you have the sub-section? I can't find that bit in the 2016 lawbook.

17.4 (f)

didds
01-09-16, 13:09
I guess we are just ijn the territory of what constitutes voluntary now!

So if a sole defending mauler accidentally falls over and disengages the maul is over?

didds

Phil E
01-09-16, 14:09
I guess we are just ijn the territory of what constitutes voluntary now!

So if a sole defending mauler accidentally falls over and disengages the maul is over?

didds

Not in my book. Unless he gets dragged out by the opposition (which is an offence) he has taken the decision to leave himself. Still a maul.

DocY
01-09-16, 14:09
Not in my book. Unless he gets dragged out by the opposition (which is an offence) he has taken the decision to leave himself. Still a maul.

Playing Devil's advocate a bit, but I'm thinking of this situation:

Red BC makes a break and runs into the blue fullback who grabs onto him and holds on long enough for a supporting red player to also bind on to the BC leading to a three-player maul moving towards the blue goal line.

If the blue holder on is shaken off and the red supporter stays bound, does this mean the remaining blue players can't try to tackle him from behind?

I suspect this falls into the pit of situations that weren't thought about when the laws were worded, along with a measure of not terribly good management from the referee.

DarrenJones
15-09-16, 04:09
Back to the op wouldn't players prebound to the ball carrier and moving forward before contact with opposition not be considered flying wedge?

DarrenJones
15-09-16, 04:09
Sorry missed pg 2 with the clarification on teams refusing to engage at lineout

OB..
15-09-16, 15:09
Back to the op wouldn't players prebound to the ball carrier and moving forward before contact with opposition not be considered flying wedge?I think we should stop trying to decide what constitutes a Flying Wedge, because it is not properly defined. What matters is whether or not the referee considers the play to be dangerous.