uncontested maul restart

[crossref]

Interesting. So if a defender comes around and stands next to attacking SH and ref calls 'use it'? Would we tell the defender to leave SH alone until he passes it?

You are correct to point out the problem , the law and the guidance are not really in sync

We have a group of blue players formed up expecting a maul, with the ball at the back

It's not a maul, so they can't move forward
But if they do move forward we are told not give a PK for obstruction (as per the law) but instead a scrum

But if it's not a maul there is no Law that allows the referee to order them to 'use it' but we are told to tell them that anyway

And if it's not a maul then the ball has left the line of touch so the lineout is over , so we can't penalise blue for leaving the lineout ... But we are told that if blue retreat then to PK them for it

And if it's not a maul, as you say, blue can come round to the red side of the ball

Let's face it, it's a mess

 

[ChrisR]

Well played, crossref, you have nailed the problem. So, now for the solution.

After the ball is caught in the lineout and the teammates in the lineout bind to him and the opponents chose not to engage:

If the ball is held at the front and the mob advances

the defenders can chose to engage above the hips and form the maul or tackle the BC below the hips and bring him to ground. Either way there is no offence by either side. Once the ball moves off the line- of-touch (or 'mark' in 2018 terms) then we are in general play.

If the ball is passed back to a player behind the catcher then the ball has left the mark and the lineout is over, we are in general play and any defender can come around the mob to tackle the ball carrier.

If the ball is passed back before a maul is formed and an attempt is mad to reach the BC through the mob or the mob advances and is then engaged by the defenders then "accidental offsides" is the call and a defending scrum is ordered.

 

[Phil E]

If the ball is passed back before a maul is formed and an attempt is mad to reach the BC through the mob or the mob advances and is then engaged by the defenders then "accidental offsides" is the call and a defending scrum is ordered.

In this scenario hasn't a maul formed?

 

[ChrisR]

No. If the ball is at the back of a mob then players in front of the BC are obstructing. A maul forms when the BC is first grasped by a defender and then the BC's teammates bind on.

 

[Phil E]

No. If the ball is at the back of a mob then players in front of the BC are obstructing. A maul forms when the BC is first grasped by a defender and then the BC's teammates bind on.

But that hardly ever happens at a lineout.

Generally if the ball is handed to a ripper and then the defenders bind onto the jumper (who is no longer the ball carrier) we call Maul. Or at least all the referees I watch do.

So what is the difference when the ball is at the back of a mob of players who are all bound to each other and (to quote you) "an attempt is mad to reach the BC through the mob or the mob advances and is then engaged by the defenders". The player trying to fight through the mob or the defender who engages have formed a maul.

This is no different to what everyone has agreed in this thread that "if the ball is at the back and a defender engages above the waist" he has bound on and we have a maul.

 

[DocY]

But that hardly ever happens at a lineout.

Generally if the ball is handed to a ripper and then the defenders bind onto the jumper (who is no longer the ball carrier) we call Maul. Or at least all the referees I watch do.

So what is the difference when the ball is at the back of a mob of players who are all bound to each other and (to quote you) "an attempt is mad to reach the BC through the mob or the mob advances and is then engaged by the defenders". The player trying to fight through the mob or the defender who engages have formed a maul.

This is no different to what everyone has agreed in this thread that "if the ball is at the back and a defender engages above the waist" he has bound on and we have a maul.

Weren't we supposed to clamp down on this a couple of years ago, along with the long presentings and sliding ball carriers?

 

[Phil E]

Weren't we supposed to clamp down on this a couple of years ago, along with the long presentings and sliding ball carriers.

Don't think so.
As I recall it was just long arm transfers and ball carriers sliding back as you say.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=9

 

[ChrisR]

But that hardly ever happens at a lineout.

Generally if the ball is handed to a ripper and then the defenders bind onto the jumper (who is no longer the ball carrier) we call Maul. Or at least all the referees I watch do.

So what is the difference when the ball is at the back of a mob of players who are all bound to each other and (to quote you) "an attempt is mad to reach the BC through the mob or the mob advances and is then engaged by the defenders". The player trying to fight through the mob or the defender who engages have formed a maul.

This is no different to what everyone has agreed in this thread that "if the ball is at the back and a defender engages above the waist" he has bound on and we have a maul.

Yes, I agree that in the general case all this happens pretty much simultaneously and again, I agree, a maul has formed.

However, when the ops don't engage and the ball is passed to the back (not a "long present" or "sliding BC") there is a time where there is not a maul and the ball is behind players in an offside position. Has the lineout ended? I think so and so have the lineout offside lines. If nobody moves this can become a stalemate so it makes sense for the referee to call for the ball to be played away with "Use it!" even tho technically it's not a maul.

If the ops challenge for the ball can they run around behind the mob to get at the BC? If the lineout has ended then I'd say for sure, have at it. If the ops try to go thru the players in front of the ball then I think 'accidental offsides' is fair to to discourage milking a PK. Same with the mob moving forward to force engagement with the ball at the back.

What I don't agree with is the direction that the defending lineout players step aside to leave an unprotected channel for the mob to move through.

 

[Phil E]

Yes, I agree that in the general case all this happens pretty much simultaneously and again, I agree, a maul has formed.

However, when the ops don't engage and the ball is passed to the back (not a "long present" or "sliding BC") there is a time where there is not a maul and the ball is behind players in an offside position. Has the lineout ended? I think so and so have the lineout offside lines. If nobody moves this can become a stalemate so it makes sense for the referee to call for the ball to be played away with "Use it!" even tho technically it's not a maul.

If the ops challenge for the ball can they run around behind the mob to get at the BC? If the lineout has ended then I'd say for sure, have at it. If the ops try to go thru the players in front of the ball then I think 'accidental offsides' is fair to to discourage milking a PK. Same with the mob moving forward to force engagement with the ball at the back.

What I don't agree with is the direction that the defending lineout players step aside to leave an unprotected channel for the mob to move through.

If the mob move forward I am going Peep Accidental Offside.
If the defenders move forward and bind (try to push through) then I am going Play On as they have chosen to engage.

 

[thepercy]

If the mob move forward I am going Peep Accidental Offside.
If the defenders move forward and bind (try to push through) then I am going Play On as they have chosen to engage.

You cannot pass the ball back before the maul is formed by an opponent binding on.

 

[ChrisR]

You cannot pass the ball back before the maul is formed by an opponent binding on.

. . . and if you do and the ops stand off? What then?

 

[ChrisR]

If the mob move forward I am going Peep Accidental Offside.
If the defenders move forward and bind (try to push through) then I am going Play On as they have chosen to engage.

The ball is at the back, the lineout has ended and the ops engage. Are you calling this a maul? In reading 2018 definitions and maul law you may be right as:

Maul: A phase of play consisting of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

However, under 2017 law we find Law 17 Maul this:

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.

In our scenario the "Maul begins . . ." doesn't happen as the defenders can't reach the BC unless they run around the mob to get to him.

I think that "accidental offsides" is a better call than "play on".

 

[Dickie E]

I think that "accidental offsides" is a better call than "play on".

I agree. If the ball is at the back before the opposition has engaged, that is obstruction and not a maul.

 

[beckett50]

would you permit a defender top run around the back to tackle the BC if they do not move forward CR?

didds

No.

The ball has not left the LoT (Line out) and so the off-side lines are still in place.

If the ball is at the back you need to direct the team in possession to "Use it!". If they fail so to do within the requisite 5 seconds then scrum, turnover ball - on the first occasion.

Likewise if the ball is at the back and the team start to rumble forward you need to shout "Use it!", if they so fail then - for the first offence - it is scrum turnover. Next time full PK for the offside.

Not sure why we are asking this now since it has been part of Law Clarification now for a couple of years. I got a load of video clips detailing legal and illegal practice at the time from the ARU.

 

[Dickie E]

Not sure why we are asking this now since it has been part of Law Clarification now for a couple of years. I got a load of video clips detailing legal and illegal practice at the time from the ARU.

I can't find that Clarification. Can you cite it please?

 

[beckett50]

I can't find that Clarification. Can you cite it please?

Hi Dickie E

Try looking here:
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=9

If you PM me your e-mail I can send you all the stuff that one of your colleagues sent to me.

 

[ChrisR]

No. The ball has not left the LoT (Line out) and so the off-side lines are still in place.

The WR law clarification you referenced in your post #56 addresses actions after a maul has formed so it doesn't apply to the situation here where the ball has been passed back before the ops engage.

Under 2018 lineout law the lineout ends when "The ball or a player in possession of the ball leaves the lineout".

So the question is: Has the ball, by moving back from the mark (line of touch), left the lineout?
WR has determined that players stepping back from the mark (so as not to engage and form a maul) have left the lineout and are liable for sanction. Shouldn't we apply the same criteria for the ball?

 

[Phil E]

The WR law clarification you referenced in your post #56 addresses actions after a maul has formed so it doesn't apply to the situation here where the ball has been passed back before the ops engage.

Under 2018 lineout law the lineout ends when "The ball or a player in possession of the ball leaves the lineout".

So the question is: Has the ball, by moving back from the mark (line of touch), left the lineout?
WR has determined that players stepping back from the mark (so as not to engage and form a maul) have left the lineout and are liable for sanction. Shouldn't we apply the same criteria for the ball?

Do you allow all the backs to come forward?
NO.
So the lineout hasn't ended.

 

[ChrisR]

Do you allow all the backs to come forward?
NO.
So the lineout hasn't ended.

Set the criteria for the lineout ending first. If it has then the backs can come up.

I think the simple approach is this: Require that the ball be kept at the front until the ops engage. This allows the ball to move forward without penalty and keeps the lineout intact until the ball moves off the LoT.

 

[crossref]

We are just dancing around the points I laid out in #41 . The guidance we have all been given on how to manage this is not supported by Law ...