uncontested maul restart

[Pinky]

I think we are following law. If the opposition do not engage, no maul has formed. If the ball is moved to the back, then if the ball carrier moves forward, he makes contact with a player in front which is normally accidental offside. If opponents try and engage they are shielded by the players in front so it is a penalty for obstruction.

 

[didds]

But the ok isn't ever given is it? Scrum yes

 

[ChrisR]

Is an "ok" like a "PK"?

 

[crossref]

I think we are following law. If the opposition do not engage, no maul has formed. If the ball is moved to the back, then if the ball carrier moves forward, he makes contact with a player in front which is normally accidental offside. If opponents try and engage they are shielded by the players in front so it is a penalty for obstruction.

Yes that's the Law
But we are guided to give a scrum

 

[Pinky]

Yes that's the Law
But we are guided to give a scrum

Yes because in this instance we are guided to apply the sanction for the first offence and not let it escalate to full penalty.

 

[didds]

In this scenario hasn't a maul formed?

No. Because the ball carrier is not in contact with an opponent. The opponent cannot get to him because he is obstructed by the attackers between them

Didds

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Sorry. Typo.

 

[Phil E]

No. Because the ball carrier is not in contact with an opponent. The opponent cannot get to him because he is obstructed by the attackers between them
.

But that's how most mauls form at a lineout.

Opposition cant contact the jumper until he get to the ground, but he quite often hands off the ball to the ripper as or before he hits the deck. So the opposition never bind onto the ball carrier, they bind onto the front man who usually hasn't got the ball at this time.

 

[ChuckieB]

But that's how most mauls form at a lineout.

Opposition cant contact the jumper until he get to the ground, but he quite often hands off the ball to the ripper as or before he hits the deck. So the opposition never bind onto the ball carrier, they bind onto the front man who usually hasn't got the ball at this time.

Well, perhaps he shouldn't hand off the ball until he hits the ground?

Disciplines at the lineout are going to pot, What, with early jumping, endless swapping positions at the line out and dummy hops towards the line....(Italy only served to confuse themselves with one of their attempts, if I recall correctly)

It's a right mess and in many respects can't be ignored not material. Even squint throws are controversial in their own right.

A line out should be predominantly a way to getting the ball back into play quickly (hence WR love the quick throw in). Yet it is being used as a set piece mechanism that effectively reduces the contest for the ball.

Is that good for the game when they result is less contest and more confusion?

 

[didds]

But that's how most mauls form at a lineout.

Opposition cant contact the jumper until he get to the ground, but he quite often hands off the ball to the ripper as or before he hits the deck. So the opposition never bind onto the ball carrier, they bind onto the front man who usually hasn't got the ball at this time.

Shrug. Clearly the laws haven't been followed properly by the bloke with the whistle.

 

[Phil E]

Shrug. Clearly the laws haven't been followed properly by the bloke with the whistle.

Shrug, I can blow the whistle for every single infringement in the book if you want me to, but we will play penalty to penalty and you wont get any rugby. Or you can leave it to me to let the game flow, using materiality and judgement? Your choice?

 

[Donk93953]

Okay...I’m watching the ball marched downfield 20 meters by Ireland in an unopposed maul against the USA.
The ball is so deep in the maul, USA tacklers are making contact with the ball carrier at the rear of the maul.
How the heck is USA penalized for being offside?
What am I missing that makes this unopposed maul legal?

 

[Phil E]

Okay...I’m watching the ball marched downfield 20 meters by Ireland in an unopposed maul against the USA.
The ball is so deep in the maul, USA tacklers are making contact with the ball carrier at the rear of the maul.
How the heck is USA penalized for being offside?
What am I missing that makes this unopposed maul legal?

You have said it’s a maul, so it must have met the conditions for a maul. If the USA players all leave the maul, it’s still a maul and the USA players must join from their side.

 

[Donk93953]

You have said it’s a maul, so it must have met the conditions for a maul. If the USA players all leave the maul, it’s still a maul and the USA players must join from their side.

No, I said it’s an unopposed maul....
Per your response of May, 2016....”

As a new referee I am trying to piece together the Laws that apply when a team defending a lineout elect not to form and contest a maul.​

So, a team (blue) throw in and win the ball at the lineout. Let's say three blue players bind to the blue player who caught the ball. No red players have made contact with anyone during the lineout and nobody from the red team binds to the ball carrier, so no maul has formed.​

Blue now start to move towards the red goal line. Law 19.9 says that no matter how far blue progress the lineout is not over, since there is no ruck or maul to cross the line of touch. Is there another Law that I am missing at this point?​

What I have seen happen next is for a red player to then go around to the back of the blue players and attempt to steal the ball. Isn't the offside line through the ball at this point? Why isn't the red player offside under Law 19.14 (c)?​

I'm confused and just hoping this doesn't happen in a game I am refereeing until I manage to get my head around it. ​

Jon​

Hi Jon

The IRB (now World Rugby) issued a clarification in 2014 which explained how this should be refereed.

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.​

So in your scenario, as soon as you see that Blue are forming a 'would be' maul, and that Red are not engaging, you need to see where the ball is.

If it is with the front player, it is legal to move forward and Red must either tackle the ball carrier (below the waist), or bind to him (above the waist, full arm bind) to form a maul. As no maul forms initially the lineout is over when the ball leaves the lineout.

If the ball is at the back of the 'would be' maul, then you need to shout "use it". If Blue play the ball, play on and keep the game flowing. If they fail to do so, then it is a scrum to Red for accidental offside.

Run this scenario through your head a few times, so that when it happens it will look familiar and you will know what to do.

The Rugby Ref

 

[Donk93953]

No, I said it’s an unopposed maul....
Per your response of May, 2016....”

As a new referee I am trying to piece together the Laws that apply when a team defending a lineout elect not to form and contest a maul.​

So, a team (blue) throw in and win the ball at the lineout. Let's say three blue players bind to the blue player who caught the ball. No red players have made contact with anyone during the lineout and nobody from the red team binds to the ball carrier, so no maul has formed.​

Blue now start to move towards the red goal line. Law 19.9 says that no matter how far blue progress the lineout is not over, since there is no ruck or maul to cross the line of touch. Is there another Law that I am missing at this point?​

What I have seen happen next is for a red player to then go around to the back of the blue players and attempt to steal the ball. Isn't the offside line through the ball at this point? Why isn't the red player offside under Law 19.14 (c)?​

I'm confused and just hoping this doesn't happen in a game I am refereeing until I manage to get my head around it. ​

Jon​

Hi Jon

The IRB (now World Rugby) issued a clarification in 2014 which explained how this should be refereed.

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.​

So in your scenario, as soon as you see that Blue are forming a 'would be' maul, and that Red are not engaging, you need to see where the ball is.

If it is with the front player, it is legal to move forward and Red must either tackle the ball carrier (below the waist), or bind to him (above the waist, full arm bind) to form a maul. As no maul forms initially the lineout is over when the ball leaves the lineout.

If the ball is at the back of the 'would be' maul, then you need to shout "use it". If Blue play the ball, play on and keep the game flowing. If they fail to do so, then it is a scrum to Red for accidental offside.

Run this scenario through your head a few times, so that when it happens it will look familiar and you will know what to do.

The Rugby Ref

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Okay...I’m watching the ball marched downfield 20 meters by Ireland in an unopposed maul against the USA.
The ball is so deep in the maul, USA tacklers are making contact with the ball carrier at the rear of the maul.
How the heck is USA penalized for being offside?
What am I missing that makes this unopposed maul legal?

How did the mass of players start?


1: Did a maul form and then the defenders left it.

or

2: Was it only ever a group of players from one team?

If it was "1" then it remains a maul and the defenders must rejoin as per the law relating to the maul. If this was the case theen tif the go around the maul and then try t obind on or tackle the BC they are Offside and trying to collapse a maul. Both PK offences.

If is was "2" The no maul has ever existed and the ball must remain at the front of the group of players and the BC can be tackled. If the ball is moved back throught the maul, The call should be "USE IT" and the ball must leave or the offence is by the ball carriers.

Whether or not the ref got it right depends on which scenarion we are discussing. Can you advise or do you have a video?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Shrug, I can blow the whistle for every single infringement in the book if you want me to, but we will play penalty to penalty and you wont get any rugby. Or you can leave it to me to let the game flow, using materiality and judgement? Your choice?

Preventing players gettign to the ball carrier by obstruction at a line out is pretty much always going to be material. This is why the instruction is "USE IT" followed by a scrum angainst the ball carriers team

As a learned expert states:

...then you need to shout "use it". If Blue play the ball, play on and keep the game flowing. If they fail to do so, then it is a scrum to Red for accidental offside.
Run this scenario through your head a few times, so that when it happens it will look familiar and you will know what to do.

 

[Donk93953]

Scenario #2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QCkoLWhlHUU

36.40 on the game clock

excuse me, referee calls ‘in on the side’ as the penalty...Im still bewildered

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not a clear image for me so, this may be nonsesne:


It's not clear that where the ball is, in that the catcher may well have his hands on the ball until quite late in the clip. A White player (far side) does seem move towards the mass to bind after the "mass" has moved a considerable distance. That may be where the "maul is created" a second white player then comes around.

If my view through the grain is that the front man is still in possession then it is a legal drive. Though at that speed we are getting close to a wedge.

The question then moves to the white player on the far side. Does he bind creating a maul? A clearer picture not a shot off your TV might help

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Taking the above into consideration and the "reach" of the jumper which suggests handing the ball back I'd be inclined to have called "NO MAUL USE IT!"

As indicated above a better image may change that.

 

[Pinky]

It seemed to me that there was a clear intention for white not to engage and despite that Ireland formed a maul type formation and ran forward. For me I woudl have suggested calling no maul, use it of scrum to USA for accidental offside.