Collapsed Mauls

[Swat]

Not really a rant but thought this is probably the best place to bring it up.

Does anyone else have a problem with the turnover from a maul rule? I'm not saying that it should be scrapped completely, but why should not bringing a player to the ground be rewarded? It seems ridiculous when everywhere else in the game the objective is to tackle the player. I would like to see this changed to a turnover to the team who dominated the maul, i.e. which ever side is going forward. If, however, a maul is initiated and collapses without going anywhere or going forward then the team with possession should get the scrum feed.

I know this might sound like a whinge to some people given that that we're probably the worst exponents of holding a player up in the tackle but it has always stood out as a rule that was never right to me, especially when your team is driving forward, still in possession of the ball.

 

[Dam0]

Not really a rant but thought this is probably the best place to bring it up.

Does anyone else have a problem with the turnover from a maul rule? I'm not saying that it should be scrapped completely, but why should not bringing a player to the ground be rewarded? It seems ridiculous when everywhere else in the game the objective is to tackle the player. I would like to see this changed to a turnover to the team who dominated the maul, i.e. which ever side is going forward. If, however, a maul is initiated and collapses without going anywhere or going forward then the team with possession should get the scrum feed.

I know this might sound like a whinge to some people given that that we're probably the worst exponents of holding a player up in the tackle but it has always stood out as a rule that was never right to me, especially when your team is driving forward, still in possession of the ball.

I don't agree at all. If a player is so dominated or isolated that he can't even get to ground he should suffer the consequences. I also think that well organised mauls are already so hard to stop that there needs to be a potential downside to them or they would take over the game. If a team manages to legally get in and disrupt a maul by getting through and getting to the ball they should be rewarded for doing so.

It's an issue for Australia mainly because they quite bad at getting held up in the tackles. For some reason it seems to happen 2-3 times a game to them. On the other hand I can't recall it happening to the All Blacks very often. It shouldn't happen very much if the player runs hard with a lowish centre of gravity.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not really a rant but thought this is probably the best place to bring it up.

Does anyone else have a problem with the turnover from a maul rule? I'm not saying that it should be scrapped completely, but why should not bringing a player to the ground be rewarded? It seems ridiculous when everywhere else in the game the objective is to tackle the player. I would like to see this changed to a turnover to the team who dominated the maul, i.e. which ever side is going forward. If, however, a maul is initiated and collapses without going anywhere or going forward then the team with possession should get the scrum feed.

I know this might sound like a whinge to some people given that that we're probably the worst exponents of holding a player up in the tackle but it has always stood out as a rule that was never right to me, especially when your team is driving forward, still in possession of the ball.

Bloody good thinking I reckon...the problem is that some teams would just use any alteration to permit pointless rolling mauls knowing that if stopped, provided they were the last team going forward, they would get the feed. maybe that can be addressed in the way such a law is framed.

 

[Swat]

I don't agree at all. If a player is so dominated or isolated that he can't even get to ground he should suffer the consequences. I also think that well organised mauls are already so hard to stop that there needs to be a potential downside to them or they would take over the game. If a team manages to legally get in and disrupt a maul by getting through and getting to the ball they should be rewarded for doing so.

This is my problem, the mentality should be to keep going forward, to stay on your feet and leg drive, not to fall to the ground because you're outnumbered.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't agree at all. If a player is so dominated or isolated that he can't even get to ground he should suffer the consequences. I also think that well organised mauls are already so hard to stop that there needs to be a potential downside to them or they would take over the game. If a team manages to legally get in and disrupt a maul by getting through and getting to the ball they should be rewarded for doing so.

It's an issue for Australia mainly because they quite bad at getting held up in the tackles. For some reason it seems to happen 2-3 times a game to them. On the other hand I can't recall it happening to the All Blacks very often. It shouldn't happen very much if the player runs hard with a lowish centre of gravity.

I know i will be corrected if I am wrong:
A maul cannot become a ruck and vice versa.

A maul that collapses does not become a ruck: it becomes an unsuccessful maul and a scrum is formed - opposition ball. (Law 17)

Because a maul is formed "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" many so called rucks are actually failed mauls and should result in a scrum - opposition feed.

One of the all blacks weapons for retaining possession is to latch onto the AB ball carrier as he makes contact with his opposition - they drive on through and over the opposition player usually finishing on the ground. technically this is a collapsed maul because there are 3 players - 2 from the ball carrying side.

This is seldom played as such and it should be as it would enliven the contest for possession.

Correspondingly, based on the definition of a maul: 2 defenders holding up the ball carrier is not a maul because there must be the ball carrier + at least one player from each team. This too is frequently not refereed properly.
Now if each of these issues were addressed by policing the laws none of these problems would arise.

 

[Dam0]

This is my problem, the mentality should be to keep going forward, to stay on your feet and leg drive, not to fall to the ground because you're outnumbered.

Generally that is still true, and good teams will often start controlled drives that go forward quickly and result in quick ball. What we are talking about here is players who through a lack of skill/great skill by the defenders get held up and are stationary. Often they are isolated by 2-3 defenders as well. In short, players who get held up and turned over are displaying poor technique and deserve to lose the ball. IMO anyway.

It really shouldn't happen very often in games between good teams and I don't foresee it as being high on the list of potential changes, at least before the 2015 RWC.

 

[Swat]

Generally that is still true, and good teams will often start controlled drives that go forward quickly and result in quick ball. What we are talking about here is players who through a lack of skill/great skill by the defenders get held up and are stationary. Often they are isolated by 2-3 defenders as well. In short, players who get held up and turned over are displaying poor technique and deserve to lose the ball. IMO anyway.

It really shouldn't happen very often in games between good teams and I don't foresee it as being high on the list of potential changes, at least before the 2015 RWC.

If they hold the player up and drive him backwards, by all means they should get the ball, but if they hold the guy up and he still manages to go forward then it's basically a shit tackle.

 

[Dam0]

I know i will be corrected if I am wrong:
A maul cannot become a ruck and vice versa.

That is a thorny chestnut. There is a considerable debate that goes on amongst referees about the truth of the bolded statement.

Here is one of many, many threads from RugbyRefs forum that illustrate the diverging range of opinions on the subject. At the end of the day, regardless of our philosophy, all refs basically referee the situation the same. We say that where a maul collapses and the ball is available and on the ground, we do not allow a contest for it with the hands or from people who are do not come from behind their hindmost feet (ie offside players). Effectively we do rule that a maul can become a ruck, even if some of us don't want to admit it. I think the way it is reffed is sensible - we acknowledge that a maul is over, but we can't blow for a turnover (because the ball is available) and we don't want to remove the offside lines because that would create a shambles.

I'm open to ideas.

A maul that collapses does not become a ruck: it becomes an unsuccessful maul and a scrum is formed - opposition ball. (Law 17)

Because a maul is formed "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" many so called rucks are actually failed mauls and should result in a scrum - opposition feed.

One of the all blacks weapons for retaining possession is to latch onto the AB ball carrier as he makes contact with his opposition - they drive on through and over the opposition player usually finishing on the ground. technically this is a collapsed maul because there are 3 players - 2 from the ball carrying side.

This is seldom played as such and it should be as it would enliven the contest for possession.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. It is certainly true that when a maul collapses and the ball is not immediately playable it is a turnover. However if a maul collapses and the ball is immediately available there is no turnover, play continues and the ball is recycled. A collapsed maul does not automatically result in a turnover, and the tactic you have identified is very effective in generating quick ball if it is done correctly and we were taught it back when I was playing (at an admittedly modest level). I can't recall any instances of where the AB's did this but the ball did not emerge and so it should have been a turnover.

Correspondingly, based on the definition of a maul: 2 defenders holding up the ball carrier is not a maul because there must be the ball carrier + at least one player from each team. This too is frequently not refereed properly.
Now if each of these issues were addressed by policing the laws none of these problems would arise.

Absolutely, except whenever a ball carrier is held up by 2 or more defenders a team mate binds on to try to prevent the defenders just stripping the ball. I'm not quite sure of what is being badly policed by referees here.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That is a thorny chestnut. There is a considerable debate that goes on amongst referees about the truth of the bolded statement.

Here is one of many, many threads from RugbyRefs forum that illustrate the diverging range of opinions on the subject. At the end of the day, regardless of our philosophy, all refs basically referee the situation the same. We say that where a maul collapses and the ball is available and on the ground, we do not allow a contest for it with the hands or from people who are do not come from behind their hindmost feet (ie offside players). Effectively we do rule that a maul can become a ruck, even if some of us don't want to admit it. I think the way it is reffed is sensible - we acknowledge that a maul is over, but we can't blow for a turnover (because the ball is available) and we don't want to remove the offside lines because that would create a shambles.

I'm open to ideas.





I'm not quite sure what your point is here. It is certainly true that when a maul collapses and the ball is not immediately playable it is a turnover. However if a maul collapses and the ball is immediately available there is no turnover, play continues and the ball is recycled. A collapsed maul does not automatically result in a turnover, and the tactic you have identified is very effective in generating quick ball if it is done correctly and we were taught it back when I was playing (at an admittedly modest level). I can't recall any instances of where the AB's did this but the ball did not emerge and so it should have been a turnover.





Absolutely, except whenever a ball carrier is held up by 2 or more defenders a team mate binds on to try to prevent the defenders just stripping the ball. I'm not quite sure of what is being badly policed by referees here.

The maul ends on it become unplayable or collapsing - it cannot collapse and then be given a second chance to be playable because the definition of the maul ending has been satisfied and it, accordingly, no longer a maul - as Monty Python would say it is a deceased maul, it was a maul but it is a maul no longer. Therefore collapse = end of maul and playability is irrelevant.

In order to ref it the way it is reffed you have to add these words "immediately playable" into the law that are not there. I agree/accept, most if not all referees take this approach and what I am advocating could be seen as just another layer of complication on an already complicated area.
There is no immediately playable exception to the outcome of a collapsed maul provided for in the laws.
To play as if there is one is to deprive the laws of the effect they would otherwise have: for one thing it would actually open up the contest for possession because teams would be much more wary of forming a maul if the knew that it could never become a ruck. It is axiomatic that there is much more open contest for possession at a ruck than there is at a maul.

But there's another insidious consequence of pretending that a collapsed maul has/can or will become a ruck: and that's the ref calling for the players of the team that did not take the ball into the maul being directed by the ref to roll away. There is no warrant for that - it is not a tackle and it is not a ruck so you guys have no basis for telling players from the team who did not carry the ball into the maul to roll away from the ensuing pile up - but, to a man and woman, all refs seem to do it.

This "interpretation" changes the whole dynamic!

As to the final point - this doesn't happen at the elite level much but you have refs calling mauls when they aren't. So its general play - cant be offside....you'll never see a garden variety ref cotton on to that difference in my experience.

 

[Bullrush]

The maul ends on it become unplayable or collapsing - it cannot collapse and then be given a second chance to be playable because the definition of the maul ending has been satisfied and it, accordingly, no longer a maul - as Monty Python would say it is a deceased maul, it was a maul but it is a maul no longer. Therefore collapse = end of maul and playability is irrelevant.

In order to ref it the way it is reffed you have to add these words "immediately playable" into the law that are not there. I agree/accept, most if not all referees take this approach and what I am advocating could be seen as just another layer of complication on an already complicated area.
There is no immediately playable exception to the outcome of a collapsed maul provided for in the laws.
To play as if there is one is to deprive the laws of the effect they would otherwise have: for one thing it would actually open up the contest for possession because teams would be much more wary of forming a maul if the knew that it could never become a ruck. It is axiomatic that there is much more open contest for possession at a ruck than there is at a maul.

But there's another insidious consequence of pretending that a collapsed maul has/can or will become a ruck: and that's the ref calling for the players of the team that did not take the ball into the maul being directed by the ref to roll away. There is no warrant for that - it is not a tackle and it is not a ruck so you guys have no basis for telling players from the team who did not carry the ball into the maul to roll away from the ensuing pile up - but, to a man and woman, all refs seem to do it.

This "interpretation" changes the whole dynamic!

As to the final point - this doesn't happen at the elite level much but you have refs calling mauls when they aren't. So its general play - cant be offside..you'll never see a garden variety ref cotton on to that difference in my experience.

Honestly.....I don't see what the problem is with the way the ref rule this now. It seems pretty logical the way they do it now - what was the problem with it again??

 

[Scott Allen]

Law 17.6 (g) says "If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available."



A maul that collapses can become a ruck and there is no interpretation required by the referee as to whether players must release the ball or roll away when a maul collapses - there is no obligation for anyone to release or roll away unless the maul becomes a ruck. Here is the clarification on these points from the IRB - I've added the red and bold in.
Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Clarification​

2-2011

Union​

ARU

Law Reference​

17

Date​

14 November '11

Request for clarification from the ARU the correspondence is reproduced below.

“Law 17.6(g) says: “If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.”

Often situations arise in the game when a ball carrier in a maul (especially when the maul consists of only 3 or 4 players) goes to ground with an opponent remaining on his feet with his arms wrapped around the ball. ARU asks the following questions:

a) Does the opponent on his feet need to release the ball carrier given that this is a collapsed maul and not a tackle?

b) Does the ball carrier have to release the ball to the opponent on his feet? Law 17.6 (g) indicates a scrum unless the ball is immediately available but places no obligation on the ball carrier to make it available by releasing it.

c) When a maul collapses, is there any obligation on players to roll away from the ball in order to make the ball available?

d) When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?”

Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Questions (a), (b) and (c) relate to questions of Law and (d) relates more to the application of Law.

There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

(a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

(b) The original ball carrier who goes to ground (knee or sitting) who can play the ball must do so immediately and the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.

(d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

 

[Dam0]

You see: you have to add these words "immediately playable" into the law that are not there in order to justify the position that, I agree/accept, most if not all referees take.
There is no immediately playable exception to the outcome of a collapsed maul provided for in the laws.
To play as if there is one is to deprive the laws of the effect they would otherwise have: for one thing it would actually open up the contest for possession because teams would be much more wary of forming a maul if the knew that it could never become a ruck. It is axiomatic that there is much more open contest for possession at a ruck than there is at a maul.

I don't mean to be unnecessarily contrarian, but I think you are essentially wrong about this.

Let me quote the relevant law:

17.5 SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

A maul ends successfully when :
• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
• the ball is on the ground
• the ball is on or over the goal line.


The key to interpreting this situation is in recognising that if the ball goes to ground the maul is over successfully. (17.5).

Then what happens? Would you at that point immediately allow any player from any direction to immediately go and play the ball? I don't, and no-one else does either. Instead we say that the offside lines remain, and that players who wish to play the ball must come from behind their own last man's foot. It isn't a maul (by 17.6 the maul is over), but equally it isn't open play either.

Is it a ruck?

16 DEFINITIONS

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.

If the ball is on the ground, and there are at least 1 or more players from each team on their feet, I can see no reason in
the laws why a ruck cannot be formed.


What happens when the maul goes to ground but the ball is not on the ground?



17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

...

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

...

(f) When the ball in a maul becomes unplayable, the referee does not allow prolonged
wrestling for it. A scrum is ordered.

(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting,
the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.



There is a conflict between 17.6(b) and 17.6(g). On the one hand if a maul becomes unplayable or collapses, it ends unsuccessfully, but on the other hand, if a ball carrier in a maul the maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball is not immediately available. The way it is usually resolved is that once a maul goes to ground, the ball has to be immediately available or its a turnover. It doesn't have to be used immediately, but it does have to be available to be used immediately. As you point out below, there is no obligation on the non-ball carrying team to roll away or to let the ball go. If the halfback has to have a prolonged wrestle for it, its a turnover.

Where I do take slight issue though is what happens if the ball is on the ground. The maul is successfully over (17.6), but I don't think we have open play yet either. I think it is a defendable position to take that if you don't have your hands on the ball when the maul goes to ground, and the ball is on the ground, you are not allowed to subsequently play it if (a) you are off your feet or (b) you do not come from behind the hindmost foot. I genuinely don't know of any other sensible interpretation of this mess of the laws than the one that I have given and the one that hopefully is generally applied.

But there's another insidious consequence of pretending that a collapsed maul has/can or will become a ruck: and that's the ref calling for the players of the team that did not take the ball into the maul being directed by the ref to roll away. There is no warrant for that - it is not a tackle and it is not a ruck so you guys have no basis for telling players from the team who did not carry the ball into the maul to roll away from the ensuing pile up - but, to man and woman, you all do it.

This "interpretation" changes the whole dynamic!

Exactly. I agree that if the ball is off the ground no-one should be told to roll anywhere because the ref should have blown the whistle for an unsuccessful end to the maul. It happens far too often for my liking too and I must say I don't say this myself, I just follow 17.6(f) and just blow the whistle.

Where the ball is on the ground and we have a successful end to the maul, the ref can, I think, ask a player who is off their feet and offside to not interfere with the ball. Rugby is a game to be played on your feet.

As to the final point - this doesn't happen at the elite level much but you have refs calling mauls when they aren't. So its general play - cant be offside..you'll never see a garden variety ref cotton on to that difference in my experience.

Maybe, but aside from questions direction of entry or perhaps calling for players to get back onside a fraction early I doubt its much of an issue. 9 times out of 10 it becomes a maul pretty quickly and the other time the ball gets stripped and passed away.

 

[Dam0]

Can a moderator move this to different thread? It's an interesting discussion and deserves a thread of its own.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

(a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

(b) The original ball carrier who goes to ground (knee or sitting) who can play the ball must do so immediately and the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.

(d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

Cheers - somewhat extremely embarrassed to admit I didn't see the scroll bar on the side of the law 17 I was reading.
But explain this: (a) seems against the words of the law because once the maul collapses it is not a maul and if the ball is not on the ground it cant be a ruck. But I'm not sure I can actually envisage the scenarios being talked about.
In relation to (b) who gets the feed?
I can't follow what (d) is talking about.
Does it have to be the original ball carrier - as the words suggest - for these outcomes to apply?
Can I ask was/is this "ruling" generally available?
Again my apologies.

 

[Swat]

Ummm yeah, that's all the rules and all but is my proposition good or bad?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't mean to be unnecessarily contrarian, but I think you are essentially wrong about this.

I don't mean to be unnecessarily contrarian, but I think you are essentially wrong about this.

I know - my apolgies

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Ummm yeah, that's all the rules and all but is my proposition good or bad?

I liked it - but it turns out I have NFI.

 

[Bullrush]

Not really a rant but thought this is probably the best place to bring it up.

Does anyone else have a problem with the turnover from a maul rule? I'm not saying that it should be scrapped completely, but why should not bringing a player to the ground be rewarded? It seems ridiculous when everywhere else in the game the objective is to tackle the player. I would like to see this changed to a turnover to the team who dominated the maul, i.e. which ever side is going forward. If, however, a maul is initiated and collapses without going anywhere or going forward then the team with possession should get the scrum feed.

I know this might sound like a whinge to some people given that that we're probably the worst exponents of holding a player up in the tackle but it has always stood out as a rule that was never right to me, especially when your team is driving forward, still in possession of the ball.

I wouldn't say your proposition is either good or bad - it's more unnecessary.

If a maul is going forward then there is no issue. The team in possession are happy and put themselves in a better position to score points.

If the maul is held-up and the ball doesn't become available, the attacking team has basically initiated a play where they have been unable to retain useful possession so they lose it.

If the maul is stopped and it goes to ground (and the ball is held up off the groud) the attcking team can retain possession if they make the ball available immediately. If not then again, they have initiated a play where they have been unable to retain useful possession so they lose it.

If the ball goes to ground then it basically becomes a ruck situation - opposition needs to roll away and make ball playable.

I don't think I've seen a situation where a maul is moving and it's gone to ground and the ball isn't then available for the attack to play at. And usually, in these situations, there's a penalty coming anyway against the defensive team.

I'm really struggling to see what the issue is with the current laws as they are....

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Can a moderator move this to different thread? It's an interesting discussion and deserves a thread of its own.

Agreed. Surely we must have a thread about the rules somewhere? I would move it, but I don't have the necessary powers.

 

[Dam0]

Cheers - somewhat extremely embarrassed to admit I didn't see the scroll bar on the side of the law 17 I was reading.
But explain this: (a) seems against the words of the law because once the maul collapses it is not a maul and if the ball is not on the ground it cant be a ruck. But I'm not sure I can actually envisage the scenarios being talked about.
In relation to (b) who gets the feed?
I can't follow what (d) is talking about.
Does it have to be the original ball carrier - as the words suggest - for these outcomes to apply?
Can I ask was/is this "ruling" generally available?
Again my apologies.

(a) It's badly worded but they are saying that if the ball doesn't touch the ground no-one has to let go of the ball or the ball carrier. It describes the common enought situation when the whole thing falls over in a heap and there are 2 or more players with their hands on the ball.

(b) The team who didn't take the ball into the maul because the maul ended unsuccessfully (17.6(c))

(d) Is more or less the point I made in my last post. If the maul goes to ground and the ball is not immediately playable the ref should just blow his whistle. It's too late. Either it is unplayable and a scrum; or the player (other than the ball carrier) has gone to ground intentionally and it is a penalty (17.2(d))


I am also somewhat embarrassed that I had forgotten about this IRB ruling.