Collapsed Mauls

[Braveheart81]

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

It mostly works against the Wallabies. That should have been obvious

 

[Swat]

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've often see these, I'll try to find some examples for you, and I've rarely seen a penalty against the defending team for it. Usually the result is a scrum feed to the defending team.

 

[Scott Allen]

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.

The laws of rugby are often confusing so the IRB has a process where a national union (e.g. ARU) can seek a clarification. Once issued the law is to be interpreted in accordance with the clarification, not someone else's reading of the law - so the clarification overrides any perceived conflict.

a) happens all the time - e.g. one of the defending team is holding on to the ball trying to hold it (and the player up) up and therefore earn a turnover but the ball carrier goes to ground. The defender is still holding the ball and because they are on their feet does not have to release the ball. As the ball does not then become immediately available, the referee stops play and awards the feed to the defending team. Makes it the same situation as if the defenders had been able to hold the player up off the ground.

If however the ball carrier can get the ball immediately down to ground (with the defender not still holding on to it) and a ruck forms the defending player has to follow the ruck laws if they want to play the ball.

b) if the ball remains off the ground, i - the defending team ii - if the ball goes to ground and the ball carrier doesn't release the ball, penalty against the ball carrier for not releasing the ball.

Clarification says 'original ball carrier' - I take that to mean the player who had the ball when it was wrapped up - the second player who has the ball is the defending player who has it wrapped up. I don't think 'original' means the player who took the ball into the maul - would also apply if the ball had been passed back through the maul.

d) is in response to the ARU request - essentially if the defending player goes to ground when the maul collapses can they keep holding on to stop the ball carrier making the ball available? Answer in accordance with d) is this shouldn't apply because ball was not immediatley available so should have been pulled up before the players tried to stop it being made available.

This ruling and others on a whole range of laws is available on the IRB site under Law Clarifications. However not many people know they are there. My team has had three penalties awarded against it incorrectly this year because the clarification was not followed by referees. Having discussed with each referee after the game they acknowledged after reading the clarification that their original ruling was wrong.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If however the ball carrier can get the ball immediately down to ground (with the defender not still holding on to it) and a ruck forms the defending player has to follow the ruck laws if they want to play the ball.

You often see a short wrestle on the ground and the ball carrier then "hands" the ball to the half - on the basis of this "clarification" that is not getting the ball immediately down to ground: legal or not?

 

[Scott Allen]

According to the referees, not legal - as soon as it goes down if the ball is not free, it's a scrum.

Also note from the clarification that no player is obliged to roll away if the ball stays up off the ground so if you land on top of the ball carrier and they can't make the ball available, bad luck for them.

In the 65th minute of Saturday's game this exact scenario arose. Alexander took the ball into contact and was caught high. His support drove him to ground but Whitelock stayed on his feet and therefore legally held onto the ball which didn't get to the ground whilst Franks was off his feet but landed on top of Alexander so Alexander had no way to lay the ball back. The referee took a moment to make sure the ball hadn't gone to ground but pretty quickly awarded the scrum to New Zealand.

 

[Dam0]

Although I don't have the video editing skills that some at GaGR have, I thought I'd make a little video with some clips from the Eden Park test that demonstrate what we have been talking about. I don't have access to any flash editing software so its all a bit basic, but hopefully you'll get the idea. I am going to quote all of the relevant ruling from the IRB committee to make it easy to follow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?edit=vd&v=2jHQc-y4ET0

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.

In the first incident, Black take the ball from a lineout close to the Gold line. Gold 5 does very well to infiltrate the lineout legally and manages to disrupt the ball with Gold 5. The maul breaks up a bit and collapses. I think that probably Gold 5 and 3 deliberately collapsed the maul and should have been penalised, but it is arguable either way. Once the maul collapses the ball is wedged in between bodies (ie not on the ground). It is not immediately playable and it takes an age (17 seconds) for the ball to be released to the halfback. Nigel Owens can be heard saying a couple of times "release gold". Gold 5 makes no effort to roll away (nor is he required to).

With the greatest of respect, I think that Nigel Owens has not quite gotten this right. I think that as per (a) and (d) of the ruling, he should have either awarded a penalty to Black for Gold 5 collapsing, or it should have been a turnover and a scrum to Gold. As per (c) Gold 5 or any other Gold player has no obligation to roll away. Nigel's action of simply waiting for the ball to emerge and aiding this by demanding that Gold let it come is not one of the options available to him under law.


The second incident is the one that Scott Allen refers to in the post immediately above mine. In this incident Gold 3 takes the ball into a tackle and is held up by two Black defenders (Black 17 and 19). Gold players 17, 19 and 18 all bind on, but the maul comes down and the ball is stuck in the middle of it. No Black players let go and the ball does not emerge. NO awards the turnover scrum to Black.

NO has this one exactly right. As per the IRB ruling, the Black players have no obligation to roll away or release the ball, and the result was a turnover scrum.


The third incident is likely to be a bit controversial for some. Gold 7 takes the ball into a tackle and is held up by Black 10 and 7. Gold 7 struggles to get to ground, but before he can get a knee to the ground, Gold 2 and possibly Gold 18 bind onto the ball carrier, thus a maul is formed. The maul then collapses. NO screams for Black players to let go, but they are committed to holding onto the ball, and NO awards the penalty for not releasing in a tackle.

Clearly, NO has ruled that no maul has formed, and all we have is a tackle. If you watch the clip it is really close as to whether Gold 2 joins before Gold 7's knees touch the ground. Another possible argument for it being a tackle is whether Gold 2 actually binds onto the ball carrier. Frankly, it would be a bit mean to criticise him too harshly for this one, but by the slimmest of margins, it should probably have been a scrum turnover to Black rather than a penalty to Gold.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree with the red bits.
I have to say that it is the first example in the clip that is what got me all fired up to begin with: it happens all the bloody time. That should have been an Australian feed to the scrum. i think the ABs are given a lot longer to "immediately play" the ball than we are: but Im probably biased.

 

[Swat]

The second incident is the one that Scott Allen refers to in the post immediately above mine. In this incident Gold 3 takes the ball into a tackle and is held up by two Black defenders (Black 17 and 19). Gold players 17, 19 and 18 all bind on, but the maul comes down and the ball is stuck in the middle of it. No Black players let go and the ball does not emerge. NO awards the turnover scrum to Black.

NO has this one exactly right. As per the IRB ruling, the Black players have no obligation to roll away or release the ball, and the result was a turnover scrum.

Awesome work Dam0, you've done the work that I was too lazy to do. This was the incident from the game that made me start this thread. You are exactly right, as per the IRB ruling it is a turnover scrum. That wasn't my initial point of contention. I was just asking if anyone thought a fairer result would be to only award the turnover if the player initiating the maul doesn't progress forward or if they are pushed backwards. I.e. To look at a maul more as an uncompleted tackle rather than, well, a maul.

 

[Schadenfreude]

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.

Australia has a habit of not getting there quickly enough in support which makes it worse.

 

[Dam0]

Awesome work Dam0, you've done the work that I was too lazy to do. This was the incident from the game that made me start this thread. You are exactly right, as per the IRB ruling it is a turnover scrum. That wasn't my initial point of contention. I was just asking if anyone thought a fairer result would be to only award the turnover if the player initiating the maul doesn't progress forward or if they are pushed backwards. I.e. To look at a maul more as an uncompleted tackle rather than, well, a maul.

Well, now that the video is out there and everyone can turn their minds to the issue, you might get some more support.

 

[Swat]

Well, now that the video is out there and everyone can turn their minds to the issue, you might get some more support.

Thanks mate. I still don't know if I will, it's a different way of looking at things, and it definitely doesn't help coming from the the nation who gets exploited by this rule the most.