Refereeing decisions

[Pfitzy]

Bang on, Sully.

Note there is another confusing situation where a maul IS formed properly, with at least one player from each side bound onto the ball carrier. More players join from each team, and movement happens.

As it evolves, only the ball carrier (at the back) and one team mate (in front of him) are the only ones left due to the defenders and attackers removing each other in an attritional, but legal manner.

This is STILL THE SAME MAUL and can advance upfield without being called for obstruction on the player in front.

Why? Because there are a few ways to end a maul, once formed, and the opposition leaving it is not one of them:

ENDING A MAUL

16 A maul ends and play continues when:
a. The ball or ball-carrier leaves the maul.
b. The ball is on the ground.
c. The ball is on or over the goal line.

17 A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).
c. The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the ball does not emerge.
d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.
e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been played within five seconds of the call.
Sanction: scrum

 

[Pfitzy]

Had an interesting one while reffing 7s on the weekend:

- Gold attacker runs into contact with Black defender
- Three other Black players wrap her up - surrounding her in effect - but can't get possession of the ball
- Group stops moving
- NO other gold players join
- Nobody goes to ground

Two hints I shall give:
1) It isn't a tackle - because we're not on the ground - and therefore it also can't be a ruck.
2) It isn't a maul - because no gold players are bound to the ball carrier.

What is the outcome? Virtual chocolate frog to the first right answer.

 

[liquor box]

17 A maul ends unsuccessfully when:

c. The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the ball does not emerge.

So either goal line counts?

So a smart team who cant progress forwards and is given 5 seconds could just take a half step backwards towards their own line and the maul is still legal and the battle can continue?

I always thought it had to be moving forward, it seems that the rule is to stop the maul going sideways

 

[Pfitzy]

Keep in mind that possession may change hands within the maul - it is a contest for the ball

That Law could definitely be better written, but remember that Laws are always supposed to be interpreted. In most cases, the assumption is that the ball must be moving "forward" from the attacker's point of view.

 

[Slim 293]

Had an interesting one while reffing 7s on the weekend:

- Gold attacker runs into contact with Black defender
- Three other Black players wrap her up - surrounding her in effect - but can't get possession of the ball
- Group stops moving
- NO other gold players join
- Nobody goes to ground

Two hints I shall give:
1) It isn't a tackle - because we're not on the ground - and therefore it also can't be a ruck.
2) It isn't a maul - because no gold players are bound to the ball carrier.

What is the outcome? Virtual chocolate frog to the first right answer.

I'll take a stab........

Ball is unplayable - gold scrum?

 

[Pfitzy]

I'll take a stab....

Ball is unplayable - gold scrum?

Correct answer! Gold moving forward before the stoppage, therefore they get the feed.

Here you go:

Black coach actually asked for clarification on that point so he could take it back to the players.

 

[Dctarget]

Correct answer! Gold moving forward before the stoppage, therefore they get the feed.

Here you go:

View attachment 12160


Black coach actually asked for clarification on that point so he could take it back to the players.

Why isn’t it just a held up ball choke tackle? Do they always have multiple players from both teams? So next time a player gets held up
We shouldn’t join him?

 

[Braveheart81]

Why isn’t it just a held up ball choke tackle? Do they always have multiple players from both teams? So next time a player gets held up
We shouldn’t join him?

Correct. You see that happen in 7s more than elsewhere. Other attackers stand off hoping that eventually the player getting held up/driven back will fall over so that it becomes a tackle and they can try and win the ball.

As soon as another attacker joins it's a maul.

 

[Pfitzy]

Why isn’t it just a held up ball choke tackle? Do they always have multiple players from both teams? So next time a player gets held up
We shouldn’t join him?

Correct - the risk in this scenario is that Black starts pushing things back upfield toward gold, and win the scrum because they are moving forward.

I'd also add that if the black players surround the gold player, a maul can NEVER form because you must have a player from each side bound onto the ball carrier.

Best bet for Gold would have been player getting a knee on the deck.

 

[dru]

Could the experts run over the Waratah non-engagement of the Brumby maul last night?

This much I understand. With non-engagement, the "maul" (proto-maul?) is OK as long as the ball is retained by the front player. Then after the front player has been contacted they can move it back and in so doing form an offside line based on maul rules. That much is OK?

Now wind it back. A maul (proto-maul?) is formed with the ball at the front. There is no engagement. That maul moves forward. Is that now not a flying wedge?

 

[Sully]

Could the experts run over the Waratah non-engagement of the Brumby maul last night?

This much I understand. With non-engagement, the "maul" (proto-maul?) is OK as long as the ball is retained by the front player. Then after the front player has been contacted they can move it back and in so doing form an offside line based on maul rules. That much is OK?

Now wind it back. A maul (proto-maul?) is formed with the ball at the front. There is no engagement. That maul moves forward. Is that now not a flying wedge?

No one knows. But a flying wedge has the ball at the back not the front. None of the Tahs could come around the maul because there was still an offside line from the lineout but once they had moved 1.5 metres someone should have run around and claimed obstruction.

 

[Dctarget]

You're no longer allowed to pre-bind when you run into contact as the attack no? Same thing?

 

[liquor box]

Could the experts run over the Waratah non-engagement of the Brumby maul last night?

This much I understand. With non-engagement, the "maul" (proto-maul?) is OK as long as the ball is retained by the front player. Then after the front player has been contacted they can move it back and in so doing form an offside line based on maul rules. That much is OK?

Now wind it back. A maul (proto-maul?) is formed with the ball at the front. There is no engagement. That maul moves forward. Is that now not a flying wedge?

I watched that with interest last night and despite not wanting players to get injured, I couldn't help but think that a good defensive tactic would be to have a couple of players run in flat out and tackle the unprotected kidney area of the player facing backwards, I think this would make the mauling team think twice about doing it again.

 

[KOB1987]

The other thing that would make them think twice about doing it is that all rolling maul tries are automatically referred to the TMO for review, as suggested by Kenny Powers.

 

[liquor box]

The other thing that would make them think twice about doing it is that all rolling maul tries are automatically referred to the TMO for review, as suggested by Kenny Powers.

 

[Pfitzy]

None of the Tahs could come around the maul because there was still an offside line from the lineout but once they had moved 1.5 metres someone should have run around and claimed obstruction.

Similarly: they can't simply back away because the lineout isn't over until the ball leaves the line of touch or 5/15 m lines, or any ruck/maul that forms around it does the same.

Best bet: part like the red sea, let them walk forward, then take a free shot at one of the lifters and claim obstruction.

 

[formerflanker]

An interesting sidelight of the unopposed maul was the opportunity for coaches to assess the Brumby rolling maul structure without opposition players cluttering up the vision.

 

[Brumby Runner]

No one knows. But a flying wedge has the ball at the back not the front. None of the Tahs could come around the maul because there was still an offside line from the lineout but once they had moved 1.5 metres someone should have run around and claimed obstruction.

Surely it can't be obstruction if the player with the ball is "protected" by other players behind him?

 

[Brumby Runner]

You're no longer allowed to pre-bind when you run into contact as the attack no? Same thing?

Quite a bit of pre-binding in last night's game, especially when on attack a few metres from the tryline. If it is now illegal, someone needs to inform the referees.

 

[TSR]

It’s been illegal for a long time.

What it’s not is enforced.