Refereeing decisions

[mxyzptlk]

It really is a little ironic. We pride ourselves that the ball is always in contest in rugby, yet here is a tactic where one team chooses not to contest for possession and gift the ball to their opponents. The defending team chose not to contest in the air and on the ground.

From a defending point of view, is that really the case? It's hard enough to defend against a maul without giving away a penalty, so the defense typically joining a maul from a line-out almost always equals points or territory for the offensive team. Give that one moment of space and time, and the defending team can come around the back and tackle the ball carrier, creating more of a contest and upping their chances for a turn-over.

How recent is this technique? I saw it in the Junior World Championship and have seen it more since then, but really don't recall seeing it before then.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Anyone see the maul set up off the Ireland lineout just before half time? Ball taken off the top, thrown backward down to an Ireland player in the lineout then players bound and the ball passed back to a ripper before an England player layed a hand on. England defended well but should have been an obstruction penalty all day. Rubbish refereeing.

This is it:

Attwood receives the throw and immediately feeds it back to Billy Vunipola. Attwood is then flanked by Haskell and Kruis, and the three of them form a blocking wall that starts moving forward. The Irish don't engage, and when the blocking wall starts moving forward, some of the Irish line backs up a bit until O'Brien dives in. O'Brien then gets caught under the boots, and is penalized for collapsing the maul.

I think what the Irish are thinking is they didn't engage the maul, so no maul is formed and O'Brien can go in on a tackle. But Joubert called it a maul and penalized O'Brien. O'Connell has a talk with Joubert, I think arguing it wasn't a maul, but Joubert doesn't agree (hard to hear that bit; the announcer talks over Joubert, and the conversation isn't in the clip).

Here are my questions:

1.) Is it a penalty to England because the Irish back up after the English start moving forward, or do the Irish just have to hold ground until the ball is fed backwards?

2.) If the Irish were in their rights to back up after Vunipola gets the ball and the blocking line starts moving forward, that's not a maul, correct? And if that's the case, O'Brien is okay to tackle.

3.) O'Brien getting caught underneath: If it's not a maul, that's O'Brien going in on a tackle, and not completing it. Since he didn't actually make the tackle, can he be penalized for not rolling away? In other words, is he legal down there or not?

In any case, it doesn't look like anyone, including Joubert and the announcers, are on the same page here.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Law 10 (p) as published.
‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick. The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.

Law 10 (p) Interpreted (bold by me)
‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick, lineout or free kick. The kicker tap-kicks the ball, or a lineout jumper catches the ball and is brought safely to ground, and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.



There is inconsistency across the hemispheres, and at most levels, including in lounge rooms, sidelines, Commentary boxes and media rooms, about what to do with an uncontested lineout maul, despite the guidance issued by IRB after Jnr RWC 2014.

 

[elementfreak]

This is it:

Attwood receives the throw and immediately feeds it back to Billy Vunipola. Attwood is then flanked by Haskell and Kruis, and the three of them form a blocking wall that starts moving forward. The Irish don't engage, and when the blocking wall starts moving forward, some of the Irish line backs up a bit until O'Brien dives in. O'Brien then gets caught under the boots, and is penalized for collapsing the maul.

I think what the Irish are thinking is they didn't engage the maul, so no maul is formed and O'Brien can go in on a tackle. But Joubert called it a maul and penalized O'Brien. O'Connell has a talk with Joubert, I think arguing it wasn't a maul, but Joubert doesn't agree (hard to hear that bit; the announcer talks over Joubert, and the conversation isn't in the clip).

Here are my questions:

1.) Is it a penalty to England because the Irish back up after the English start moving forward, or do the Irish just have to hold ground until the ball is fed backwards?
The moment O'Brien binds onto Attwood we have a maul. I think the ball was still with Attwood at this point, however I am not 100% sure about it.

2.) If the Irish were in their rights to back up after Vunipola gets the ball and the blocking line starts moving forward, that's not a maul, correct? And if that's the case, O'Brien is okay to tackle.
The definition of a maul is 1 opponent and 1 team mate bound onto the ball carrier. As soon as O'Brien tries to tackle the player with the ball we have a maul.

3.) O'Brien getting caught underneath: If it's not a maul, that's O'Brien going in on a tackle, and not completing it. Since he didn't actually make the tackle, can he be penalized for not rolling away? In other words, is he legal down there or not?
See other answers.

In any case, it doesn't look like anyone, including Joubert and the announcers, are on the same page here.

 

[Lindommer]

The problem I have here is the way refs currently adjudicate the modern maul: the ball-carrier ISN'T held by an opponent as required by Law 17. TBH, I think rubgy'd be much better off if this was the case. How can O'Brien tackle the ball-carrier when a big, boofy second-rower's in the way? Obstruction for mine.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Can you have a maul without a tackle happening first? Yes. It could be argued that the Green player either attempted to hold the Ball Carrier and thus create a Maul situation, or he was trying to effect a tackle on the Ball Carrier.

Law 17 Definition:
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. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

When O'Brien goes in to "make his tackle", he is in fact trying to create a maul, because we now have one or more of the ball carriers team mates bound on the ball carrier, and the player carrying the ball held by one or more opponents. PROVIDED he makes contact with, and holds, the Ball Carrier while one or more of the Ball Carriers team mates are bound on him.

If he can not hold the Ball Carrier because one or more of the Ball Carriers team mates that are bound on him, then there is no maul, and the Lineout laws apply.

Law 19.9 (b) The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout. This includes the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum

In this instance, none of "the following" situations occur, but as per the first line of 19.9(b) a player carrying the ball appears to leave the lineout, so the lineout has ended and it is open play. In this instance, the White players then obstruct the Green player from attempting to tackle or hold the Ball Carrier (Law 10.1(c) Foul Play Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.).

If it is deemed that the lineout has not ended, then perhaps this Law applies:
Law 19.14(c) After the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player not carrying the ball is offside if, after the ball has touched a player or the ground, that player steps in front of the ball, unless tackling (or trying to tackle) an opponent. Any attempt to tackle must start from that player’s side of the ball.
The White players had stepped in front of the ball before the lineout had ended, and they were not carrying the ball, nor had a maul started. They are therefore offside.

In the Blues vs Cheetahs game, the Blues players were penalised for leaving the lineout - Law 19.14(e) No player of either team participating in the lineout may leave the lineout until it has ended. The referee must have been satisfied that the Ball Carrier in the flying wedge/maul thingy set up by the Cheetahs had not left the lineout, therefore the Blues Players must either remain in the lineout until it is finished, create a maul or ruck in which case the Blue Players in the lineout must either join the lineout maul/ruck, or leave the lineout and retire behind the offside line. Law 19.14(i) A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside. The Blue players did not create a ruck or maul, and with the ball still deemed to be in the lineout, the Blue Players could not leave the lineout.

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems that you can't make the player with the ball be in contact with the opposition otherwise mauls will cease immediately. If the ball is anywhere near the opposition they will grab hold of it and lock it in there and it will be a turnover.

I really think they need to make mauls easier to defend though. The way it stands currently, it is too easy to generate further penalties and tries from. You don't want to see it reach a stage where it becomes the primary weapon for most teams to score tries. I don't think that would be good for the game.

The only way I can really see to make it easier to defend is to make the use it or lose it expire quicker. Perhaps the first time it stops you get the call to use it rather than getting a second crack at getting it moving?

 

[Brendan Hume]

This is it:

I was talking about the Ireland lineout. I'll try and find it...

I agree with Hugh Jarse - that's a flying wedge. Penalty to Ireland.

EDIT: might be too early - can't find it on YouTube. About 38 mins Ireland lineout attacking the England line.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It seems that you can't make the player with the ball be in contact with the opposition otherwise mauls will cease immediately. If the ball is anywhere near the opposition they will grab hold of it and lock it in there and it will be a turnover.

<snip>

Not if the players bound to the ball carrier, and the opposition player/s that is/are holding the ball carrier are bound in such a manner as to effectively seal off defending team access to the ball.

I think the first defending player gets about a microsecond to sack the Ball Carrier before the Maul is set, otherwise as @Braveheart81 says, they are a penalty generating, try scoring, ground winning weapon for the attacking team when done properly.

Despite the IRB guidance issued to referees last year, it would appear that the undefended lineout maul/flying wedge has become a penalty lottery with inconsistent rulings that are confusing players, coaches, media pundits, spectators and keyboard warriors.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not if the players bound to the ball carrier, and the opposition player/s that is/are holding the ball carrier are bound in such a manner as to effectively seal off defending team access to the ball.

In theory maybe, but if an opposition player gets through a maul to the extent that they make contact with the ball carrier invariably they'll lock the ball in the maul and it will be a turnover.

If you made it such that the ball carrier had to be in contact with an opposition player I think you'd have so many mauls result in turnovers it would make mauls pretty pointless from an attacking point of view.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

One interpretation from referees is that once a ruck or maul, always a ruck or maul with said contest ending when the ball is leaves the ruck/maul.

In saying that if a ruck or maul has formed (something something two players from opposing teams something on their feet something physical contact something over the ball something something) then the off side provisions and other aspects of Laws 16 and 17 apply until the ball clears the attacking sides players in the ruck. Even if the defending players withdraw from the ruck/maul and set up a defensive line on the "Last Feet" (now there are no longer at least one player from each team in physical something something) then it is still refereed as a ruck/maul until Gilbert is in open play again.

Applying that principle to the above example, once at least one opposition player has made contact with the Ball Carrier and another player, then it is still a maul even if the ball is smuggled to the rear and the defending team players are no longer in physical contact with the ball carrier.

The maul can still be an attacking weapon, but as the Bishop said to the Actor, timing is important. The attacking team can not move the ball to the rear until the Ball Carrier has been held (however briefly) by a defender/s, and one or more of the Ball Carriers team mates are bound on them.

 

[Lindommer]

Nah, play would evolve so the ball'd be protected and recycled, another challenge for the modern thinking coach. My beef is that contact with the ball carrier's in the Law book but not adjudicated.

 

[Brendan Hume]

all the laws exist for it to be a fair contest, but the speed of the game, the small variations used by different teams and the complexity of those laws make them impractical, if not impossible to apply. It would be nice to see referees apply law to the maul in the same way as they do for the ruck - ie played within the spirit of the game. Almost every ruck at the top level has attacking players going off their feet in order to secure quick phase ball, and yet its never pulled up because the game is so fiercely contested it allows the game to flow. Almost every maul created from a line out has significant advantage to the attacking team once they have caught the ball - most players in the attacking team are leaving the line out early (folding around to take the ball), attacking players are binding in front of the ball carrier, ball carriers are regularly leaving the maul (not maintaining full arm bind), referees are giving significant latitude on timing before calling use it, if a ball is passed to a player in the process of a sack - the original blockers should be called for off side... the list goes on and on as to the infractions that could be found, and yet they rarely are.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I was talking about the Ireland lineout. I'll try and find it.

I agree with Hugh Jarse - that's a flying wedge. Penalty to Ireland.

EDIT: might be too early - can't find it on YouTube. About 38 mins Ireland lineout attacking the England line.

Sorry I derailed your point.

If it's the lineout at 38 minutes, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Kruis is all over O'Connell's back/shoulder as O'Connell is still coming down and before he's handed the ball back. At that point, the only people bound are the lifters bringing O'Connell down. Before O'Connell gets the ball back to a ripper, Kruis is already engaged. Nothing seems wrong there.

If you're talking about the lineout about 20 seconds before that, it's even more clear-cut. Attwood is grabbing O'Connell as POC is still bringing Toner down and Kruis is grabbing at O'Mahoney, all before Toner has given the ball back.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Nah that's not them either. I'll find it and put up a link when it's available. Player gets the ball and pops it down to another player in the line out to set up the maul with a diff attack point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yourmatesam]

In my personal view, the law book is the biggest problem. Referee to the spirit of the game, get the ball into play and provide opportunities for the attacking team to use the ball and for the defensive team to win the ball.

Safety, Fun and Fairness are the keys. I reckon we get too involved in the finer level detail about insignificant points that ruin the game.

As an active (community level) referee (and an Level II Coach also), I want the ball in play and for the teams to have every opportunity to f#ck the game up without my assistance.

 

[Lindommer]

Well, you're buggered young fella. I'll get the ACT refs on to you for not following the letter of the law.

 

[Bardon]

Nah that's not them either. I'll find it and put up a link when it's available. Player gets the ball and pops it down to another player in the line out to set up the maul with a diff attack point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The lineout you're looking for starts at about 36:00 on the game clock. O'Connell claims the lineout and immediately passes the ball to Toner and an Irish pod set up the maul at the back of the lineout.

Can't post a clip of the footage as I found it on RTÉ's replay service on their website.

 

[Bardon]

O'Connell has a talk with Joubert, I think arguing it wasn't a maul, but Joubert doesn't agree (hard to hear that bit; the announcer talks over Joubert, and the conversation isn't in the clip).

This one almost made the 6 things article this round so I've watched it's a fair few times. As such I can help you with what was said between Joubert and O'Connell.


Joubert: I feel like I need to explain it. So because the guy at the front still had the ball when your first guy connected it’s not an obstruction you’ve got a maul.

O’Connell: That’s fine yeah.

Joubert: He then went to ground and laid there that’s why it collapsed.

O’Connell: That’s the tackle.

Joubert: No it’s not because you formed a maul so the rest of his mates came in.

O’Connell: How long does he get to make the tackle?

Joubert: No well it’s up. He didn’t make the initial tackle, his mates joined him.

 

[mxyzptlk]

The lineout you're looking for starts at about 36:00 on the game clock. O'Connell claims the lineout and immediately passes the ball to Toner and an Irish pod set up the maul at the back of the lineout.

Can't post a clip of the footage as I found it on RTÉ's replay service on their website.

Got it.

The ripper in this case is the dummy jumper, Toner, so he already has people holding on to him when POC sends the ball back. Attwood and Marler are grabbing Toner as he's handing the ball back, so as I understand it, the ball carrier is at the front and the English are engaging the maul. Not sure there's anything wrong there.

If the English had held back after Toner completed giving the ball back, then you're getting into something like the English lineout a couple minutes later.