Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Rolling mauls.....

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
John View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 August 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Rolling mauls.....
    Posted: 28 November 2014 at 12:25pm
I'm not a fan of rolling mauls but they exist; so two questions about the details of the laws
1. Our party piece (which we don't do often enough) is to not contest them. Sometimes we don't do anything at all; sometimes we send a tackler around to tackle the ball carrier. If we don't do anything at all, (just let it rumble forward) is it a penalty to us?
2. The ball carrier at the back- how much contact does he have to maintain with the rest of rolling maul? Is it sufficient to just grab another players shirt and hang on or should he have contact by the shoulder - so in a position to push?      
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 November 2014 at 2:41pm
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.

Unless we bind onto the ball carrier or one other player from the opposition there is NO maul, therefore there is NO offside line !

If we don't create the maul, then there is a much higher risk of the opposition making a "Truck 'n Trailer" i.e. ball carrier becoming detached then rejoining the blocking players players in front of him !

Good defence when it comes off. nowadays, opposition are more likely to get the ball away once they realise there is a risk of "Truck 'n Trailer" !

All players MUST be bound onto a Ruck / Maul or Scrum by a FULL ARM .. i.e Shoulder to Hand !


Edited by scarletman - 28 November 2014 at 2:42pm
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11993
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 November 2014 at 5:17pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

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.

Unless we bind onto the ball carrier or one other player from the opposition there is NO maul, therefore there is NO offside line !

If we don't create the maul, then there is a much higher risk of the opposition making a "Truck 'n Trailer" i.e. ball carrier becoming detached then rejoining the blocking players players in front of him !

Good defence when it comes off. nowadays, opposition are more likely to get the ball away once they realise there is a risk of "Truck 'n Trailer" !

All players MUST be bound onto a Ruck / Maul or Scrum by a FULL ARM .. i.e Shoulder to Hand !


Thanks for that.

Seems to me most refs need to re-read this law, as they don't often apply it to the letter - especially the last bit.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
John View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 August 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 November 2014 at 8:03pm
I'll add my thanks. Although I don't see why an uncontested rolling maul isn't just a case of offside.......
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 December 2014 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by John John wrote:

I'll add my thanks. Although I don't see why an uncontested rolling maul isn't just a case of offside.......


Because offside lines are set at Tackles, Rucks, Mauls, Scrums & lineouts ! If a Maul hasn't formed, ther is therefore no offside line ... No offside line ... No offside ! Wink
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
John View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 August 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2014 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by John John wrote:

I'll add my thanks. Although I don't see why an uncontested rolling maul isn't just a case of offside.......


Because offside lines are set at Tackles, Rucks, Mauls, Scrums & lineouts ! If a Maul hasn't formed, ther is therefore no offside line ... No offside line ... No offside ! Wink


OK, so the player at the back with the ball in his possession-bound onto the rest of the pack who are in front of him. What's the difference between that and "crossing"?
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11993
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2014 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by John John wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by John John wrote:

I'll add my thanks. Although I don't see why an uncontested rolling maul isn't just a case of offside.......


Because offside lines are set at Tackles, Rucks, Mauls, Scrums & lineouts ! If a Maul hasn't formed, ther is therefore no offside line ... No offside line ... No offside ! Wink


OK, so the player at the back with the ball in his possession-bound onto the rest of the pack who are in front of him. What's the difference between that and "crossing"?



Not a lot, IMO - and as I've written before, I'd ban the rolling maul - ugly and boring.

FWIW, it would be used far less often if refs applied the law to the letter, and penalised players who carry the ball WITHOUT being properly bound (hand to shoulder - see above). Almost invariably, the ball carrier hangs on with an outstretched arm to someone's shirt, whilst peering over the top of the maul to see where the weaknesses in defence are. Refs HARDLY EVER penalise this, FFS!


Edited by aber-fan - 12 December 2014 at 4:03pm
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2014 at 5:22pm
Crossing is a term (over) used by Jiffy on TV ... a legacy of his 13 man code days !

Unfortunately this term has been picked up on by the media & fans alike, but, there is no "LAW" that prevents players from "crossing" each other ...

HOWEVER  ... If one player crosses in front of the ball carrier thereby preventing a tackle or creating a diversion to the (potential) tackler, then this is "OBSTRUCTION" !!! if no obstruction takes place, then no penalty should be awarded as there has obviously been no offence to penalise !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
Dan the Drover View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 April 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dan the Drover Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2014 at 5:59pm
Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 December 2014 at 9:52am
Originally posted by Dan the Drover Dan the Drover wrote:

Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.


Correct ...

Law 17 Definition here ...

"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."
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11993
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 December 2014 at 4:14pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Dan the Drover Dan the Drover wrote:

Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.


Correct ...

Law 17 Definition here ...

"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."


So in that case, presumably whenever the jumper passes the ball back to a player on his own team as he falls back to the ground, this should be penalised? Yet, they do it all the time!
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 December 2014 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Dan the Drover Dan the Drover wrote:

Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.


Correct ...

Law 17 Definition here ...

"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."


So in that case, presumably whenever the jumper passes the ball back to a player on his own team as he falls back to the ground, this should be penalised? Yet, they do it all the time!


I presume you mean from a Line-out ? if so, it depends, it's difficult to explain in type, but I'll have a go ...

Jumper takes ball, lands & passes (backwards) to receiver, who has another player bound on to him. This is still not a maul yet as it needs an opposition player to bind onto the ball carrier first.
Scenario 1 ... If at this stage the new ball carrier is driven into his own player, then it is accidental offside & the opposition get the put in at the resulting scrum.
Scenario 2 ... If the ball carrier is driven into opposition but the opposition do not bind onto the ball carrier, there is still no Maul formed, so there is still no offside line therefore, the defending side can either tackle the player (no maul formed) or attempt to steal the ball from any direction (no offside line).

The main dangers here are ..

Attacking side
1 - Accidental offside (Scrum)
2 - Truck & Trailer (Obstruction - Penalty)

Defending side
Not a lot up to the point of binding, then instantly Maul Laws apply !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11993
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 December 2014 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Dan the Drover Dan the Drover wrote:

Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.


Correct ...

Law 17 Definition here ...

"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."


So in that case, presumably whenever the jumper passes the ball back to a player on his own team as he falls back to the ground, this should be penalised? Yet, they do it all the time!


I presume you mean from a Line-out ? if so, it depends, it's difficult to explain in type, but I'll have a go ...

Jumper takes ball, lands & passes (backwards) to receiver, who has another player bound on to him. This is still not a maul yet as it needs an opposition player to bind onto the ball carrier first.
Scenario 1 ... If at this stage the new ball carrier is driven into his own player, then it is accidental offside & the opposition get the put in at the resulting scrum.
Scenario 2 ... If the ball carrier is driven into opposition but the opposition do not bind onto the ball carrier, there is still no Maul formed, so there is still no offside line therefore, the defending side can either tackle the player (no maul formed) or attempt to steal the ball from any direction (no offside line).

The main dangers here are ..

Attacking side
1 - Accidental offside (Scrum)
2 - Truck & Trailer (Obstruction - Penalty)

Defending side
Not a lot up to the point of binding, then instantly Maul Laws apply !


I was thinking more of a case where the jumper gives the ball to a player of his own side BEFORE landing - making it impossible for the defending side to tackle him. If the receiver then immediately drives into the jumper as he lands, and passes the ball further back, it seems this is definitely 'accidental offside'. Timing is everything, and as I say, I don't see refs penalising players in this case, probably because they have so many things to watch out for.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 January 2015 at 2:30pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Dan the Drover Dan the Drover wrote:

Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf:  "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents".    I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.


Correct ...

Law 17 Definition here ...

"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."


So in that case, presumably whenever the jumper passes the ball back to a player on his own team as he falls back to the ground, this should be penalised? Yet, they do it all the time!


I presume you mean from a Line-out ? if so, it depends, it's difficult to explain in type, but I'll have a go ...

Jumper takes ball, lands & passes (backwards) to receiver, who has another player bound on to him. This is still not a maul yet as it needs an opposition player to bind onto the ball carrier first.
Scenario 1 ... If at this stage the new ball carrier is driven into his own player, then it is accidental offside & the opposition get the put in at the resulting scrum.
Scenario 2 ... If the ball carrier is driven into opposition but the opposition do not bind onto the ball carrier, there is still no Maul formed, so there is still no offside line therefore, the defending side can either tackle the player (no maul formed) or attempt to steal the ball from any direction (no offside line).

The main dangers here are ..

Attacking side
1 - Accidental offside (Scrum)
2 - Truck & Trailer (Obstruction - Penalty)

Defending side
Not a lot up to the point of binding, then instantly Maul Laws apply !


I was thinking more of a case where the jumper gives the ball to a player of his own side BEFORE landing - making it impossible for the defending side to tackle him. If the receiver then immediately drives into the jumper as he lands, and passes the ball further back, it seems this is definitely 'accidental offside'. Timing is everything, and as I say, I don't see refs penalising players in this case, probably because they have so many things to watch out for.


Technically, the lineout is not over in this case, so there is no offside line drawn (still 10m behind the line of touch) also the ball is generally passed with both players in contact with the ball, so the jumper would still be a gegal part of the maul ast the "joining player" (Ball receiver) would be making initial contact with the ball whilst binding onto the jumper.
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 11993
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 January 2015 at 4:36pm
Pretty complicated - who'd be a ref!

Anyway - seems it is legal, then - which means it is IMPOSSIBLE in these circumstances for the defending side to tackle the jumper (as he is allowed to feed the ball to a supporting player before landing on the ground).

So the only legal, sensible tackle option is for the defending side to refuse to engage... and thus prevent a maul taking place.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 January 2015 at 4:56pm
But they can't back off either, as leaving a lineout before it is over is also a penalty offence.

Fine lines ... fine lines !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.