The Springboks rolling maul is illegal
Roar Pro By Wally James, 7 Sep 2009 Wally James is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- rolling mauls, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
Lest I be accused of sour grapes, I have chosen the day after the Wallaby win to raise a sore point. The Springboks rolling maul is performed illegally.
Each time they employed it during the Brisbane Tri-Nations test, they had the usual lurker at the back with the ball. Players from in front were leaving the maul and coming in again or simply joining it, but not from the back. They joined on each occasion in front of the player with the ball, thus shoring up the gaps in front of the ball carrier and to each side.
The law is quite clear – any player must join from behind the foot of the hindmost team mate. In each instance, the hindmost player was the ball carrier.
I have watched all of their games since the first Lions test. Not once have they performed a rolling maul legally. The ball carrier unbinds and then rebinds, players join in front of the ball carrier, the pod containing the ball carrier detaches from the pod in front but then rejoins again.
This is all prohibited by the laws.
A rolling maul is difficult enough to defend against without blatant obstruction. It’s alright if you get away with it, and good luck to them for that, but it is just so easy for a referee to see it.
This was glaringly obvious in the Brisbane test.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- rolling mauls, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
September 7th 2009 @ 4:02am
goshthe4th said | September 7th 2009 @ 4:02am | Report comment
i think if you really look at it james..you see that the person joins from behind and the person with the ball lets them get in fornt..and if you are saying its illegal how comes bryce lawrence let them get on with the maul when he was right there watching it…maybe you think criticising the boks jus like what you criticised their kicking game will stop them from doing the rolling maul..dont worry the boks forwrds are just too good
September 7th 2009 @ 7:58pm
AndyS said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Actually, Bryce Lawrence specifically warned them about the way they were joining during the Perth Test.
September 7th 2009 @ 6:35am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
I think you have to look more closely – the players that join come from behind and bind over the player with the ball who then moves backwards again. It is whethre or not the player with the ball is legally entitled to move back or whether the ball has to be moved back by players. The issue with the Bok method is if the ball carrier detaches from the maul at any point. To be bound onto the maul, you do not have to be bound with your hand/arm but with your shoulder, so if done right a player can bind behind you and move in front of you as long as you stay bopund the entire time.
Each team I have played rugby for (And I have played in South Africa, Ireland and NZ) have all coached that the way to maul is how the Boks do it(and in fact in some cases used the Boks as an example). If it were that clear cut illegal then the IRB would have no doubt made it well known what their thoughts on it were.
September 7th 2009 @ 8:32am
Wally James said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Lee, old chap
I did look closely and I did not see what you allege. Perhaps the refs saw it your way and that is why there were no penelties. We can agree to disagree on that.
I accept what you say about the ball carrier detaching from the maul however the Law is not quoted accurately by you. You cannot be bound into a maul just “with your shoulder” Law 17 defines a maul, amongst other things, as where players must be caught in or bound to the maul. Binding is defined in the definitions section as “Grasping firmly another playery’s body between the shoulders and the hips from hand to shoulder. In other wrods you do have to be bound with your arms and shoulders and cannot be with just your shoulder.
The acts about which I complain are when the person joining the maul does so in front of the ball carrier. It is simply an offence and gives the team in possession an illegal advantage. The IRB has made its thoughts known. It published the Laws.
September 7th 2009 @ 9:22am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Apologies, hadn’t read the law and was only going on what I had been coached with regards to binding in the maul. I will never trust another coaches interpretation again : )
Can’t say I noticed players joining in front of the ball carrier but will watch the tape tonight and have a look. I saw it as I outlined above, but still think the point that I raised is the main issue of contention i.e. can the ball carrier actually worm his way to the back and keep pushing himself back or does the ball need to be physically handed to the player behind him and so on until it reaches the back. If ball carrier is not legally alowed to move himself back and has to pass the ball back that will remove players binding onto the maul in front of him, and instead force players to bind behind him and take the ball from him.
September 7th 2009 @ 9:34am
Jerry said | September 7th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
The ball carrier could work his way to the back, once players are legally bound. It’d probably be counter-productive to getting a concerted shove going though. The ball should be passed/handed to the back of the maul (only once the man at the front has been contacted by opposition players of course), ideally.
September 7th 2009 @ 5:38pm
Cats said | September 7th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Wally – IMO any the maul was superbly mastered by the Boks – something the Ozzies have not yet mastered. There was however plenty infringements by australia comming in on the side of the SA maul, right in front of the ref, and no penalty given….. Barnes is an idiot!!
September 7th 2009 @ 8:10pm
Wally James said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Cats
Accepted. I saw at least 3 times when Australia clealry slowed Bok ball at rucks or mauls. No ref is faultless. Nevertheless my point remains.
Cheers
Wal
September 7th 2009 @ 7:00am
Jerry said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Nah, he’s right (though it’s not just the Boks that do it). Improperly reffing the attacking team in mauls is one of my pet hates and Lee, the IRB has instructed refs to look at how mauls are formed more closely – hopefully next, they’ll be looking at where players bind onto existing mauls.
September 7th 2009 @ 7:25am
Justin said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Its not just the Boks I think most teams do it and it has been a pet hate of mine also.
Essentially the ball carrier (presumably at the back of the maul) would have to change (ie pass the ball to the new joining team mate) otherwise how do players get in front of him if the maul is going straight ahead?
If it is legal I dont think it should be…
September 7th 2009 @ 7:34am
allblackfan said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
I think the rule states that the ball carrier must be bound; it’s very possible for players coming in from behind to rejoin the maul ahead of the ball carrier.
The play is very clear to the refs and they are not blowing it up so therefore it must be legal. The wallabies just have to learn how to counter it (ie splintering)
September 7th 2009 @ 7:38am
Lee said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:38am | Report comment
There is a myth that it is impossible to counter a maul effectively but watch the game on Sat, the Wallabies stopped a couple of Bok mauls, and the Boks stopped a Wallabies maul dead in its tracks. You just have to do it early.
September 7th 2009 @ 8:34am
Wally James said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Absolutely correct. Either shove in defence so the rolling maul stops or go through the middle if it is loosley constructed by the team in possession
September 7th 2009 @ 10:54pm
Eagle said | September 7th 2009 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
This was not what Mark Chisolm and George Smith where doing. They simply joined from the side of the mall, latched onto a player and started to drag them down, without being penalised. It was as if Barnes where still reffing the law that it is legal to collapse a mall.
I may be wrong as I never played in the forwards, but to me it sounds as if it would be very difficult for any maul to be sustained if the rule is reffed as the law states exactly, as you would end up with a very spindly construction. It would be better to have the mall excluded as before.
September 7th 2009 @ 7:45am
Jerry said | September 7th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
AB fan – no, it’s not legal.
law 17.4 (c)
Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the
hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player
joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is
offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team’s offside line
September 7th 2009 @ 8:37am
Wally James said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Jerry
Al last. Someone who reads their Law book
Cheers
Wal
September 7th 2009 @ 8:03am
mitzter said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
The irb came out very recently with a focus sheet on the maul but i have yet to see it applied at the international level. They were very focused on the 2 movement law(in any direction) before they have to use it, that the ball carrier cannot detach himself ala neil back style, and the obstruction that takes place before a maul ( ie the ball carrier must be one in the initial contact).
I also believed there have been mauls allowed recently that went against thiese guidelines
September 7th 2009 @ 8:23am
Kevin,Meath said | September 7th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
One of my pet hates is the driving maul, well done it can be almost impossible to stop legally, as a result it should be strictly enforced, or defenders given similiar leeway. Another thing many teams do is a group of players break off but continue to drive while the ball carrier continues to drive or breaks, surely those players in the break away group are committing obstruction.
September 7th 2009 @ 11:10am
Invictus said | September 7th 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Personally, I find the “driving maul” to be against the spirit of the laws. Rugby is supposedly all about the contest for possession – where is the contest in a driving maul? The ball is purposely held as far from the opposition as possible – to me it is analogous to sealing off at the ruck, which is a penalty offence. I’m not against mauling. I just think we should go back to “rolling mauls”, where the ball is in the centre of the pack of forwards and not in plain sight. If you can see the player with the ball then you should be able to tackle him, regardless of who he happens to be holding onto with one hand. In regards to binding – every time the ball carrier’s (in a driving maul) shoulder loses contact with the player in front then the maul should be blown up for truck and trailer. Just my two cents.