I was fascinated about a particular interpretation by the referee, Steve Walsh, in the Bulls Vs Hurricanes match at about the 71st minute. The Bulls lineout took the ball about 15 metres from the attacking try line and immediately moved the ball to the back of the perfectly formed rolling “maul”.
The Hurricanes did not contest the throw and retreated, leaving the Bulls pack rolling forward across the gain line uncontested in what seemed to me to be an illegal formation (rather than a maul which needs contest), with bound forwards protecting the ball at the back of the formation.
When the referee did nothing, the Hurricanes then attached/contested the formation to form a maul (from about 15 metres out you can’t leave the Bulls pack alone for too long) and were subsequently penalised for bringing the maul down and the Hurricanes number 6 was told to spend 10 minutes in the bin for his actions.
The Hurricane protest was ignored.
Yes, your honour, we did collapse the maul, but prior to the event, what was that juggernaut thing all about?
So is this part of the new laws that I have missed?
The concept of the Bulls free forming eight man juggernauts at random with the ball protected at the back is scary for all non-Bulls supporters. Or were the Hurricanes just misplaced in their logic that an uncontested formation with the ball behind a very large pack of forwards was something that is contrary to the laws and spirit of the game?
I believe the Hurricanes were hard done by and that this practice needs to be eliminated immediately. At least with an illegal flying wedge, the opposition gets a crack at the ball carrier before cooling their heels in the bin.
Surely there must be some review system that can be immediately actioned, maybe like the doomed video replay American Football-style, so that such crimes can be punished on the spot rather than behind the locked doors in secret.
Wavell Wakefield
Guest
Erm... yeah...
Matt Smith
Guest
Did we have to wait until 7 years after the POMs win a world before we look at this problem?
Skip
Guest
Rin, 91 world cup final I remeber Australia doing a great rolling maul. Once we had perfected it we moved on. Unlike english rugby!
Peter K
Guest
I watched this multiple times under slow mo. Steve Walsh got it right. The Bulls were bound together, Matfield had the ball at the front BUT had his back to the Canes. No obstruction ball was at the front. The Canes held back which would allow the Bulls to trundle up and score. As soon as they engaged and hence a maul formed Matfield released the ball to the back and then the Canes up[lled it down. Walsh got it right.
Dingobob
Guest
Brumbies were awarded a Penalty for this when they played the Bulls. It is an interesting way of nullifying the rolling maul from the lineout.
Sam
Guest
This is a situation where it would have been good for him to consult a touch judge. It's a pretty big error though because of the yellow card, maybe Walsh should be dropped for a week for that.
Rin
Guest
Sam, obviously a Wobblies supporter, and if you notice I did address it by agreeing the call was wrong, then i made general comments about rolling mauls. Rin
Sam
Guest
I don't think anywhere in the article did JP complain about the maul as a tactic so don't go drawing such a conclusion. He complained that it was a case of obstruction that wasn't penalised, and ultimately cost the one a yellow card! How about you address the subject of the article, which is whether the rules have changed, or this was just a refereeing error.
soapit
Guest
maybe the ref just made an error of judgement. sucks but it does happen sometimes. the rules haven't changed.
Rin
Guest
Although i agree with the comments here that in this particular case the ref made the wrong call and it should of been offside. I must note that it is always Aus and NZ (esp Aus) supporters who endlessly complain about the rolling maul. The reason being of course is that they are useless at it. I cannot remember the last time I saw the Wallabies or any of the Aus super 14 teams try it with success. The SA, English and even the Irish have been quite good at it in recent times, so naturally other teams that cant do it complain about it. Rin
Brett McKay
Guest
I've definitely seen obstruction penalties awarded in instances like this, this season too, so maybe Steve's seen things differently??
Seiran
Guest
Nicely put JPlummer, I saw the incident and immediately started abusing the ref through my TV (to the ammusement of my wife) for such a bad decision on his part. This tactic of the opposition standing back from the 'maul' was used quite a bit with great success in the 2007 RWC. I remember seeing both SA and England use the tactic against opposition and every time the refs were spot on with their calls. The SA commentators also got it wrong in their commentary. They thought the opposition players were stepping back to 'take a running charge at the maul'....that was probably the stupidest comment I'd ever heard from a commentator BTW.
Hanzo
Guest
I saw this incident and immediately mumbled to myself that this was " accidently offside ". I felt they should have been penalized.
Rugby Fan
Guest
As I recall, the Bulls were in fact penalized by Walsh for just that offence in the game at one point. The key is that the man in front - usually Matfield for the Bulls - should no longer have the ball so he is then guilty of obstruction if there is no maul. It's all about the timing of laying the ball back. I can only assume that Walsh judged that the ball had not been laid back in the passage of play you mention. Even if the ball carrier had his back to the opposition, he was there to be tackled at the head of "the juggernaut" so no-one was guilty of obstruction. I don't remember that incident but I'm guessing that the Hurricanes players went in to tackle, at which point the ball was smuggled backwards to form a maul, but the 'Canes tacklers then dragged players to the floor and were penalized. That might not be what actually happened but Walsh might have seen it that way. It would also make sense that the Bulls were more careful given that they had been penalized earlier.
MattyP
Guest
IRB Ruling 2009-8 makes it clear that in the situation you have described, a maul has not been formed, and unless the ref deems that it is accidentally offside, should be penalised for obstruction under Law 10.1(c), (d) or (e).