The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Inconsistency of the law relating to the maul

Roar Rookie
28th May, 2013
Advertisement
Roar Rookie
28th May, 2013
52
1622 Reads

In the playing charter that is part of the laws of the game of rugby union, the International Rugby Board includes a section on the principles of the game.

In its introductory comments about the conduct of the game reference is made to the game’s complexity when it states “At first glance it is difficult to find the guiding principles behind a game which, to the casual observer, appears to be a mass of contradictions,” (Laws of the Game of rugby union: Principles of the Game – p 13).

A more detailed reading of the document confirms to the reader that difficulty persists and the principles governing the laws remain elusive and the laws and their interpretation are often internally inconsistent and confusing.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the way that Law 17, the Maul, is interpreted.

In general, a maul occurs either to prevent the ball carrier going to ground when the maul’s forward motion ceases so that the defending team is awarded a scrum, or when it is used as an attacking tactic following the completion of a lineout to advance the ball in a manner that makes it difficult for defenders to tackle the ball carrier.

In both of these circumstances the players must remain bound for the maul’s duration and the following conditions are relevant.

“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 teammates bind on to the carrier,”(Laws of the Game of Rugby Union Law 17 –p 103: Definition).

Binding is defined as “Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder,” (Laws of the Game of Rugby Union Law 17 – p4: Definition).

Advertisement

In the first of these examples the law is usually administered in accordance with the law.

In the second, the team in possession of the ball manoeuvres the ball carrier to the rear of a group of players who are bound together. While the ball carrier grasps onto the player/s in front of him the maul advances towards the opponent’s line.

In almost all instances where this tactic is employed the ball carrier fails to satisfy the condition that the binding maintains contact with the whole arm from the hand to the shoulder.

Very often contact is maintained only with the hand and the referees are generous in their interpretation.

Furthermore, the requirement is that one or more of the ball carrier’s team-mates bind on to the ball carrier. It is the ball carrier “on to whom the team mates must bind”.

The fact that the ball carrier binds onto another team member does not satisfy the definition of a maul.

By placing themselves in front of the ball carrier without meeting the conditions to satisfy the forming of a maul, the players in advance of the ball carrier are contravening the provisions of the obstruction law (Law 10(a), 10 (b).

Advertisement

In most instances the interpretation of the referee is contrary to the laws of the game even if that interpretation is sanctioned by convention.

The principle governing the application of the laws is that “The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of fair play” (Laws of the Game of Rugby Union Law –p21).

It is difficult to see that the tactic is consistent with the objective of fairness and within the spirit of the game.

An interpretation of the law that is not in accordance with the structure of the language is not defensible.

The law should be interpreted so that its meaning is consistent the language or it should be re-written to allow the current interpretation which appears to be contrary to the principle of fair play.

close