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).
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).
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.
Rugby is Life
Guest
2015 and it is even worst.
Ai Rui Sheng
Guest
What is the rule on truck and trailer? I know it became legal but has it changed again. In the past three weeks I have seen it penalised and not.
Notremos
Guest
Just watching a replay of Lions Waratahs. Referee did nothing about blatant infringements at back of mauls.
johnb747b
Guest
The debate here, often highly technical, serves to reinforce my personal view that there are too many reasons for a rugby ref to blow his whistle and interrupt the flow of play. I don't care if the ball carrier gets behind team mates. I don't give a stuff if someone joins in from the side. Rugby did something sensible when it eliminated penalties for lifting in the lineout? A whole new art form was created, wonderful to watch. A damned side better than refs evening out penalties while turning a blind eye to many instances. League got it right with scrums that were ruining the game. 'Get it in, get it out and get on with the game' became the practice. Who cares if it goes into the second row? Consider, for example, what the change of 'rule' has done to the role of the hooker. Would Ken Kearney even get a game under the new rule regime? The ritual that now determines setting a scrum in rugby is Pythonesque, farcical. Yawns all around if it needs to be set a second time. 'Keep it simple, stupid' should be the guiding principle. If a rule can be simplified or eliminated, in the cause of open play, it should be.
clarkeg
Guest
This aspect of play is unfortunately almost never policed by referees.
clarkeg
Guest
On the basis of your argument, that the law does not apply to conditions through the duration of the maul , then I am not able to show you any law that states it is not legal.
Jerry
Guest
I recall being coached to hold players up for a turnover when the rule was introduced in the 90's, so it's not really a new thing.
Seagull
Guest
Perhaps the easiest way of 'fixing' the maul would be to outlaw passing the ball back to a bound player. That leaves it in play for the opposition (which is surely one of the guiding priciples of Rugby) and forces the player to put the ball to ground and walk over it.
Seagull
Guest
There are many laws that have specific wording that conventinally ignored. Feeding into scrums is one. Another is the forward pass law; the wording of the law makes perfectly clear that the intention is that the ball not travel towards the oppositions try line - all this stuff about 'hands facing backwards' is just common interpretation. In reality Rugby laws are more like 'common law' than a constitution! I agree that it would be useful if the wording was changed to match convention - but it wouldnt' serve any significant purpose given convention is set. A question for one of the fanatics: can anyone remember who first used the tactic of holding up a player in a tackle to form a maul against their will? It's obviously since the 'use it or lose it' law came in but I really can't remember it happening until recently. I hate it as a spectacle - it's completely negative with no attempt to get the ball and just slows the game down by forcing a scrum. Given how often it was attempted in 6 nations this year we should expect it to happen endlessly in the Lions series.
Short-Blind
Guest
Bulls & Stormers will hate this article - especially if it is sent to Mr Bray. Their basic modus op (esp Bulls) is lineout, illegal maul, try or penalty from the collapsed maul. Ever wondered why M Steyn is the leading points scorer in SA rugby? Here is the answer. Have the IRB got the gonads to make changes to meet the law? No
Jerry
Guest
Attacking teams collapse mauls all the time to avoid turning the ball over if the opposition has a hold of the ball carrier. It's legal as long as it's the ball carrier that causes himself to go to ground. I have also seen team-mates of the ball carrier cause/assist the maul to collapse which isn't actually legal but I've never seen it penalised.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
First, the maul needs to start legally. At a kick-off or line-out, team-mates often put themselves ahead of the ball-catcher. This is a ploy to protect the catcher. At a line-out, this pre-maul obstruction is used so that the ball catcher cannot be “sacked” or brought to ground. Second, assuming the maul has started legally, confusion can arise when the ball is moved to the back of the maul. The players in front of the ball appear to be guilty of obstruction! “Truck and trailer” is the term used to describe obstruction at a maul. However, when the maul starts, all players are onside, and when the ball is moved to the hindmost player, those players in the maul, that are caught ahead of the ball, can’t just disappear. The situation is similar for the front row of a scrum when the ball is at the eighth man’s feet. If the player with the ball breaks away from the maul and has a player on his team in front of him, the defenders cannot get to the ball carrier, resulting in a penalty for obstruction. If, however, the defending team withdraws from the maul, leaving only attacking players ahead of the ball, then the maul can continue, as the attacking team is not guilty of any infringement. This does not apply to a line-out, where the attackers catch the ball and the defenders do not engage the opposition. If the ball is moved to the hindmost player of the attacking team and the defenders now engage the attackers to form a maul, it is a penalty offence, because it is pre-maul obstruction - ie there was no maul when the ball was transferred to the hindmost player. Third, “changing lanes” is where the attackers break away to the left or right from the original maul and then start a new maul. If team-mates are in front of this new maul, it is construed as obstruction. Conversely, if the maul is moving forward and defenders peel off to the left or right, leaving the original maul with attacking players only, they can continue forward, as this is not a new maul, and obstruction does NOT apply. Extremely confusing to the public and sometimes to even referees! Fourth, once a maul is formed, players must join, by binding on their hindmost team-mate in the maul. They cannot “swim” around the side of the maul or join the maul from the side, but, if they are “caught up” in a maul, they can work themselves through the middle until they can grasp the ball or ball-carrier.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Why would the attacking team collapse a maul. Makes no sense what so ever
antonio
Guest
If the maul collapses and the defending team hasn't collapsed it intentionally then surely the penalty should be awarded to the defending on the same bulls**t basis that a penalty is awarded in the reverse. i.e. it is dangerous play.The onus should be on both teams to keep the maul up if you are going to allow it. My problem with the maul is that it is only ever refereed from the attacking (debatable term) team's perspective
Malo
Guest
Bring back the maul. Without the maul you will continue to get the ridiculous 13 players lining out in defence and just 20 phases going no where as there are no holes. Too be so pedantic about the law you will eliminate the maul and cause tonnes of penalties or constant battering ram techniques with no room to move. It worked out ok in the 90s. You guys must love this and constant ref interference and penalties with your over analysis.
fredstone
Guest
If aussie and nz refs start blowing mauls correctly, we'd have more space for backs, if aussie and nz teams start defending mauls like saffas do, by commiting more forwards into mauls, especially just as they're formed, we'll have more space for backs to attack. But, alas, we have to contend with another diatribe about legality because of non comprehension of the cause and effect the rules are trying to create. Mauls are there to create space, just because some teams are not intrested in attempting to legally come to terms with the rules of the game and are assisted by refferees interpretations doesn't mean that the laws should be re written. In effect the refs that are concistently refusing to clamp down on teams acting illegally in stopping mauls are aiding in the prevention of more open and running rugby. You can't then blame teams that employ maul tactics effectively for doing so since they offer a relatively large reward for very low risk.
Bakkies
Guest
They aren't really impossible to stop. It's about getting in there early. The key is good body height, weight of numbers, stop it at source and look for weaknesses (opportunities to drive through their maul and/or target players that are far too high). Once you have sacked the maul you only have to keep it stationary for 5 seconds to win the reward of a scrum.
maroon 59
Guest
No. As soon as one of the ball carrier's team mates binds on the him, the definition of the maul is satisfied. Players who are bound are entitled to remain part of the maul despite being in front of the ball carrier. Some people would contest this - but that is a separate argument. However, either the ball or the player who is bound to him must also be bound to the other players who constitute the maul. I don't know whether this is what the lawmakers intended - but this is what they have written.
maroon 59
Guest
I am unconvinced! I don't think you understand the point I am making about the inconsistency of the laws. There are definitions provided as a precursor to the exposition of the laws (pp4-9) in the Laws. These are the definitions which the current interpretation fails to satisfy. I am happy to continue to disagree with you. I am not making comment about rejoining the maul . I agree with you. I do, however observe that infringement of this law is often overlooked by referees - whose task, I must admit, is a most difficult one.
reality bites
Guest
Good article, and you could write exactly the same thing regarding the breakdown and the scrum. The breakdown in particular really needs revision as the policing of this facet of play seems to be based purely on 'convention'. (I also firmly believe that most scrum 'infringements should be short arm free kicks). The issue with all this is that players continue to be penalised for acting in the spirit of the game. People always argue that the removal of penalties will allow cheats to prosper. They miss the point - so many penalties do not come from cheating or pressure. It is these 'unjust' penalties which are a blight on the game.