After watching the highlights of the England versus Australia match it appears the poor refereeing of the maul has hit an all-time low.
In one section of play late in the game we can watch ball carrier Ben Morgan detach three times from the maul and continue to have teammates join in front of him.
We are told that the IRB at season’s end pick areas to focus on, so this is surely the time with a World Cup due to commence shortly.
Frankly, if one sees this continue it looks more like a tactic suited to NFL rather than the game they play in heaven.
For the last IRB focus points for referees document, obstruction at the commencement of the maul was quoted.
What do the laws say?
17.0 The Maul
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 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.
Yes, that’s right all players should be bound. Not detaching and re-binding at the back. That is obstruction.
17.4 Offside at the maul
(a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal-lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal-line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal-line.
(b) A player must either join a maul, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of a maul, the player is offside.
Loitering is frequent also as players continue to hang in front of the ball carrier unattached and providing blockage for the player detaching from the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line
(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost teammate 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 teammate, the player is offside. Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line.
Perhaps a Scott Allen-style article could grab some footage from the Autumn Tests to expose how frequent the players joining the maul do so in front of the ball carrier (forgive me for the technical shortcomings).
This seems to be a flow-on effect from the detached ball carrier migrating backward through the mall. Sort that and perhaps the other issue goes away also.
The fact I feel the need to write this article is of most concern. We have a professional board of lawmakers that appears to sit back and wait for aspects of our game become a shambles before they actually decide to make a concerted effort to police it effectively again.
How long did it take for action on illegal taking out of catchers before the landing of high balls? Some could argue that taking out of defenders who are not part of the ruck is still a major problem (and attacking weapon) despite the supposed closer scrutiny it has come under.
If you want to be called World Rugby and command respect as our international body, then one must act swiftly to ensure appropriate refereeing of the aspects of our game that make it so unique.
Owen
Guest
I fully agree. Once the player holding the ball has even a hint of one of his shoulders being not bound tightly into the maul then the referee should be calling the maul over or giving some kind of warning to release the ball immediately within a few seconds. This issue happens at the back of rucks when the ball is out. Players have a right to come around when the ball is clearly out. Players are penalised for being not bound on the side and back of the scrum for the exact same arm position they are deemed to be 'bound to a maul' as the ball carrier. The ruling needs consistency. There is nothing wrong with good mauling but once the ball gets to the back you cannot have a situation of NFL blocking and a player simply using the front players as human shields. It is not mauling and was never intended to be. The rules of the game have always kept up with the changing tactics of teams to outsmart them and must be tweaked to ensure rugby does not become the NFL and the maul stays the maul.
john
Guest
Technically the attacking team can't collapse the maul either
What's it got to do with rugby?
Guest
I don't expect the WB captain to speak to the refs about it. He's got to run in all the way from the wing. Anyway, the refs don't listen to that clown.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Coxinator. I like you am continually staggered at this aspect of the game. There are also so many other aspects of the modern game that I am equally staggered by; refereeing, television match officials, substitutions, time keeping, rucks, scrums etc etc. The longer these anomalies, like those referenced in your article, remain part of the game then the less likelihood that we can go back. I still watch rugby however sometimes I just shake my head and think ... they have stolen our game.
I agree Harry.
Coxinator
Guest
Thanks a heap for the comments guys. I figured I wasn't the only person scratching his head at this one. As for those who think I'm writing this as a sour grapes Wallabies fan - you're entirely wrong. One of the worst at this particular offence is our own Captain who changes arms 'bound' to the maul regularly and pushes people in front of himself. All illegal tactics. It's just frankly staggering that it continues without intervention at the top level. If I were playing I would rather run around and smash the detaching ball-carrier every time he did it knowing full well that camera footage would back my argument if I got penalised. Even better, I'd try and do it again until I got a yellow card just to have my coach show the footage afterwards and wait for the apology from the referees board.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Exactly, cause we are crap at mauls and scrums we should blame the ref or ban them. Ridiculous
Harry Jones
Expert
BB, I have never heard Meyer criticize refs, so when he (politely) questioned those two issues, I paid attention. I agree with him that the contest in the air (sort of like AFL and in soccer) has become very physical as athletes jump higher and are much heavier and stronger, but quite frankly, I like that contest and I think it looks good and adds something to our game. So, we need to have clarity on that. I like two guys like Hendricks and the Welshman going for the ball--eyes on the ball--no regard for their own safety. It's cool. The maul is a mess.
estee.rine
Guest
Entertainment rugby is a thing of the past. The NH tour with kicking, mauling, collapsed scrums, is a departure from the great viewing game Rugby Union once was. Add different Referee interpretations of maul & scrum rules & we are left with very little running to score tries. Remember, that was the idea "Pick Up The Ball And Run!" If you want to see fast-flowing test matches look at the old black and white films of the 70s & 80s when scrums were set rapidly, ball was out, lineouts won, & running ensued. Happy I have free TV coverage as I'd never pay a cent for a live game the way it's condoned today. S T
Homer Gain
Guest
I can't be bothered to read this but I'm guessing Australia aren't very good at mauling? I'd ban the scrum as well.
Not sure what to call it, the same thing happened against us when we played Ireland, I personally think it is a mindset that effects the referee on the day, I was once listening to a SA referee explaining that they go onto the field with certain info, like team A does this and team B does that. So if you decide you will watch team A for the inftingements you expect them to make you inadvertently ignore it when the other team is doing the same thing. This info that referees will have before a match influence their interpretations in my view as they interpret what they see. As an example, our maul was mullered by the referees this month, as well as our contests in the air. Meyer said after the tour these are two areas they simply have to assess, they cannot understand how they got it wrong according to the referees the whole time
AndyS
Guest
Agreed. It seems to be fairly ruthlessly dealt with at SR level - a NH/SH difference in interpretation?
Upfromdown
Guest
Like Woodward complaining about dummy runners by Australian backs, or England complaining about Welsh scrummaging in the 6 nations a couple of years ago, or everyone complaining about Riche McCaw lying all over the ball test after test ... I could go on. However the maul laws outlined above seem pretty clear cut
ozinsa
Guest
More accurately BB, the Bok attacking player is at a huge disadvantage. English attacking players aren't subject to the same policing of taking out players in the air witnessed by Folau being upended twice in situations that may have led a referee to draw a card were it a Bok.
Upfromdown
Guest
The maul has been a mess for years. It legalises offside play and goes completely against what underpins rugby and that is competition for the ball as long as you come from an onside position. The laws should be that as soon as it stops referees should be able to call for it to be released - use it or lose it. You should not be able to start again and the ball carrier should have a shoulder bound to the maul and not just a hand/arm with their head up looking for where to go. The same goes with scrums. Once a ball has reached the back of the scrum there should be no second shove and use it or lose it should apply. The options for winning your scrum should be a clean strike (so please rule on incorrect feeds) or advancing the scrum as much as you can but then using it or losing once it stops. It wont stop better scrummaging teams losing their advantage.
In Brief
Guest
The maul is a problem, the scrum remains a problem, and the breakdown is a problem. None of them are refereed in accordance with the laws of rugby. They are all refereed according to the latest 'interpretation'. Which reminds me of Australian drivers giving way to the right at roundabouts, even though the RTA road rules clearly state that the first driver has right of way. The 'interpretation' of the masses applies and we transform european style roundabouts into aussie intersections.
That is illegal in my book, that is called changing channels and immediately becomes obstruction and should be a penalty to the pending team
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Hika, I played fullback & wing along time ago. I was always taught to jump with either my knee or foot raised to keep the chasers out of my area. Jump, have a knee or foot raised & turn as you catch to protect yourself & the ball were the things drilled into me as a youngster playing at the back.
Reilly
Guest
"After watching the highlights of the England versus Australia match it appears the poor refereeing of the maul has hit an all-time low." I think what you are trying to say is it has hit an all-time high right?
Hoy
Roar Guru
Well Jerry, My issue then really comes to the fore, when the bloke with the ball is hanging around loosley at the back, and players limply join him, then he pushes them forward, in front of him, and they then join in front... You can see it in almost every maul now, and I think it has to stop... T