Perhaps explain a bit more then?
Ball carrier can't pass the ball if a maul is about to form? I think that is a bit of a hazy concept...
Last edited:
[Maul] sliding back
- Thread starter didds
- Start date
Ball carrier can't pass the ball if a maul is about to form? I think that is a bit of a hazy concept...
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
But in general play a maul is about to form once you have a ball carrier and an opponent in contact and a team mate in the vicinity
Potentially about to form.
If for instance multiple support players arrive and the ball carrier 'long' passes the ball to one of the support players who has one or two teammates in front then there may potentially be an obstruction scenario to be considered.
Stu10
Referees in England
This is getting weird... I think it worth clarifying that there is open play and a maul in this discussion... from a law perspective, there is no in-between phase. Can we please describe what law is contravened in open play or during a maul, with a supporting law specified?
didds
Resident Club Coach
so the ball carrier cannot pop a pass out to a receiver then?
ianh5979
Referees in England
My understanding of the long transfer was the jumper at a lineout brings the ball down and holds it at arms length away, one of his/her teammates then takes the ball and then drives forward into the initial ball carrier (who should be offside now as he wasn't in contact when the ball was transfered) blocking the opponents
Of course they can.
This is simply about obstruction in the act of forming a maul.
Look at it this way then....if in your scenario (pop to receiver) the receiver then ran back to the bunch of teammates in front of him and bound onto them preventing the opposition from getting to the ball carrier what would you consider that? Obstruction, accidental offside...something else?
Yes you are correct.
Ie, it's not the long pass that is a problem
It's the new ball carrier binding on to team mates who are in front of hum
Correct.....but the long pass creates the problem
Stu10
Referees in England
Accidental offside (scrum) or penalty offence?
Or manage......ie tell them to break away.
I kinda read crossref's post to hint at that that either a maul is formed or it's not - there's no in between (at least from the laws perspective). If it's not formed yet, then the scenario he described is equivalent to the scenario you're speaking about.
I am not saying there is an 'in-between '.
I'll leave it at that.
didds
Resident Club Coach
... or potenbtailly about to reecive a pass.
... or potentially about to run somewhere else into position
... or potentially about to throw himself to the ground a la greenwood as (s)he doesn't want the responsibility of dealing with the ball.
Or....
and that's the point.,..
This entire conversation highlights that the laws don't say anything explicit about how the ball may be transferred between players in a maul, other than 16.2 - which
(a) refers to 'ripping' without ever defining what that means;
(b) applies to any player, hence to players from either team; and
(c) requires said ripper to stay in contact with the BC until the ball is transferred.
So unless 'ripping' is interpreted to mean *any* transfer of the ball within the maul (which would imply that any transfer requires contact between the BC and the recipient, whoever they may be - thereby ruling out long transfers to teammates during the maul), we're left to assume that non-'ripping' transfers within (or, I suppose, to outside) the maul may be done any old how (as long as they're not forward, I guess).
The laws also don't appear to say anything explicit about how participants in the maul are exempted from obstruction laws such as 9.3 when the ball is moved toward the back. It's kind of implied, but really just seems to depend on everybody just knowing that that's how a maul works.
Of course I'm happy to be contradicted in any of the above!
(a) refers to 'ripping' without ever defining what that means;
(b) applies to any player, hence to players from either team; and
(c) requires said ripper to stay in contact with the BC until the ball is transferred.
So unless 'ripping' is interpreted to mean *any* transfer of the ball within the maul (which would imply that any transfer requires contact between the BC and the recipient, whoever they may be - thereby ruling out long transfers to teammates during the maul), we're left to assume that non-'ripping' transfers within (or, I suppose, to outside) the maul may be done any old how (as long as they're not forward, I guess).
The laws also don't appear to say anything explicit about how participants in the maul are exempted from obstruction laws such as 9.3 when the ball is moved toward the back. It's kind of implied, but really just seems to depend on everybody just knowing that that's how a maul works.
Of course I'm happy to be contradicted in any of the above!
Relieved to correct myself on this matter.
9.15 Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
An odd place to put it IMO - as an exception to a general prohibition (in the Dangerous Play section, no less), and overriding 9.3's general prohibition on obstruction - rather than as, say, specific exemptions in the Scrum, Ruck, & Maul chapters.
But I guess not entirely unreasonable, especially as the outcome of the evolutionary process that gave us the laws in their current form.