Law Discussion: Maul tactics
The maul from a line-out was a great South African weapon. They developed it first and used it most profitably. Until November, that is. Then it seemed that they were being out-thought and outplanned at this strength of theirs.
First the Irish, then the English and then the Italians used a tactic of non-engagement, withdraw and wait, the sort of thing Fabius Maximus used against Hannibal, to Hannibal's chagrin and Rome's advantage.
The Springboks would throw into a line-out, catch the ball and form up in a maulesque formation on the catcher. Then they would move the ball to the back of the formation, to Marcell Coetzee of Bismarck du Plessis.
But cunning opponents made no contact. They started off with a goodly gap and either stood where the were or moved back slightly. If the Springboks then moved the ball back to Marcell Coetzee in their maulesque formation, an opponent would come round and tackle Coetzee – and the referee would do nothing about it. It went on like this till Victor Matfield changed tack against Italy. He kept the ball and then drove ahead with it.
What laws are in play in this whole affair?
First there is the definition of the maul.
Law 17 DEFINITIONS
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 team-mates 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.
In the case of the line-out stand-off, no opponent makes contact with the ball-carrier. That means there is no maul.
That means there is no offside line.
That means that the opposing forwards can run round the side to tackle Coetzee at the back.
Because they do not block any opponents who come to attack the front of the line-out from getting to Coetzee simply because no opponents did so, there is no obstruction.
Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(b) Running in front of a ball-carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick
When Matfield had the ball, he was at the head of the Springbok formation. That means that opponents had direct access to him. Nobody blocked an opponent from getting to him.
That means that there was no obstruction.
What would have happened if Matfield had passed the ball back and it had then been slipped back to him?
That was acceptable provided that no opponents tried to get to the ball when it was blocked. If the Springboks had slipped the ball back to Matfield so that he was at the head of their maulesque formation, the Springboks could then move forward legally because the opponents could get to Matfield.
In fact they could have tackled Matfield immediately he came to ground.
Law 19.10 (k) Defending at a line-out. A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the line-out may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.
A player who gains possession of the ball in a line-out without jumping may be tackled immediately.
In both cases, these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line
This became written into the Law book in May 2014.
For some obscure reason this is sometimes referred to as sacking, a term adopted from American gridiron. It serves no purpose as it is simply tackling a player who has the ball, an ancient rugby practice.
But if a player grabs Matfield and does not tackle him immediately, a maul is formed, in accord with the definition above. Then Matfield may not be pulled to ground, nor may any other Springbok in the maul.
There is a danger for those who stand off at line-out that they may be tempted to back away from the line-of-touch.
When a team forms that maulesque formation and does not move it forward, the line-out is still in operation.
Law 19.14 OFFSIDE WHEN TAKING PART IN A LINE-OUT
(e) No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.
'participating in the line-out'?
Law 19 DEFINITIONS
Players taking part in the line-out known as participating players. Players taking part in the line-out are the player who throws-in and an immediate opponent, the two players waiting to receive the ball from the line-out and the line-out players.
It may sound complicated but it's not really. But Springboks should not have been taken by surprise by the Fabian Tactics of northern teams.
There are other aspects of the maul – like joining and staying in it – but we wanted to try to make just this clear, lest we make everything unclear.
The Irish caused difficulties by their Fabian tactics in the first November Test. In the second Test the English stood off and Joe Marler, the England prop, came round the side and tackled Coetzee. The referee let play go on. But then England tried it again and this time Matfield kept the ball and the Springbok formation moved monolithically forward, forcing the English to make contact to resists it, thus forming a maul. The Springboks moved the ball back to Coetzee at the back. Courtney Lawes came round the side and was bemused when he was penalised. It cost England three points.
When the Italians did it and Matfield kept the ball, the Springboks surged over 20 metres down the field.
This suggested that the wily Springboks had found a profitable counter to the cunning Fabian tactics.
But, Fabian tactics apart, the November Tests seem to state clearly, that the northern lands have caught on well to the massive maul. The Springboks seem better at doing it than having it done to them!
