Law discussion: Mexican standoff
Comments
0
This occurs in rugby when one side wants to maul and the other refuses to join the fun, most obviously at a line-out.
The Springboks developed the strongest line-out maul in the game – kick the penalty out, maul and score. It became an art form. And then Ireland, England and Italy sought to bamboozle them by refusing to form a line-out. For Italy it backfired when the Springboks kept the ball at the front and marched many metres downfield.
Now, this last weekend, the Blues did it against the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein and came up short and the Irish did it against England and also suffered, but when the Blues did it against the Stormers the week before they profited.
After the Irish initiative, wise rugby men sat down and discussed the matter. The feeling was that the contest was part of the essence of rugby football. The Playing Charter says "The contest for possession of the ball is one of Rugby's key features." The contest for possession, demanding skill and physical energy, is part of the essence of the game, part of its soul, part of the inner distinctive beauty of the game, Gerard Manly Hopkins's inscape.
Passive resistance at the line-out seems contrary to the contest for possession. You don't jump, and jumping is a contest, and you don't maul, and mauling is a contest. Teams were to be discouraged from the standoff – Mexican, Irish or whatever.
One of the ways to discourage it was to change from a penalty for obstruction to a scrum for an accidental offside, as the referee did when the Blues played the Stormers.
There was a line-out about seven metres from the Blues' line, Stormers' throw-in. Up went Jurie van Vuuren to catch the ball and the Stormers grouped around him in expectation of a maul They worked the ball back to Nizaam Carr at the back and then drove forward. They made contact with Blues players and the referee awarded a scrum to the Blues for accidental offside.
Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE
(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
It may be a stretch of the law to apply this to the an uncontested line-out grouping and in fact may seem like a bit of homemade law, but it does make sense, and the team that has been out-thought is punished by losing an opportunity and possession. But then we got to Bloemfontein and the team standing off were penalised and lost the match.
There are things the non-contesting side is allowed to do and not allowed to do.
They are allowed not to contest the ball in the line-out.
They are allowed not to make physical contact with the wouldbe maulers.
If they make no contact with the wouldbe maulers, there is no 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.
That is what the Blues did in the incident above.
What the wouldbe maulers are allowed to do is keep the ball at the front of the line-out.
England did this against Ireland on Sunday.
A penalty gave England a line-out. They threw in to David Attwood who caught the ball and hung onto it. England started moving forward and Sean O'Brien (7) of Ireland drove into Attwood.
There was no obstruction as O'Brien had a free passage to the ball-carrier.
When O'Brien made contact he formed a maul, as defined in Law 17. Other Irish players joined in, O'Brien was on the ground and the advancing maul stumbled over him. He was penalised for causing the maul to collapse.
That all made sense.
What the non-maulers are not allowed to do is leave the line-out before it is over.
When is it over?
Law 19.9 BEGINNING AND ENDING A LINE-OUT
(b) The line-out ends. The line-out ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the line-out.
The Cheetahs throw into a line-out. Oupa Mohoje goes up for the ball and brings it down. The Cheetahs form a maul-like formation which is not a maul because the Blues stand off. Mohoje keeps possession of the ball at the head of the Cheetahs wouldbe maul. The Cheetahs drive forward and the Blues back away. The referee penalises the Blues for leaving the line-out before it is over.
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.
When Mohoje comes to ground he does not carry the ball out of the line-out. It remains a line-out as long as the Cheetahs stay in the line-out.
But look at the Blues players at the back of the line-out – Jerome Kaino and Matt Moulds. While Mohoje is still where he landed, in other words still in the line-out, Kaino and Moulds cross the 15-metre line, which is the outer limit of the line-out. They have left the line-out. Players backing away from the line-out have left 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.
The referee penalises the Blues. At the time the Blues are leading 24-22, but Joe Pietersen goals the penalty for the line-out infringement and the Cheetahs win 25-24.
By Paul Dobson
ADVERTISEMENT
