Response to 'Lensbury laws'
Broken maul questioned
Recently we gave some feedback on the meeting of elite referees and referees managers in Lensbury. Here Peter Shortell of Cheltenham gives his response.
To see what we originally published from Lensbury, click here.
By way of a refresher: The ancient Romans had a similar formation. They would huddle, stick shields above their heads and charge a battering ram at a besieged door. They called it a testudo, a tortoise. For a modern rugby tortoise to be legal there must first be a maul. It then continues to be a maul if the defenders break away. If there are no defenders to start with their is no maul. If the tortoise is then rushed into the defenders, there is a case for obstruction. If the tortoise breaks away from the maul, then truck-'n-trailer can occur.
Peter Shortell writes: The maul discussions at Lensbury have me worried. Presumably defenders would see no point in leaving a maul, but attackers would have every incentive to try and drive straight though the middle – which is equivalent. The advantage they would gain seems to me disproportionate.
I have seen this happen at local level: a mini-maul, and the three players break through with the ball-carrier at the back. He cannot be tackled, and you have in effect a Flying Truck'n'Trailer!
The line-out provision seems in effect to force a team to join a maul (or make a tackle). If they don't they can't retreat, so the only alternative is to let the opponents come rampaging through. The line-out is not over until they have done so.
If the ball-winner passes the ball back to a team-mate without a maul having formed, then of course he is obstructing.
This will all happen pretty fast – a referee's nightmare?
I approve of the comments about feet on bodies. I hope nobody tries to argue by implication that stamping/trampling is wrong but rucking a player is OK. The law specifically says it isn't.
The two (primary?) questions to the TMO make sense. I still think the referee should give a default decision, effectively saying, "If you cannot help, this is what I will give". I see no reason why he should not also ask specific questions to help the TMO.
Extending the TMO's remit to the previous stoppage could be excessive. Sometimes a play can go for several minutes. The TMO may see no reason to scrutinise all of it, but you can bet that some TV people will – and find reasons to claim the TMO should have seen whatever it is as well. There is no simple solution, but something like "the lead-up to the incident" sounds sensible. That could included a knock-on during intercept, or a foot in touch on the 22, but would exclude a knock-on by the scoring team in the first phase of play where possession switched twice.
In general, however, good positive stuff.
Little comment: Are we heading for a three-hour match? The TMO's examination of a scoring move need tale no longer than it does now, for the referee will ask if there was a knock-on at the intercept. That can be examined quickly.
