IRB's maul ruling
In response to requests for a ruling on the maul made by the New Zealand Rugby Union, the IRB’s designated members have issued a ruling dated 22 October 2008.
The statement from the designated members – a committee of the International Rugby Board tasked with matters concerning the Laws of the Game – follows.
A. New Zealand’s concern
“Law 17 Maul
The definition of Maul states that for a Maul to occur a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and that a ball carriers teammate(s) is bound onto the ball-carrier. It also states that a maul therefore consists of at least three players (2 ball-carrying team) and (1 opponent) all on their feet.
Law 17.5 describes how a maul ends successfully and Law 17.6 describes an unsuccessful end to a Maul. In the recent ELV [experimental law variations] rulings the Designated Members gave consideration to the definition of the Maul rather than the application of Laws 17.5 and 17.6 [See below].
The definition of a maul as per Law 17 and the successful and unsuccessful way in which a maul ends as in Laws 17.5 and 17.6 are contradictory. Once a Maul has been formed if the opponents of the ball-carrying team leave the Maul Laws 17.5 and 17.6 should apply and therefore the Maul should remain in existence and be able to move towards the opposition goal line.
The NZRU asks the Designated Members for a ruling please”.
B The Designated Members’ Ruling
(a) The initial Ruling (ELV Ruling 1), based on the definition of The Maul was, and still is, correct, and that has been re-affirmed. There is no question of redefining The Maul and the judgement/interpretation based around that definition from which the Ruling emerged remains valid.
(b) The second Ruling (Ruling 4) is a quite different issue because it is a Ruling being sought based on what is currently a hypothetical scenario. Because of the ambiguity of the current Law 17, it can readily be interpreted either way and, while there is nothing wrong with the Ruling already given by the Designated Members, there is a concern that, because of the potential for abuse, the effects of this Ruling could impact adversely on the integrity of The Game.
In such circumstances, to protect the integrity of The Game, the Designated Members have Ruled to allow The Maul to continue if the defending players voluntarily detach themselves from the Maul as a deliberate defensive ploy in which case The Maul can only end in accordance with Law 17.5 and 17.6.
However, if defending players originally engaged within The Maul are removed unwillingly by the opposition until no defending players remain attached to The Maul, or players with the ball detach voluntarily then The Maul ceases and if the players bound around the ball continue to move forward it will be deemed to be Obstruction.
The Designated Members will be referring the matter to the Chairman of the Rugby Committee for an amendment to Law to clarify the situation.
C. Laws
Law 17.5 Law SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
A maul ends successfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul. A maul ends successfully when the ball is on the ground, or is on or over the goal line.
Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.
ELV Ruling 1 – 23 July 2008
The RFU requested the following ruling:
Can the following summary of Law 17 please be confirmed by the IRB.
Law 17.5 Successful End To A Maul
(a) A maul ends successfully when the ball, or a player with the ball, leaves the maul. A maul ends successfully when the ball is on the ground, or is on or over the goal line.
(b) A player may pull a maul to ground providing that player does so
by pulling another player in the maul down from shoulders to the
hips.
Ruling Required
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents back towards their own goal line with the ball clearly visible at the back of the maul, a player from Team B bound into the maul pulls a player from the attacking side to ground, with players at the front of the maul also going to ground, however the rear of the maul including the ball carrier remain bound together on their feet and continue to move towards their opponents goal line. As neither the ball or the player in
possession of the ball has left the maul or the ball is on the ground we assume the maul has not been successfully completed.
Ruling
Following a Special Meeting of Council (July 2008), 17.5 (b) – “another player“ is replaced by “an opponent”.
In specific response for a request for a ruling the Designated Members have ruled:
If players from the team not in possession of the ball (Team B) are still bound to the maul after a player or players have been pulled to the ground the maul continues.
