Clarification 11-2003

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

NZRFU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 15 Tackle and Law 17 Maul:

The NZRFU is in receipt of Ruling 3:2003. The Union seeks further clarification on the interpretation implicit in Ruling 3. In order to bring further clarity to what is involved in forming a maul and collapsing a maul we would request answers to the following questions.

(1) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player drives in low and wraps his arms around the legs (knee height) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him. The #8 still in possession of the ball is brought to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(2) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, grasps his jersey (shoulder region) of the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and immediately brings him to ground. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?
(ii) Collapsing a maul?

(3) Team A wins a 5m attacking scrum. The #8 detaches with the ball, and #6 binds on immediately and they drive towards the line. A defending player, while remaining on his feet, drives into the #8, who still has his #6 bound to him, and binds on him in an effort to prevent their forward progress. By his actions is the defender:

(i) Forming a maul?


If the answer to 3.a.i. is yes, and the defender now drags the maul to the ground, is he:

(ii) Collapsing a maul?

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

(1) The defender has not formed a maul, nor has he collapsed a maul.

(2) The defender, if he has not bound (by definition) to the ball-carrier #8, has not formed a maul, nor has he collapsed a maul.

(3) The defender has formed a maul, and has collapsed a maul, and is therefore subject to penalty.