Clarification 6-2003

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Request

SRU has requested a ruling with regard to Law 17:

I refer to Ruling 3: 2003 contained in your fax of 7th June 2003 in response to the SRU with regard to a ruling under Law 15 -Tackle and Law 17 -Maul. It is noted that the designated members ruled that the player is liable to penalty for collapsing the maul. I would ask you to refer the definition of Law 17 -Maul to the designated Members for further consideration.

Under the definition, "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates bind onto the ball carrier."

If this is deemed to be sequential, a maul is not formed if players from the ball carrier's team join on to the ball carrier before the opposition. It is noted under a previous Ruling that where three players move beyond the line of touch to receive the ball they are treated as one player and are not liable to penalty. In our opinion, if we treat the ball carrier and his team mates as one player, this would allow the ball carrier to be brought to ground under the Tackle Law.

Ruling of the designated members of the Rugby Committee

1. Under the definition, "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates bind onto the ball carrier." If this is deemed to be sequential, a maul is not formed if players from the ball carrier's team join on to the ball carrier before the opposition.

Whilst a maul is considered to be built by the ball carrier, one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carriers team mates, it does not have to have any of the three player components joining in any specific order.