Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Stheno · 06-10-2015 8:18pm

I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

Can someone explain what that means please?

.ak · 06-10-2015 8:34pm

Stheno wrote: »

I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

Can someone explain what that means please?

You can't unbind from your original position and move up the maul to get into a better position. Some refs call it swimming up also.

Stheno · 06-10-2015 8:44pm

.ak wrote: »

You can't unbind from your original position and move up the maul to get into a better position. Some refs call it swimming up also.

Thank you.

I think I just saw Fiji do it again, their number five was at the front of a Uruguay maul in that he was closest to the Uruguaian (sp?) players, and he was nearly climbing over them to get forward?

Is it ok for the attacking team to change bindings?

.ak · 06-10-2015 9:00pm

Stheno wrote: »

Thank you.

I think I just saw Fiji do it again, their number five was at the front of a Uruguay maul in that he was closest to the Uruguaian (sp?) players, and he was nearly climbing over them to get forward?

Is it ok for the attacking team to change bindings?

No, the attacking players if they lose their bind must rebind onto the carrier.

Basically if your defending a maul the only way through tackle the carrier is by going through the originally bound players... It's near impossible unless you were in a good position when the maul started.

It's hard to police tho, hence why sometimes players will chance their arm and swim up the side of the maul and latch on to the carrier.

Stheno · 06-10-2015 9:10pm

.ak wrote: »

No, the attacking players if they lose their bind must rebind onto the carrier.

Basically if your defending a maul the only way through tackle the carrier is by going through the originally bound players... It's near impossible unless you were in a good position when the maul started.

It's hard to police tho, hence why sometimes players will chance their arm and swim up the side of the maul and latch on to the carrier.

Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?

.ak · 06-10-2015 9:16pm

Stheno wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?

Yep, pretty much. The offside line is created between the first carrier and the first tackler if that makes sense. If you think of an Irish maul often Toner is the receiver, gets to deck, let's himself get tackled, then transfers the ball back once everyone has bound on. From then on the offside line is set by toner and the tackler. So any defending players must join that maul behind that line, once they lose their bind.

The Lost Sheep · 06-10-2015 9:20pm

Stheno wrote: »

I think this is the right thread as opposed to the laws thread.

Fiji have just been penalised in a maul against Uruguay for changing binds in the maul.

Can someone explain what that means please?

You cannot change your bind to disadvantage the opposition. You must join the maul at the hindmost foot and must stay in that position..

Stheno wrote: »

Ah ok, thanks again, you're being very patient.

So in terms of attacking players, when I see players attacking who "unbind" from the maul running back and joining the back of the maul that makes sense.

I'm not really getting what you are saying about the defense, sorry, is it almost the equivalent of coming into a ruck from the side?

to defend a maul you must go through the players in front of you and drive through them to get at the ball carrier.

Stheno · 06-10-2015 9:20pm

.ak wrote: »

Yep, pretty much. The offside line is created between the first carrier and the first tackler if that makes sense. If you think of an Irish maul often Toner is the receiver, gets to deck, let's himself get tackled, then transfers the ball back once everyone has bound on. From then on the offside line is set by toner and the tackler. So any defending players must join that maul behind that line, once they lose their bind.

Makes perfect sense thank you.

I used often see Toner almost floating in the middle of a maul if that makes sense as the maul moves as he is the receiver and gets trapped for want of a better word.

Thanks again, sorry if it was a stupid question. I've known in the past why things were intrinsically wrong, but didn't have the ability to articulate them, and since my OH (and his son when he is with us)has started getting interested in rugby and asking questions, I've gotten more interested in the technicalities of the game.

Thanks again

.ak · 06-10-2015 9:27pm

No worries! That's what this thread is for. I'm sure someone who's played more in the pack can explain it better, but that's my understanding of it.

That's generally why locks are referred to as the "engine room" of the pack, quite often they're the power driving the maul. Guys like toner and POC are masters of it, toner being 20st and guaranteed his feet will get purchase on the ground makes him ideal for it.

Stheno · 06-10-2015 9:35pm

.ak wrote: »

No worries! That's what this thread is for. I'm sure someone who's played more in the pack can explain it better, but that's my understanding of it.

That's generally why locks are referred to as the "engine room" of the pack, quite often they're the power driving the maul. Guys like toner and POC are masters of it, toner being 20st and guaranteed his feet will get purchase on the ground makes him ideal for it.

I used play at lock with Blackrock (as a sub) in the early nineties when womens rugby was in it's infancy, and that was exactly what we were used for, sheer power behind the guys in the front row to bully the opposition in scrums, not so much mauls as we didn't have many tbh, so that's where I'm behind.

Again, appreciate the patience, I know my Oh as a newb interested in the game enjoys learning what things mean, and I appreciate being able to tell him

from_atozinc · 10-10-2015 7:28am

What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?

sydthebeat · 10-10-2015 8:23am

from_atozinc wrote: »

What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?

From inside your 22 you can kick directly out of play.
When out side your 22 and you kick the ball, it must bounce before going out of play, otherwise the line out is back where you kicked the ball.

In both circumstances the other team gain possession.

The only time you retain possession from a kick is when its a penalty, and the ball can be kicked directly out from anywhere on the pitch from a penalty

.ak · 10-10-2015 8:24am

from_atozinc wrote: »

What's the whole story with line outs. If a defender is kicking from inside his own 22 is it something like : if it bounces before going out over sideline , does his team have the throw in, if it does not bounce before going out over sideline does the other team have the scrum ? Or vice versa or totally wrong.

Then is there a different rule when kicking from outside your own 22 ?

If you kick from within your 22 (the play must start there, you can't just carry it back there) the ball is allowed to go out on the full - the other team get the line out, but if happens where the ball went out.

If you kick from outside your 22 the ball must bounce infield first for the same to happen, if it goes out in the full the line out will happen from where you kicked the ball. The risk being you're giving away possession and a load of territory.

The only time you get the line out if you kick the ball is if it's a penalty, or if the opposition touch the ball before it goes out.

from_atozinc · 10-10-2015 9:26am

Thanks. Tricky enough.

If inside your own 22 is there any advantage to the ball bouncing first versus going out on the full ?

The Lost Sheep · 10-10-2015 11:17am

from_atozinc wrote: »

Thanks. Tricky enough.

If inside your own 22 is there any advantage to the ball bouncing first versus going out on the full ?

If kicking from inside your 22 there is no difference between the ball bouncing and then going into touch and the ball going straight out on the full

Losty Dublin · 10-10-2015 11:45am

.ak wrote: »

If you kick from within your 22 (the play must start there, you can't just carry it back there) the ball is allowed to go out on the full - the other team get the line out, but if happens where the ball went out.

If you kick from outside your 22 the ball must bounce infield first for the same to happen, if it goes out in the full the line out will happen from where you kicked the ball. The risk being you're giving away possession and a load of territory.

To add, should you bring the ball into the 22 from outside of it or if you receive it from a pass that comes from outside of the 22 then the kick is considered as being taken outside.

For a player to be able to kick directly into touch without the loss of ground then one of four things needs to happen. Either a tackle or ruck or maul need to have taken place or an opposition player needs to have played the ball.

from_atozinc · 10-10-2015 4:02pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

To add, should you bring the ball into the 22 from outside of it or if you receive it from a pass that comes from outside of the 22 then the kick is considered as being taken outside.

For a player to be able to kick directly into touch without the loss of ground then one of four things needs to happen. Either a tackle or ruck or maul need to have taken place or an opposition player needs to have played the ball.

Just on your last paragraph, I'm confused.

So let's say the attacking team is in the half way line, a maul has just taken place and the ball is passed back to number 10 - who kicks it up inside the oppositions 22 and goes over the side line.

Who gets the throw in here ? (because of directly coming from maul situation)

Narcissus · 10-10-2015 5:20pm

Why does a ref say use it once at the start of a maul and then use it now ?
Does it have to do with the motion of the maul? If it's stopped moving?

Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?

Losty Dublin · 10-10-2015 6:42pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

Just on your last paragraph, I'm confused.

So let's say the attacking team is in the half way line, a maul has just taken place and the ball is passed back to number 10 - who kicks it up inside the oppositions 22 and goes over the side line.

Who gets the throw in here ? (because of directly coming from maul situation)

What I said applies in the 22 only; apologies if it's confused you. It prevents a player from gaining possess outside the 22, retreating into it and then kicking the ball to gain ground. It doesn't apply anywhere else within the field of play.

Losty Dublin · 10-10-2015 6:53pm

Narcissus wrote: »

Why does a ref say use it once at the start of a maul and then use it now ?
Does it have to do with the motion of the maul? If it's stopped moving?

Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?

On your first point; maul can and does become stationary, either naturally or through the efforts of the defending team. The team in possession has a chance to get it moving a second time, hence the "once" call. The "use it" call is their final chance to make use of the ball; it also comes up at a ruck and scrum. The ref calls it to give them forewarning to do something with the ball.

On your second point; advantage may be either territorial or by way of possession so it varies as to how it may be of benefit to you depending on whats going on. The advantage at a penalty or free kick will offer more scope than at a knock forward; similarly if you are looking like you may score score a try then the ref will give it more time to develop than if you were defending a try. When you mention the cross field kick, well that's an advances situation where you can have a risk knowing that you'll get a penalty regardless.

Howjoe1 · 11-10-2015 6:46pm

TV3 ad break. should have time to make the dinner before it comes back on.

degsie · 11-10-2015 11:02pm

Howjoe1 wrote: »

TV3 ad break. should have time to make the dinner before it comes back on.

Wrong thread?

locum-motion · 13-10-2015 9:41am

Narcissus wrote: »

...

Also, when a team has advantage and then kick the ball advantage is over but that's not the case when someone does a cross field kick for a try inside the opponents 22, why is that?

When Team A commits an offense, the referee allows play to develop to see if Team B will gain a "territorial or tactical" advantage; that is to see if continuing play will allow Team B to achieve a better position or situation than they might achieve through the ref blowing the whistle and sanctioning the offense.
Therefore, the amount of leeway the ref allows will depend on whether the offense was a scrum, free-kick or penalty offense.

I was (briefly) a referee; I was at a referee's meeting years ago where the main speaker was the then world's top ref, Andre Watson. His advice was that, if it's a penalty advantage in a kickable position, the team hasn't achieved an advantage until there's points on the board.

philstar · 19-10-2015 10:48am

was it the right call??? anybody clue'ed up want to clarify...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSiYF793wUg

The Lost Sheep · 19-10-2015 12:56pm

philstar wrote: »

was it the right call??? anybody clue'ed up want to clarify...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSiYF793wUg

Decision was a penalty for deliberate action to play the ball while offside but it could probably have been a scrum to Australia for accidental offside but I don't.
Referee clearly thought it was clear and obvious infringement for deliberate action to play the ball while offside which is a penalty

Speranza81 · 19-10-2015 2:47pm

I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few question which have niggled at me all tournament.

Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

Thanks in advance!

Speranza81 · 19-10-2015 2:48pm

I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few questions which have niggled at me all tournament.

Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

Thanks in advance!

The Lost Sheep · 19-10-2015 2:52pm

Speranza81 wrote: »

I thought I'd break my posting duck to thank you all for this thread. I've watched rugby since I've been 18 but I didn't have anything more than the most basic understanding of the rules and strategy. In fact, France vs Italy at Twickenham was my first live game - I hail from Derry so rugby is almost non-existent! This has been a great help so cheers!

I'm putting my lurking behind me as I've a few question which have niggled at me all tournament.

Who are the coaches speaking to when they are nattering into their mics? I presume their instructions are passed onto the water carriers who pass them to the players, is that right?

What is the rule with the tap and go? I think I recall a ref disallowing a tap and go effort in one game because the team had tried it a few minutes before? That seems like an arbitrary way to police the restart. I was at the game yesterday and I'm certainly not going to be watching it again so can someone tell me why Madigan's tap and go was disallowed? Was it a case of going before the ref was ready?

Thanks in advance!

Coaches at professional level cannot go onto or near the pitch. They will be speaking to the water carriers to pass messages.,
A quick penalty('tap and go') must be taken from the mark where the infringement was/penalty was awarded. It will depend on referee stopping play to possibly talk to the opposition and warn them about future conduct or waiting for a sub to come on or simply going before the referee is ready.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2015 3:54pm

might be a good time to bring up the "cant take a second quick tap ref" myth.....

JF100 · 19-10-2015 5:59pm

Thanks to Speranza & Lost Sheep.
However I am still confused.

1. Does anybody know the reason given for not allowing Madigan's tap-and-go try?

2. Oz v Scot:does anybody know whether Joubert was correct in awarding the penalty at the end?
There seems to be talk today that he was in fact incorrect to award the penalty.
(I do not know enough to know whether he was technically correct or not?)

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Comments