Where the top-level rugby referees get it wrong.

By Odd Shaped Balls
December 11 2005

A few weeks ago there was a forthright debate on this site’s message board concerning the preponderance of the rolling or driving maul in some teams’ game plans. In “The Daily Telegraph” Brian Moore was pointing out how referees are reducing the necessity of skill in the hooker’s art.

Our friend, Ajack, mused on the willingness of supporters of rugby clubs and maybe rugby in general to criticise people who are amongst the highest echelons of their profession – the elite panel of rugby referees.

In response to Ajack, I ventured that in comparison with some of the academic subjects he offered as Aunt Sallies, rugby law was small, contained and generally well-known. One of the principle reasons that referees come under criticism is that they condone infraction of the laws to the disproportionate advantage of the side in possession of the ball. When a host of knowledgeable people can see such inequity, referees have brought themselves and the game, which I am sure they love, into disrepute.

 The Maul Driven from a Line-out – a Proposition.

In the vast majority of cases that a maul is formed from a line-out, the first team to commit a penalty offence is the side in possession of the ball.

A maul is a devil of a thing to stop. As soon as the side with the ball feels concerted opposition against it, it rolls away from the pressure point and continues its drive. The defence has to regroup back behind a moving offside line and try again. Even when defenders are not being cynical in trying to stop the maul, they are prone to conceding penalties as at any stage as they are about to join, the mass may move and create a new offside line. Penalty!

Faced with this inevitability, teams often try to concede the penalty early and the game becomes an ugly and cynical battle.

The proposition I put before you is that most mauls from lines-out are not mauls at all.

 For a maul to be formed, the ball-carrier must be held by one or more opponents. What happens alarmingly frequently is that players not in possession of the ball form a barrier to prevent the ball-carrier being held or tackled by an opponent. This is obstruction and should be punished by a penalty kick.

 Another ploy is for the catcher to hand the ball off to another player who then runs straight into team-mates in front of him. Only the most charitable would call that accidental offside. Once again the ball carrier has never been held by an opponent and consequently a maul has never been formed. If the ball-carrier is actually held, the conduct of the maul is a much less predictable affair. As with mauls in open play, the ball may not emerge and when it is stopped a scrum will be awarded to the defending team. Think about this the next time you watch a game – your team as well as your opponents will do it. Why? Because the referee allows them so to do.

Mauls – how many offside lines?

The answer is two but once again observe at any match. At times both attackers and defenders will offend by failing to join from the hindmost foot on their own side. A defender will be left in no doubt what the referee thinks of it. I am sure watchers from the front rows of the terrace are heartily sick of hearing: “Advantage, green seven coming in from the side!”

But wait, let us just suppose that it is green in possession and they have worked it to the back of their maul where it is held by a scarcely bound number two. In reaction to the counter drive green rolls the maul. Two green is about to suffer from whiplash and what is worse for his team is that he is about to come into contact with an onside opponent. Step up green seven again and bind on to the ball carrier to seal the ball off from the defender. He can do this with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the referee never blows for this form of offside. So perhaps I should amend the answer to my own rhetorical question – there is only one offside line in a maul that the referee polices.

Deja vu

Not very many years ago southern hemisphere rugby (especially Super 12) gained a reputation for being basketball. It was no such thing except that in the immediate aftermath of a tackle a non-contact form of rugby ensued. The tackler’s side would be penalised for almost any action they might take to retrieve the ball while the player in possession was allowed to turn and place the ball at his leisure. The (usually) scrum half would be allowed to take his time in making his decision. He was safe in the knowledge that, even though nothing resembling a ruck or a maul was taking place, he and the ball would go unmolested. “Reflink” detected that new offence of “Slowing Down the Ball” had been created to cover all the infringements that might have been committed had a ruck actually been allowed to form. All this was supposed to be in the name of continuity but all it ensured was continuity of possession for the side with the ball. This was so sterile and boring that a limit on the number of tackles was drafted but never adopted as an experimental law.

Shortly after this – supposedly amid a furore of Anzac administrators fearing that Messrs Packer and Murdoch would withdraw their money – the IRB decided that rucking was not illegal and was good for the game. They decided that, in principle, mauls could be a useful ploy as an attacking weapon to move offside lines and allow the team in possession of the ball a bit of space in which to play.

The pendulum (for some, at any rate) has swung the other way. Competition for the ball has become so fierce that teams that have it will do anything, including infringe, to keep hold of it. If an isolated player goes to ground and fails to play or release the ball, he is penalised. If he stays on his feet, his team-mates are allowed to trample all over the law book to help their side keep hold of the ball.

This new version of the Eton Wall Game (without the wall) is no better for the game as a whole than the pre-2000 pseudo-rugby league version.

The Logical Conclusion

It is not my intention to knock Saracens for the way that they played against Northampton Saints. Virtually everything they did was endorsed by the referee. Saracens’ supporters thought Saints should have been penalised more heavily for their defensive infringements at mauls and Saints’ fans were struck dumb by the referee’s blindness to the way many of the mauls were constituted.

If winning is the be-all-and-end-all in Premiership rugby, there is no doubt that more teams should adopt the Saracens approach. Because Saracens do it better than anyone else they do it more than anyone else. It is a guaranteed revenue stream; penalties will accrue, opponents will be sent to the sin-bin. If you can make your driving maul impregnable, you have the basis of winning game plan. I commend it to coaches and directors of rugby the length and breadth of the country.

What If…

What if administrators not so enamoured of the forward-dominated game ask the law makers to review this aspect of play. They will find the infringements that I have pointed out and one or two more besides. They will conclude that it is not a fair contest if the team in possession of the ball is allowed to infringe with at will while the team that is not is literally whistled off the park.

Would the administrators conclude that the law as written is fair and reasonable? Would they simply instruct referees – particularly those in England – as to how to interpret the law as written?

 Whither Rucks and Mauls or Wither!

Be confident that even if the imbalance I have described is allowed to survive the Rugby World Cup in 2007, it will be addressed well before New Zealand becomes the host country in 2011.

Another Proposition – Referees Favour the Conservative Approach

I asked you to consider the following scenario. There are five steps and it is a collection of circumstances that will almost certainly occur in a game you watch in the near future.

1. Team A is attacking, ball in-hand; the players make a minor error and the pass is adjudged half-a-metre forward; scrum B.

2. Team B scrum half puts ball into scrum squint by half-a-metre, ball recovered.

3. Team B kicks to touch.

4. Team A’s hooker throws into the ensuing line-out; throw adjudged not straight (by about half-a-metre); Scrum B

5. Team B scrum half puts ball into scrum squint by half-a-metre, ball recovered.

Substantiating the Argument

Scrums are generally awarded when the side in possession of the ball has an accident. Putting the ball into the scrum on your own loose head is advantage commensurate with the misdemeanour committed. It is a good law as is the law governing the scrum. It contains heaps of good common sense to ensure safety and a fair contest.

How many times a game are fewer than five of the injunctions on throwing the ball into the scrum breached?

Let us look at what has happened in the example above.

No crime has taken place but each team has committed two misdemeanours turn and turn about.

Natural justice would have maintained the status quo. It certainly would not have allowed the last miscreant to hold the advantage. The advantage being possession AND the amount of ground they gained when they deliberately kicked away possession.

 

Conclusion – Referees Out of Touch with the Spirit and Aims of the Game

Whether it is feeding at the scrum or mauling from line-out nothing in the referee’s interpretation of the law actually improves on the laws as written. Somewhere along the line somebody has told them they do. However, all they achieve is to distort the balance of the contest.