What the Ruck? (And Maul)

Something that becomes crucial in deciding a rugby match is how teams deal with the breakdown. What do I mean by the breakdown? I mean the mauls and rucks, a pair of distinctive instants within the game that forms a break down of regular play. Each is as different from the other as a front row prop is to a full back. One thing we need to distinguish first is when each forms, so that's where we start. By the way, I apologise if this is a bit heavy!

A maul is formed when the ball carrier is bound to by an opposition player and one of his teammates. A ruck is formed when one player from both teams is bound to each other over the ball. These are the key differences, the number of players and if the ball is in a players hands or not. Technically, a ruck can form in open play if the ball is on the ground. There's a series of laws governing the ruck and maul, so let's tackle them.

Conveniently, we start with the tackle. Rucks usually occur as a direct result of a tackle, and the immediate instructions for the players on the ground is "release." The tackler has to release the player they tackled and the tackled player must immediately place the ball in any direction. (This is why they can score a try after being tackled.) Once the tackler has released, they must either get out of the way of the ball, or get back to their feet. The privilege of the tackler is that they can attack the ball from any direction, however any other player must join "through the gate." "The gate" is the area either side of the tackled player running parallel to the goal lines, and is only as wide as the player on the ground. The arriving players have to come in running parallel to the touchlines, with no angle, otherwise they will be penalised for entering at the side. As the players arrive, they must be supporting their own weight, by not leaning on the ground or the player on the ground. An defending player can come and place their hands on the ball, so long as they are not bound by a teammate of the tackled player before the ball is picked up. If they lose possession of it, the ruck carries on. From then on, any arriving players must come through the gate and bind on to a player, or risk being penalised for side or dangerous entry. Any other players must remain at or behind the back foot of the ruck until the ball is out. The ball is deemed to be out when either the player acting as scrum half picks up the ball, or it goes beyond the back feet. Once the ball leaves the ruck, the ruck is over and players can attack the ball from any direction, provided they were onside before they go for the ball. The ball cannot be kicked back into a ruck, or the pile of players that was a ruck. If this happens, it is a penalty for the opposing team.

Other ways for a ruck to finish include the ball being on or over the goal line, or the ruck becoming unplayable. If it is unplayable, a scrum is the call. As to who takes the scrum depends on what happened immediately beforehand. If a team was going forward, the put in is theirs. If the ruck was stationary, the team who was moving forward before the ruck throws in. If there was no forward movement, the attacking team puts in.

Throughout a ruck, the ball cannot be picked up or played with the hands of anyone except for a player who had their hands on the ball before the ruck had formed. If their hands come off the ball, they must leave it alone and use their feet instead. 

Oh, and everyone's favourite rule... "Use it!" If the ball is available and has been clearly won, the referee will call "use it." Once that has been called, the team who has won the ball must remove the ball from the ruck within five seconds, or the ball will be turned over. So can everyone stop yelling "use it" at scrum halves please??

I'll cover some similarities between the two very quickly. Neither breakdown can be collapsed deliberately, all players must enter from the gate and onside positions, all players must enter with their shoulders and head above their hips, and the offside lines are the same for rucks and mauls. Oh, and I shouldn't have to say it but I will. No jumping onto a ruck or a maul. Seriously. Don't do it!

Onto the maul. As I mentioned before, it forms when the ball carrier is bound to a player from each side, and all of the players are on their feet. Once the maul has formed, the players must follow the same procedure as the ruck. Through the gate, bind, backfoot offside lines, etc. 

A maul ends when one of the following happens:

a) the maul goes to ground legally

b) the ball leaves the maul

c) the ball goes to ground, or touches the goal line

d) the maul becomes stationary or goes backwards for a second time

e) the maul goes to ground legally but the ball is unplayable.

In the event of d and e, the ball is turned over to the team who did not take the ball into the ruck, and a scrum follows. There is one exception to the turn over, and that is in the event of the maul occurring immediately after collecting a kick. If a maul is unsuccessful after the kick, the scrum out in goes to the team that collected the kick. 

Hopefully that answered all your questions... Oh wait. No, sorry! I forgot a request. The "same maul" call. This is a tricky one, but if a maul forms, and the ball carrier and another player that is bound to the ball carrier break away, the maul goes with it, even if the player bound to the ball carrier is a teammate and there is no opposition. It is not obstruction or accidental offside unless the maul runs into another player of their team who is in an offside position, I.e. In front of the back foot of the maul. As an added complication, if same maul is called, then any defending player has to stop the maul legally. They cannot tackle the ball carrier. If they do, they risk a yellow card for a cynical act of foul play and deliberately collapsing the maul. 

Right, now I'm done! Any other requests are welcome, and I hope I've answered your questions about rucks and mauls. There is a variation that came out this year about what happens if a maul forms at a line out, but I'll cover that some time soon in the line out session! 

Scrum on down.

It's a debate we have on a nearly weekly basis. The scrum: is it killing the game? For the uninitiated, the purpose of the scrum is defined by the IRB (sorry, World Rugby) as a method to "restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage." It is made up of at most 8 players from each team. The loose head prop, a hooker and a tight head prop make the front row, two locks make the second row, and three players, who bind to the second row players, are the flankers and no 8. 

The calls to start the scrum as of the 2014/15 season are "crouch, bind, set." On crouch, the front rows crouch so that their heads are not next to their teammates. Bind indicates the time for the props to bind onto their opposite man. The bind is to the shirt on the back or side, not the sleeve, arm, collar or chest, and there is to be no downward pressure applied by any prop. The flankers bind onto their second rows with at least one arm, and the number 8 binds with his or her head between either the two locks or a lock and a flanker. "Set" is not an instruction to come together, but rather a indication that they may do so. 

The scrum half can then put the ball in when the scrum is stable, steady and stationary, with the tunnel running parallel to the goal lines. The scrum may not move until the ball has been put in. The ball must be put in so that the major axis of the ball is parallel to the ground and the touch line.

I'm sorry if this is a bit dry, but these points need to be made as they are part of the law that make up the scrum. Without the scrum, we do not have rugby union. We end up with rugby league, and I personally hate refereeing matches where the scrums are uncontested. It's boring, the forwards use up their energy in the rucks and mauls and things get far feistier. What makes it boring for spectators (and wingers) is the endless restarts of scrums that seem to be taking over. 

From what I've seen, there are a series of failings going on that are not being penalised. The first is the feed of the scrum half. Now, arguably, this is two issues. The scrum half has to put the ball in straight, and rightly so, but in doing so, he gives his team a warning that the ball is coming in. The attacking team then poises to attack the scrum, and often takes a slight step forward as the scrum half puts the ball in. This half step is often enough to push the defending team to a position where they cannot hook the ball, meaning they have already lost the scrum. The correct outcome here? Free kick to the defending team. The attacking team has driven before the ball has entered the scrum, the official starting point of a scrum. Technically, the scrum half hasn't done anything wrong, but it looks like a feed. Feeding is still an issue, but it's a different problem. We penalise not straights at lineouts, so why are we so reluctant to punish feeding at the scrum? My guess is referees are too busy watching every other detail of the scrum. It's a dangerous place, and we have to be safe.

Which brings me to my next point. The call to the scrum changed this season to make the scrum safer, by reducing the impact on players and eliminating the "hit." Yet... It is coming back. The correct procedure should have the players holding the position between each call. Crouch, stable, steady. Bind, stable, steady. Set, stable, steady. Ball in, down the middle, scrum begins. Hurray, a fair and even contest. And I'll be damned if it ever actually happens at a professional level. The trend coming in is one of the hit, the damn illegal hit, coming back. Watch out for it. The front rows pull back ever so slightly, and slam themselves into each other. This impact, although less than before, is still the cause of so many collapsed scrums. It throws the weight of the props off balance, so when the ball enters, the scrum isn't stable and it will collapse more often than not, leading to a restart, or a penalty.

Moving further back, there is something creeping in that is never penalised. Next scrum you watch, look at the flankers. Often, they reach forward and bind on the opposition prop, pushing them so that they cannot drive squarely. Outcome? Penalty for not driving square. What should happen? Penalty against the flanker. This has never been penalised, at least that I have seen, and it is dangerous play. The flanker puts pressure on the prop, meaning his hips turn out, his shoulders go in, and the scrum starts to fold in. It's wrong and dangerous. I cannot stress enough. It actually exposes the flankers own prop.  Flankers in a scrum are there to push into the scrum, their weight anchoring the props into place, and driving the forces towards the goal line. 

One final point. The wheeling of a scrum. As a concept, I find this very odd. Any A level physicist will tell you the natural driving forces of a scrum will cause it to wheel to the right, into the tight head, or clockwise. Two men, the hooker and the loose head, will push the tight head back, whilst it slowly turns. Chances are, seeing a deliberate wheel going in that direction are very slim, unless a player falls straight to ground. For me, the deliberate wheel penalty should be given either as a result of a anti-clockwise wheel or is dependant the speed of which a scrum rotates. And often, a speedy wheel will come because the tight head either turns his shoulder in and collapses, or the attacking loose head turns out his hips, turning his pressure into the scrum instead of parallel to it.

So how can we prevent the tiresome issues from biting? We have to go through a period of rampant penalising in order to get the message through. Everything that is seen as illegal needs to be penalised, and it needs to be down fairly and consistently. A collapsed scrum is not always due to players action. Often the balance isn't right, or the pitch slips beneath the studs, which means they must reset to start the game properly. And by restart, I mean restart. In the event of a restarted scrum, the clock needs to be stopped until the ball is at the base of the scrum, at the number 8's feet. At this point, there are three options: play the ball through either the 8 or scrum half, or keep driving on. The penalty, if it came, would then be due to a dominant scrum, or we will have a scrum actually going backwards, which is not illegal, nor dangerous whilst all players are on their feet. Until an offence occurs, the scrum should carry on. And I don't mean just in that one game. I mean in the entirety of this game we call Rugby Union. The scrum needs to stay.

Let's leave the ref alone.

Something that annoys me as a referee is watching rugby coverage and the commentators say "the referee has given a penalty for..." Insert a penalty offence, and they get it wrong, despite having something like 20 years of rugby playing and commentary behind them, and a direct feed to the referee's microphone. Everyone makes mistakes, and fair enough, when they notice, they correct themselves. But it does annoy me.
In the old days, we could hold our heads up high and say the cliché "we're not like football supporters." And we still aren't, but both sets are sliding towards a mutual point. When I was at uni, I lived a short walk away from Leicester City football stadium, and one Tuesday night, I heard an almighty cry of "You Don't Know What You're Doing!" From an outside point, it's funny to hear 40,000 people call someone an idiot, but inside the ground, it's quite daunting. I've heard it a few times at Franklins Gardens, Twickenham and around the Premiership. And I hate it. Dara O'Briain, the irish comedian, wrote a joke about why he doesn't write jokes about Muslims. (Don't worry, this isn't going down that road!) he said to his audience: "there's two reasons why I dont. A: I don't know he first thing about Muslims. And B: neither do you." Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that the referees actually don't know what they're doing, but they are under a lot of pressure. I love listening to RefLinks, small radios that allow you to hear the referees conversation in real time. You hear some absolute gems. Search for Nigel Owens at Harlequins this season, and you'll see what I mean. And I can interpert the signals anyway, but hearing the reason is reassuring, even if he's wrong.
And that's another thing: Law 1 of rugby is "the referee is the sole arbiter of fact." He's not always right, he's human, with one set of eyes usually obscured by at least 5 metres and three very large men in different coloured jerseys. There is often 5 different things going on at the breakdown alone, yet alone what is happening behind Sir off the ball. (And yes, I refer to the referees as "Sir." Much to the amusement of my mates.) it's hard to see everything, and judge if it is relevant. Refs use a general guide of materiality - i.e. Does it matter? Has it affected play in any way?
I'll give an example: let's say a ruck occurs on the 22m line, half way in from the touch lines. Blue have the ball and are attacking. Red are defending, and are on the back feet, where they should be. Just before the scrum half picks the ball up, Red 11 rushes forward, and Blue 9 passes it to his left. Do we penalise Red 11 for offside? No, of course not. Because it makes no difference. You could argue that he has prevented the ball going right, but since most 9's prefer to pass to the left, it doesn't matter. Had the ball gone right, he would be offside and advantage (probably) played.
Just because he wasn't penalised doesn't mean it's been missed, it just means it probably made no difference to the game and would have wasted time to stop. And the call of "use it" to get the ball out at the base of the ruck or maul is not for anyone to shout out randomly, so please stop it, rugby audiences. The referee judges it when the ball is available, and five seconds is a long time, particularly with no visual cue like Advantage.
So let's stop harassing the referee, shall we? If we think the red doesn't know what he is doing, then what's the point? To my mind, it's technically abuse of an official to shout out like that. I'm all for free speech, but there is a limit. We need to stop this culture of asking for penalties, cards and wildly gesturing to Sir for a decision. Just accept it, and get on with the game. We'll all enjoy it better if we just let it go.