Pick'n Go

Rugby's laws confusing enough without grey areas

Sam Bruce

Sam Bruce believes George Clancy made the right decision to award the match-deciding penalty try (Australia only)

The rolling maul will undoubtedly play a major part at Rugby World Cup 2015, which leaves World Rugby a little over six months to clear up the confusion around the way it is defended and refereed.

Both Super Rugby and Six Nations matches were decided by decisions involving a rolling maul at the weekend, with the Blues undone by a controversial call by Australian referee Rohan Hoffman in Bloemfontein before Italy became the beneficiaries of a gutsy call from Irishman George Clancy at Murrayfield.

First to the Blues, who were edged 25-24 by the Cheetahs; after SANZAR game manager Lyndon Bray's curious explanation ahead of Super Rugby, players and fans alike are perhaps now even more confused about laws regarding the non-defending of a lineout drive.

Joe Pietersen should not have had the opportunity to kick the winning penalty in Bloemfontein, Sam Bruce says © Getty Images Enlarge

On Friday night in Bloemfontein, the Blues opted not to initiate contact with the Cheetahs jumper in the 78th minute; Hoffman awarded the home side a penalty due to the visitors "disengaging". Clearly disgruntled with the call, Blues skipper Jerome Kaino argued his case to no avail, and Cheetahs fly-half Joe Pietersen kicked the three points to win the game.

ESPN attempted to clear up the confusion in a telephone hook-up with Bray ahead of the season, asking for an explanation of the law when the defending side chose not to engage the lineout jumper and thus stop the construction a rolling maul.

Describing the issue as "quite complex", Bray revealed that he'd sent video tape to Super Rugby coaches and appealed to their good nature to resist the "negative tactic".

"They're pretty ugly pictures, so we've basically appealed to our coaches that it's not a great positive technique to use; it does create some pretty ugly pictures for the spectators and for the referee to rule on," Bray responded in the teleconference. "The bottom line with the maul is if [a team creates] a maul situation from a lineout and the defenders choose not to engage, and [the team with the ball feeds] the ball to the back and the defenders then come into contact - then the agreement we've got with World Rugby is that we award a scrum to the defenders for an accidental obstruction. The reason we don't want to give a penalty because it's really a very, very negative tactic which is not really the fault of the attacking team so to speak."

This is where the situation gets murky. For a game that has so many laws, with black-and-white sanctions for even the most trivial of infringements - see the Waratahs' Taqele Naiayarvoro against Melbourne Rebels - the defence of a rolling maul, on the evidence of Hoffman's decision against the Blues anyway, has seemingly become a grey area.

And it's a problem the officials brought upon themselves. Bray's admission of an "agreement" doesn't at all fit in with the image of a game that has "laws" not "rules", or a game that is seeking greater uniformity around the way those same "laws" are interpreted. It is, as Bray says, indeed a negative tactic as it cuts at the heart of rugby's calling card - that there is always a contest for the ball.

To Murrayfield now, and Italy's shock win over Scotland.

Edoardo Gori jumps into the crowd after Italy's win against Scotland © Getty Images Enlarge

Clancy made the correct call in awarding the visitors a penalty try in the shadows of full-time, as Scotland's Hamish Watson had clearly pulled the maul down and the visitors looked certain to score had it not been for his illegal manoeuvre.

And now that we have a genuine test case for Test rugby in 2015, it must be one that is ruled consistently. The moment a rolling maul is brought down in a clear try-scoring situation then a penalty-try must be awarded. It's as simple as that. Clancy also issued Watson with a yellow card, and while it made no difference as the game was over, that decision must now also be mirrored throughout 2015.

The rolling maul has the potential to decide some key World Cup fixtures, and such has been its use in the Six Nations and, a little surprisingly, Super Rugby, it's abundantly clear that it's a tactic many coaches will be keen to use.

The weekend's examples will have hopefully made that clear to the game's officials; while Clancy's decisions in the final minutes should serve as the referees' template from here on regarding the rolling maul, the confusion around the non-defence of a lineout drive remains.

Rugby's laws are confusing enough as it is; there can be no grey areas at the game's greatest event.

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd