Professional Truck and Trailer

[Dickie E]

With regards to “Changing Channels“, what sort of site picture are you all looking for?

Have a look at this vid. For me, tactic at 2 mins is legal, tactic at 3 mins is not

 

[Balones]

There is so much illegality in that clip it’s unbelievable. But in general terms I’d agree.

 

[BikingBud]

Same maul apparently

From here with the common activity of rolling outside the defence and then straightening.

In the same way defenders cannot swim forward to compete, attackers should not be able to swim forward, or even join in front of the ball carrier to block eg hooker collecting and then sitting at the back steering and players join in front eg numerous Saints players here: although St Nigel did allow the Falcons hooker to come in the side while it was still going forward.

 

[Rich_NL]

If its a single player breaking off with the ball, he can do what ever he likes.

The issue is when you have a pod detaching with the ball. If its a new maul (ie change of channel) then its an obstruction issue if ball at back, or a pre-bind flying wedge issue if ball at front.

Right, got you.

I ask because last season there was an attacking maul in the 22 that turned about 60 degrees, and the BC broke off the back and sprinted for the line (with one teammate half bound/close by) to score. The defending team were adamant that it was obstruction/truck and trailer, and a senior ref in the bar was tactfully silent when pressed. I've been wondering if I missed anything ever since.

 

[Decorily]

Right, got you.

I ask because last season there was an attacking maul in the 22 that turned about 60 degrees, and the BC broke off the back and sprinted for the line (with one teammate half bound/close by) to score. The defending team were adamant that it was obstruction/truck and trailer, and a senior ref in the bar was tactfully silent when pressed. I've been wondering if I missed anything ever since.

Was the 'one' teammate ahead or behind the ball carrier?

 

[didds]

Right, got you.
e BC broke off the back and sprinted for the line (with one teammate half bound/close by) to score.

was the supporter in front of the BC?

that's the only question.

 

[Dickie E]

was the supporter in front of the BC?

that's the only question.

There is another question. If the supporter was in front of BC, did he obstruct a defender?

 

[Rich_NL]

He was behind, no obstruction. They felt the ex-maul was obstructing their players.

It was one of those moments where I felt right, but everyone was so convinced otherwise I started to wonder. Felt a bit like the line length test: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

 

[Volun-selected]

The issue is when you have a pod detaching with the ball. If its a new maul (ie change of channel) then its an obstruction issue if ball at back, or a pre-bind flying wedge issue if ball at front.

How wide is the channel? The width of the existing maul? If it wheels and pushes the BC out wide, how far is too far?

Also, if the BC detaches from the maul (whether deliberately or it fragments around them) then don‘t we just treat that as maul over and we’re in open play?

Similarly, if the BC breaks off with a single bound support peeling off with them then open play and:
- if ball with frontmost player, play on
- if ball not at front, treat as obstruction
- ball at front but second supporting player joins (or peels of with the BC so they have two bound support players) but before an opponent attempts to tackle then treat as flying wedge.

Have I got that right?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Have a look at this vid. For me, tactic at 2 mins is legal, tactic at 3 mins is not

wow, pretty much everything Illegal. Even the commentator says so and then says but you'll get away with it! What he should have said was you'll get away with it at elite level as referees, coaches and players completely ignore the laws of the game. So easy to spot too.

 

[didds]

There is another question. If the supporter was in front of BC, did he obstruct a defender?

yeee..eee..ssss
But given "The defending team were adamant that it was obstruction/truck and trailer," one may reasonably expect there was some sort of defence in front of said alleged T&T.

 

[didds]

He was behind, no obstruction. They felt the ex-maul was obstructing their players.

It was one of those moments where I felt right, but everyone was so convinced otherwise I started to wonder. Felt a bit like the line length test: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

tough.

same as chasing a broken field runner with a support player inside him/her that is "in the way" of a defender getting to the runner. If there is no defender between the BC and the try line then its not even flying wedge as there is no one wedging against. Though it does sound as if there was so it may have been illegal but not for the reasons claimed by the oppo?

 

[Phil E]

To save me replying to several posts, can I just put here that...

If all the defenders leave a maul, the maul is NOT over, it is still a maul, even if there are only members of the ball carrying team in it.

 

[Volun-selected]

Same maul apparently
View attachment 4748

Just took another look at this and … is the second player actually bound?

In which case, can’t we just call “use it” and end this abomination?

(And given Etzebeth caught Joe Marler out from a ruck caterpillar with a similar failed “bind”, players seem to be aware of the definition.)

 

[crossref]

To save me replying to several posts, can I just put here that...

If all the defenders leave a maul, the maul is NOT over, it is still a maul, even if there are only members of the ball carrying team in it.

Perhaps it should be over.

Perhaps the Law should change and treat that scenario similar to the non contested line out ... Ball carrier at the front, happy days, off you trundle.... Ball carrier at the back.. maul has ended successfully...play it away...

 

[Stu10]

Similarly, if the BC breaks off with a single bound support peeling off with them then open play and:
- if ball with frontmost player, play on
- if ball not at front, treat as obstruction
- ball at front but second supporting player joins (or peels of with the BC so they have two bound support players) but before an opponent attempts to tackle then treat as flying wedge.

Have I got that right?

I think that sounds right.

 

[Dickie E]

Perhaps the Law should change and treat that scenario similar to the non contested line out ... Ball carrier at the front, happy days, off you trundle....

Wondering why that isn't considered a flying wedge?

 

[didds]

because the twelve year old isn't yet sufficiently cognitive to join two separate concepts ?

 

[crossref]

Wondering why that isn't considered a flying wedge?

Because they are trundling .. so it's OK
But if they built up speed and started flying ... then peep

 

[didds]

and now define "speed" ...


thats not a dig at CR at all, who has tried to indicate what the scenario is. But its indicative of the at best subjective, and at worst meaningless and nebulous vocabulary that surrounds the laws and their interpretations and clarifications.