Ali Williams through the middle

[The Fat]

Anyone have video link of Toulon v Tigers game? Haven't seen a replay so not 100% sure I have seen this correctly and would like confirmation.
Tigers maul and Williams is front man for Toulon, caught right in the middle of the maul. He stretches over the top/backs of each Tigers player as the ball is transferred to each player as it moves to the back of the maul. Williams appears to get to the rear ball carrier as he and the ball carrier detach from the maul. The referee signals PK advantage against Williams. Toulon score soon after so no need to come back to the penalty.

Q1. Did anyone see this?
Q2. What offence did Ali Williams commit?

 

[Browner]

Yes I did ....

Only the showbiz offence of ....potentially Interrupting showbizness fast flowing excitement with another boring wrestling contest :sarc:

 

[winchesterref]

Rough minute? I will stick a video clip up.

 

[The Fat]

Rough minute? I will stick a video clip up.

Not sure of game time. It is just before Tigers try and tigers are running L to R on screen.

 

[The Fat]

25:42 on game clock

 

[ianh5979]

At a guess never bound on in the maul. He had both arms free at all times

 

[Nigib]

From the start of the maul he is not bound, using both arms to grab/pull opposition, and mostly stays on the outside. I'd be telling him to get bound or get out; not surprised if he's penalised.

 

[TheBFG]

what is known as "swimming" or as JP called it at the weekend, "changing his bind"

 

[Nigib]

So, if he'd kept one or other arm fully bound and progressed through the maul to his final position in contact with BC, would that be different?

 

[The Fat]

From the start of the maul he is not bound, using both arms to grab/pull opposition, and mostly stays on the outside. I'd be telling him to get bound or get out; not surprised if he's penalised.

If he is "caught in the maul" he does not have to be bound and is therefore free to use both arms to get to the ball carrier.

All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line

 

[The Fat]

When the 1st Toulon player makes contact with the players near the ball carrier, there are actually 3 Tigers players in front of the ball carrier.

 

[crossref]

so Law reference please : all those who would ping him : what Law is Ali breaking?

 

[The Fat]

so Law reference please : all those who would ping him : what Law is Ali breaking?

Before anyone answers this, I would suggest you play the video on full screen and try watching it frame by frame. You may change your mind on your original decision

 

[Nigib]

If he is "caught in the maul" he does not have to be bound and is therefore free to use both arms to get to the ball carrier.

All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line

Agree; however, in this instance, (and following the frame by frame suggestion) the maul forms just as the green bc hands the ball back; new bc has 3 players in front, but arguably maul formed by then. Red 5 arguably comes in from side, but is not bound to start with, or for a few seconds while reaching over with both arms. The 'bound in' is a single hand around him. My interpretation of 'bound in' includes 'not on outside and unable to move away'. Regardless, the offending occurs before that.

 

[Browner]

Agree; however, in this instance, (and following the frame by frame suggestion) the maul forms just as the green bc hands the ball back; new bc has 3 players in front, but arguably maul formed by then. Red 5 arguably comes in from side, but is not bound to start with, or for a few seconds while reaching over with both arms. The 'bound in' is a single hand around him. My interpretation of 'bound in' includes 'not on outside and unable to move away'. Regardless, the offending occurs before that.

But you have to consider that the referee HASNT signalled ADV for AWs joining of the maul. G1 is bound on AW in the early stages and until the last final 'leap' does the referee show any indication that he's unhappy with AW.

So, I'm only assuming that the referee thought that:
A) AW wasnt bound
B) AW infringed the 'showbiz flow' of this maul, similar to Richie McCaws recent "swinging around the ruck with your feet" interpretation.

Other than these, I don't see much wrong.

 

[Nigib]

Yeah, ok, so none of the possible malarkey is happening on the ref's side, so unless he's listening to a late call from the AR, in real time I'll go with Browner's B explanation. I'd still warn as soon as I see the flailing swimfest though.

 

[Phil E]

In contrast to the title, he never came through the middle, he was never bound 'in'...and as he wasn't bound in, he needed to be bound 'on', which he wasn't. Good call, which must have been from the AR. I don't think the call was late, I just think he was not material until he came off the side and tackled the ball carrier.

 

[crossref]

In contrast to the title, he never came through the middle, he was never bound 'in'...and as he wasn't bound in, he needed to be bound 'on', which he wasn't. Good call, which must have been from the AR. I don't think the call was late, I just think he was not material until he came off the side and tackled the ball carrier.

so the Law you are pinging him for is

[LAWS]17.2 (b) A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

on the grounds that he was neither caught in, nor bound.

wasn't he caught in, though?

 

[Browner]

Crossref,
G1 did have him caught in the maul after AWs initial arrival, G1s binding around AW's hips satisfies the 'in' condition [ binding : definition]

However just prior to AW leap, the aforementioned bind of G1 ends.

So in order to remain legally part ( "part" being a wholly different test to pass than 'within', contained or any other interior inclusion) AW needed to have commenced his binding prior to G1 releasing his, as this would surely have constituted continuously being a part of the same Maul (?)

IF AW hadn't? (judgement required) then he would be considered 'alongside' the Maul prior to making his next/subsequent bind or his 'lurch'

We've no idea what was being considered by the Officials.

As a general comment, provided that binding interpretation is ' consistently' applied to attacking & defending maulers & the BC equally in each match then uniformity of interpretation ( despite it being a desireable holly grail) might still prove very difficult to achieve.

 

[crossref]

browner I am more seeking knowledge that trying to put forward a view.

I genuinely would like to understand more about the best way to referee this, and was asking genuinely.

There's the video
hands up everyone who think AW was committing an offence
if yes : exactly what offence - with Law reference please : not 'swimming' or 'changing bind' or 'never came through the middle' but an actual offence as per the Law.