Ali Williams through the middle

[menace]

CR - I think Ali was illegal.

You could easily invoke 17.2 (c) and combined with 17.4 - offside at the maul in particular e)
[LAWS]Players leaving or rejoining the maul. Players who leave a maul must immediately retire behind the offside line, otherwise, they are offside. If the player rejoins the maul in front of the hindmost team-mate in the maul, they are offside. The player may rejoin the maul alongside the hindmost team-mate.[/LAWS]
Once a player loses his bind he effectively leaves the maul and must rejoin legally.

 

[Browner]

I agree that the likely offence could be
17.2(b) (c) or 17.4 (e)

The referee could decide he'd either left the Maul through no longer being bound into it by an opponent, or through his own binding sloppiness.

Fair application of Law?
Only the referee knows the "degree" of Maul binding that he has been allowing the attackers all match in all previous mauls , and my main point is that the same 'standard' needs to be consistently applied throughout the same match to the maul defenders as well.

On that basis alone, AWs maul binding compliance looked as 'legal' as most of the attacking maulers in this match, so I dont think he should have been penalised, notwithstanding this Im used to seeing showbiz referees give greater allowance to the attacking side over such lawful binding, so the Pk didn't surprise me.

 

[The Fat]

Discuss
View attachment 3122

 

[Browner]

Discuss
View attachment 3122

imo the video is easier to analyse.

 

[The Fat]

imo the video is easier to analyse.

Posted that in anticipation of arguments saying he didn't come through the middle or wasn't bound or caught in. How do you come through the middle if the team in possession form a maul that is similar to a conga line at a wedding reception?