Bound in but not bound (Maul)

[Marc Wakeham]

Maul is formed and a Yellow player is bound into the maul but both hands are free and above the bodies. He tries to compete for the ball managing to "swim" through the middle of the maul. He does not manage to win the ball.

Would you allow or not?

 

[crossref]

I would allow it

 

[Rich_NL]

If he got bound in legally, then I'd allow it.

 

[Flish]

Sure, if he got there legally and others are legally bound to hold him in there then fine, if he gets moved loose though straight out

 

[didds]

if you are "inside" the maul and got there legally then you don't have to be bound to anybody at that point, and nobody has to be bound to you, to remain legal. You are caught in the maul.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Thanks folks. I was pulled up by my assessor over that on Saturday. He accepted the player was bound in but said he could not "swim through"

 

[Decorily]

Thanks folks. I was pulled up by my assessor over that on Saturday. He accepted the player was bound in but said he could not "swim through"

Well if he's caught in as opposed to bound on then 'swimming' doesn't apply!
The term 'swimming' refers to a player changing binds to move along/around the side of the maul.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

"Player bound in and then swimming through the maul" was the comment.



I agree with your comment about swinmming around the maul.

 

[Decorily]

"Player bound in and then swimming through the maul" was the comment.



I agree with your comment about swinmming around the maul.

A player caught in a maul does not also have to be bound and therefore is entitled to come through the maul, 'swimming' or otherwise.

Therefore IMHO, as I understand it, the Assessor was incorrect.

 

[SimonSmith]

16.10 makes it clear (assuming he joined legally) that he is OK: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.

What he does after isn't prohibited in law.[/FONT]