collapsing own maul

[capithad]

Game on Saturday - dumb situation #1

Green take ball into maul, and are driving forwards. Green player - not the ball-carrier - tugs the maul down, and succeeds in collapsing it. Pen adv, then penalty to Gold.

Picked up huge flak from Green ex-county player in the bar. Polite version:
'Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?'
'Because they are, erm ... weren't thinking?'
'If that's your answer ref, well ... good luck in your refereeing career, is all I can say'

So - just checking - is there a case for acting differently? What would you have done?

 

[Ian_Cook]

You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?

 

[OB..]

You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?

Or "Why would I need to know?"

 

[Ian_Cook]

Or "Why would I need to know?"

Yes, I thought of that but that is a question which invites further debate.

 

[Dickie E]

'Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?'

I've seen this happen on occasion. It occurs when the collapser (ie team mate of ball carrier) decides that it is time to get the ball on the ground because:
1. the maul is slowing and the ref has already called "that's once",
2. it is perceived that the ball is being wrested from the ball carrier and possession may be lost, or
3. game plan is to get ball to the backs at this point.

It is, as you correctly ruled, illegal.

It can get a little murky if the ball carrier legally attempts to go to ground but isn't strong enough. Can a team mate "assist"?

 

[Ian_Cook]

It can get a little murky if the ball carrier legally attempts to go to ground but isn't strong enough. Can a team mate "assist"?

That is the risk he takes.

If he brings his own ball carrier down, and the maul stays up. fine!

If he brings his own ball carrier down, and the maul collapses, and you think his actions were the cause, PING!

 

[Dickie E]

When he says "Fred, I'm going to collapse the maul now so that you can get the ball back to SH" might be a giveaway

 

[ChrisR]

You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?

My answer to the Ex-county blah, blah, blah would be: "I was wondering that too. Why don't you go and ask him. Seemed like a stupid thing to do at the time"

 

[Browner]

" collapsing own maul" fits into the same bracket as "dropping own player in lineout" both safety related laws. Why would a player do it? Various reasons ( including being a prop!! ) ....but if you do, then nevertheless a PK it is.

 

[Dickie E]

" collapsing own maul" fits into the same bracket as "dropping own player in lineout" both safety related laws. Why would a player do it? Various reasons ( including being a prop!! ) ....but if you do, then nevertheless a PK it is.

One is deliberate and one is accidental so hardly in same bracket unless its a very broad bracket. Then it wouldn't be a bracket

 

[OB..]

One is deliberate and one is accidental so hardly in same bracket unless its a very broad bracket. Then it wouldn't be a bracket

More like Hinge and Bracket?

 

[Gracie]

As an addendum to this one can a defending player player help pull his own ball carrying team mate to ground? My situation was that in a well established and upright maul the defending ball ball carrier was not able to get to ground. He was 10 m from his own try line. He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team - the coach was far from happy:smile: He argued:


17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues

I counter argued:


17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

 

[Browner]

As an addendum to this one can a defending player player help pull his own ball carrying team mate to ground? My situation was that in a well established and upright maul the defending ball ball carrier was not able to get to ground. He was 10 m from his own try line. He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team - the coach was far from happy:smile: He argued:


17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues

I counter argued:


17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

You win, for me anyway,

if a ball carrier ( note the restricted permission) chooses to go under the feet of x12 other players and risk all those players weight standing/landing on him then Law permits that choice, but another player doesnt get delegated authority to produce that scenario ( even if implied, or whispered, or team strategy, consent is claimed! )

I'd understand any coach facing a maul turnover near their own line, wanting you to give his decision.

 

[ChrisR]

If the player with the ball goes to ground this is not 'collapsing the maul' and so is not an offence. Therefore assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence unless it brings others in the maul to ground.

In and of itself it is not dangerous play. No harm, no foul, no whistle.

 

[Browner]

If the player with the ball goes to ground this is not 'collapsing the maul' and so is not an offence. Therefore assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence unless it brings others in the maul to ground.

In and of itself it is not dangerous play. No harm, no foul, no whistle.

& No agreement.

Where does Law permit any other player than the ball carrier to deliberately go to ground in a maul? Why would you allow one team to try and collapse the maul or do something that their opponents aren't similarly allowed to do?

If law wanted to permit a teammate then it would say " A player must not intentionally collapse a maul ( unless he is assisting/helping/directing or forcing tbe ball carrier in going to ground) "

It doesn't.

Your maul collapse assist, can't escape [LAWS Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. ][/LAWS]

 

[SimonSmith]

If only the ball carrier goes to ground, then has the maul collapsed - that may be the question Marauder is raising

 

[Ian_Cook]

If only the ball carrier goes to ground, then has the maul collapsed - that may be the question Marauder is raising

No.

[LAWS]17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball
must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee
will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]


Since there appears to be no PK sanction for a ball carrier going to ground in a maul, then it cannot be collapsing (at least not intentional)

 

[ChrisR]

Browner, if only the BC goes to ground then not 'collapsing the maul'.

If an opponent or teammate goes to ground with the BC then you have a case for 'collapsing the maul' that I would rule on by case situation and ball availability.

Clearer now?

 

[Browner]

Browner, if only the BC goes to ground then not 'collapsing the maul'.

If an opponent or teammate goes to ground with the BC then you have a case for 'collapsing the maul' that I would rule on by case situation and ball availability.

Clearer now?

I agreed with the decision of the OP , which said

He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team

You appeared to take a contrary view when you said

"assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence"

A teammate who "hauls someone down" who if it were not for this intervention would have remained "well held up" , is IMO collapsing the Maul (read..collapsing a Mauler)

The BC (albeit separately described as a BC) remains one of the original Maulers, and despite Law permitting him to go to ground, he can't be hauled/or collapsed to there by another teammate or an opponent.

Clear enough? :booty:


In the OP, & as I read it, BC teammate collapsed the mauler seeking to avoid a scrum possession turnover.

I'm PK'g the "collapsed" ( who you term the assist) , as turnovers of possession are generally a good thing in this code IMHO, there is another code where turnovers of possession arent encouraged!

 

[ChrisR]

Browner, so you would arrest a person for "aiding and abetting" someone who was not committing a crime?

That would probably work over here in the US of A. We're big on chucking the innocent into the slammer.