collapsing own maul

[RobLev]

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.

Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?

 

[didds]

if the bc has been brought to ground alone then the maul has not been collapsed ?

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

But for the sake of the discussion of the never-going-to-happen scenario: if the ball carrier, and the ball carrier alone, goes to ground, the maul has not collapsed. If a team mate helps him out, and the rest of the maul stays up, it's difficult to make the case that the maul has collapsed or been collapsed, no?

 

[Ian_Cook]

We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

But for the sake of the discussion of the never-going-to-happen scenario: if the ball carrier, and the ball carrier alone, goes to ground, the maul has not collapsed. If a team mate helps him out, and the rest of the maul stays up, it's difficult to make the case that the maul has collapsed or been collapsed, no?

The issue could be moot anyway. I can't speak for other referees, but for me, in the case where the ball or the ball carrier ends up on the ground, I would want that ball available quicker than greased weasel poo or I'm blowing the maul up, even if everyone else is still on their feet... 17.6 (g) backs me up on that....

[LAWS](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.[/LAWS]


Players who collapse the maul are pinged for dangerous play, but an accidentally collapsed maul is just as dangerous so get it out of there pronto

 

[Browner]

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.

Yes, if my friend wants to buy a new tie , but the shop is closed, I'd arrest the 'aider' who unilaterally smashed the door in , that then allowed my friend to take the tie and leave $10 by the till as payment.

On a rugby field , I'd also penalise any 'illegal blocker' who by doing such act created a gap for an 'innocent BC' to run through, ( Paul O'Connell on Launchbury, for Kearney try v England at HQ ). as Mr innocent still gains an advantage through the illegal activity of his offending "aiding and abetting" teammate.

:buttkick:

 

[SimonSmith]

You're ducking the question there.

 

[RobLev]

You're ducking the question there.

To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

 

[SimonSmith]

Personally? The logic flow says "no".

Do I see that EVER happening? Fat effing chance. This is an entirely abstract conversation.

 

[didds]

the point is not about whether the ball is available immediately, but whether 2 players going to ground while everyone else on their feet constitutes the maul being collapsed.

Its about whether its a PK or play on ...

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?

No.

if the bc has been brought to ground alone then the maul has not been collapsed ?

True.

We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

Yes we are.

And for Browner: People who throw bricks through store windows and rugby players who willfully obstruct are not innocents and should be punished for their crimes. I'm already regretting starting the analogy.

Do I see that EVER happening?

I reckon that it happens (see the OP) but discerning cause and effect is another matter.

The issue could be moot anyway. I can't speak for other referees, but for me, in the case where the ball or the ball carrier ends up on the ground, I would want that ball available quicker than greased weasel poo or I'm blowing the maul up, even if everyone else is still on their feet... 17.6 (g) backs me up on that....

I'm not familiar with the properties of 'greased weasel poo' but agree totally with the sentiment.

 

[Browner]

To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

I'll answer RobLev, cos Simon is clearly 'ducking' that question , .... for collapsing one of the mauling players....[LAWS] A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.[/LAWS]. Clearly there isn't a requirement to collapse ALL of the maulers !?!

Imagine the ball carrier caught on his own 22, held up, maul forms, now he is driven back toward own goal line . As his own GL approaches his teammates recognise that if they don't do something desperate to end this legitimate drive there will likely be a scrum 5m from their own line with opposition feed. ....crikey!!!

I can easily see why they would now want to haul the Original BC to ground hoping that the referee will decide that it has subsequently become a 'ruck' ( under c.2\2011 ) or the ball becomes available & so then give it '5s to emerge' , its a no lose situation.

So IMO hauling the BC to ground, can't be allowed, by either team.

I accept that if it werent C&O then you wouldnt PK, but the OP described C&O to me.

 

[Browner]

. Do I see that EVER happening?

Maurader : I reckon that it happens (see the OP)

Hooray, at last Meanderer ...... You got there, & it wasn't really that difficult was it. epper:

 

[Pinky]

To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

Yes, bringing the BC to ground is normally called a tackle. Once a maul has formed, neither side by collapse it, except that the BC may go to ground and play will continue if the ball is immediately available.

So PK agains the opponent to the BC for collapsing the maul.

 

[didds]

but we are not discussung an opponent bringing the bc to ground?

didds

 

[Gracie]

The scenario Browners observed above is pretty much what happened in my game.

For me if the BC can get themselves to ground on their own then that would have been fine. However my interpretation was and still is that any playing hauling any other player to ground, or pushing them to ground in a maul is collapsing the maul, even if it just one player who goes to ground. This is true whether it is their own player or an opposition player.

BW
G

 

[Pegleg]

The scenario Browners observed above is pretty much what happened in my game.

For me if the BC can get themselves to ground on their own then that would have been fine. However my interpretation was and still is that any playing hauling any other player to ground, or pushing them to ground in a maul is collapsing the maul, even if it just one player who goes to ground. This is true whether it is their own player or an opposition player.

BW
G

Agree with that.

 

[didds]

i don't.

the collapsing the maul thing is a safety issue/dangerous play scenario, which is why it is illegal.

From the descriptions given there is no dangerous/safety aspect to be concerned about - in the same way that a single BC going to ground alone is not a safety/danger issue.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

If you are taking one man, who is bound to others, to ground there is an clear probability that the whole maul is going to go the same way.

If the ball carrier is able to detach and go to ground we have a different situation.

 

[Gracie]

Didds - for me it is simply factual thing - any attempt to haul down maul has the potential to be dangerous, unless as Pegleg note they are able to detach. Once any balance/support is undermined I'd gauge a risk arises

 

[RobLev]

but we are not discussung an opponent bringing the bc to ground?

didds

the collapsing the maul thing is a safety issue/dangerous play scenario, which is why it is illegal.

Why is it dangerous for an opposition player to bring the BC to ground, but not for a player from his own side? For me, there's no distinction - if an oppositon player bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul, then a team-mate bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul.