collapsing own maul

[Pinky]

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.

that is true and both should be penalised.

 

[didds]

there is clearly nothing illegal or perceived as in itself one person bringing another to ground normally - otherwise we would never have a tackle.

the collapsed maul thing is because - AIUI - you CAN end up with several bodies all collapsing with no control on top of players underneath whose bodies/legs etc may be in positions that don't bend the way the force goes.

one player being taken to ground inside a maul where everybody else remains standing ie does not collapse in heap uncontrollably does not fit this "danger" scenario. In other words, the maul has not collapsed. Just one player has been put on the ground.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

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.

Take a look at post #28 you cretinous little man.

Your assertion of "clearly" is anything but, and making a statement like that doesn't make it "clearly". If it did, we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[RobLev]

there is clearly nothing illegal or perceived as in itself one person bringing another to ground normally - otherwise we would never have a tackle.

the collapsed maul thing is because - AIUI - you CAN end up with several bodies all collapsing with no control on top of players underneath whose bodies/legs etc may be in positions that don't bend the way the force goes.

one player being taken to ground inside a maul where everybody else remains standing ie does not collapse in heap uncontrollably does not fit this "danger" scenario. In other words, the maul has not collapsed. Just one player has been put on the ground.

didds

So you wouldn't penalise an opposition player who takes the BC - alone - to ground within the maul?

 

[didds]

its a very fair question... but has the maul collapsed? Clearly not.

Frankly IMO this situation isn't covered by the laws. Or the laws need to stipulate that one person going to ground via another is a "collapse".

didds

 

[Browner]

you cretinous little man.
.

Name calling, im really hurt, classy :sarc:

 

[RobLev]

its a very fair question... but has the maul collapsed? Clearly not.

Frankly IMO this situation isn't covered by the laws. Or the laws need to stipulate that one person going to ground via another is a "collapse".

didds

Sorry, didds, but is that a "Yes I would" or a "No I wouldn't" to the question?

 

[Browner]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLz6NV8wsM

In this Clip it looks like Harlequins are set to hold up a maul, White 18 appears to deliberately collapse it , NO or AR surely can't have missed it, so any guesses as to why he didnt give a PK to Harlequins

PS.....( no wonder PK counts are down !)

 

[FlipFlop]

Because NO said it was a tackle only...... (not saying I agree, but this seems to be a trend across elite refs)

 

[Browner]

The Fat : So many things wrong in that clip.

Questions:

1. NO calls "Maul now". If Quins player had done the same as Wasps 18, who thinks NO would have thrown the arm out for advantage? What about White 16's actions?

2. When the maul goes to ground, there are no players left on their feet. Wasps player then places the ball on the ground and Wasps player, who appears to be in the SH position is over the ball. Quins player then comes through and makes contact with the Wasps player. NO then gives the "Take a step" signal with his arms to the Quins team mates but not penalised the Quins player who is in contact with (some would say playing) the white SH, so NO must be now saying we have a ruck. If that is the case, what about the actions of Wasps #20?

3. NO then allows other white players to join the ruck, still motioning for Quins players not involved to stay onside, before a new SH clears the ball and play continues it requires a bit more discussion of the different phases of play involved here and the actions of several other players, specifically 18, 16 & 20 white???

Please discuss

Your points are now inserted into the correct thread TF , ( again apols, for my bad cross-threading).

If this becomes a permitted counter action/collapse toward opponents that are trying to "choke/hold" up the ball carrier , then it will completely muddy the maul collapse law/scenario, as I can't imagine that near the Goal Line NO would allow a similar collapsing to take place unpunished by PK/YC.

The last thing i need is another aspect of the game being interpretated wholly differently depending on pitch locations.

 

[RobLev]

Because NO said it was a tackle only...... (not saying I agree, but this seems to be a trend across elite refs)

Did he? I heard a call of "Maul now" before the collapse.

 

[liversedge]

At the risk of being facetious, would you award a penalty for the BC (and team mates) taking the ball to ground on the goal line ?
And not award a try ...

 

[RobLev]

At the risk of being facetious, would you award a penalty for the BC (and team mates) taking the ball to ground on the goal line ?
And not award a try ...

The BC's allowed to go to ground in a maul; and in any event the maul would have ceased to be so once it crossed the goal line (Law 22.6).

 

[liversedge]

The BC's allowed to go to ground in a maul; and in any event the maul would have ceased to be so once it crossed the goal line (Law 22.6).

My point being related to 'safety' .. its not a concern when across a bit of white paint ?
Or perhaps collapsing the maul needs to be defined, and include taking *opposition* players to ground.

 

[RobLev]

My point being related to 'safety' .. its not a concern when across a bit of white paint ?
Or perhaps collapsing the maul needs to be defined, and include taking *opposition* players to ground.

The effect of the bit of white paint is that unless the ball hits the ground toot sweet after reaching the line, there's a sweet toot from the ref to stop any prolonged wrestling match - for safety reasons. So it's not a question of ignoring the danger represented by the collapse of a maul once it's over the goal line; instead, the ref will stop play before any danger does arise.

 

[Crucial]

The effect of the bit of white paint is that unless the ball hits the ground toot sweet after reaching the line, there's a sweet toot from the ref to stop any prolonged wrestling match - for safety reasons. So it's not a question of ignoring the danger represented by the collapse of a maul once it's over the goal line; instead, the ref will stop play before any danger does arise.

I think the point is that the perceived danger of a maul collapse is that players are bound together in all sorts of strange ways (including headlocks which go unpoliced) and a collapse increases the risk factor enough to make it a penalisable offence.
The 'white line' does not change that increase of risk

 

[RobLev]

I think the point is that the perceived danger of a maul collapse is that players are bound together in all sorts of strange ways (including headlocks which go unpoliced) and a collapse increases the risk factor enough to make it a penalisable offence.
The 'white line' does not change that increase of risk

Agreed.

 

[Crucial]

As most armchair refs will agree though. Only the non BC side is ever penalised at a maul despite BC players joining ahead of the ball, the BC being barely bound at the back, splitting with obstruction etc etc.
Meanwhile the poor defender who has legally joined and remained bound is told to detach if spun past the centre.

 

[liversedge]

Agreed.

Then would you penalise a team collapsing the maul in the process of scoring a try?

 

[RobLev]

Then would you penalise a team collapsing the maul in the process of scoring a try?

No maul can exist in in-goal.

Were I a referee, I would penalise a team for dangerous play in in-goal.