[Maul] deliberate, cynical In from the side, no card?

[didds]

Argentina v England 2nd Test
66:05 minutes (match clock)

Hughes is at the back of a driving maul making ground, deep within England's half when Lavanni takes him out... in from the side/offside whatever. Totally clinical, totally deliberate and Hughes gets an injury to his knee as a direct result (he even looks as if he is crying!)

The action was deep inside the England half - I'd hope had it been within the Arg 22m it would have been a card. As it is, being in the oppo half (ie England's) it warranted no more than a PK - Lavanni didn't even get a talking to!. Is this the general rule ? A cynically. blatant illegal action can never warrant a YC (high tackles etc aside presumably) unless its in the "red zone" ?

didds

 

[Flish]

I was expecting a card, although credit to the players as no significant reaction beyond Hughes himself, maybe that in itself is why?

 

[ChuckieB]

Just another thing not covered in the laws and associated guidelines.

The focus appears to be on reckless and dangerous but, only in association with resulting contact with the head.

 

[Phil E]

It was a cheap shot and it was dangerous.
It should have been carded, but I think Lacey left them in the changing room.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just another thing not covered in the laws and associated guidelines.

The focus appears to be on reckless and dangerous but, only in association with resulting contact with the head.

In RL, this is known as a "cannonball tackle" - the ball carrier is held in a standing tackle by two or more opponents in a situation that is not unlike a RU maul, then before the referee calls "held" another player comes in with a shoulder at knee level.

Not sure what happens up north in Supeleague, but in the NRL the player usually goes on report and cops a suspension.

This should have been RC IMO - deliberate intent to injure.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

It was a cheap shot and it was dangerous.
It should have been carded, but I think Lacey left them in the changing room.

His cards or his cojones?

 

[Phil E]

His cards or his cojones?

Both, along with his law book.

 

[tim White]

This is exactly how my playing days were ended some 20 years ago -and I'm still reminded every day by the discomfort and disturbed sleep. broken bones can heal but torn or ruptured ligaments are almost never the same again.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Contact was made by the tackler's head, against a stationary target, from close range. Totally deliberate intent to injure. RC

 

[Pegleg]

Just another thing not covered in the laws and associated guidelines.

The focus appears to be on reckless and dangerous but, only in association with resulting contact with the head.

Are you sure?

Surely 10.4 (k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul.

Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Of course there is the catch all 10.4 (m)

Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the
spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
Sanction: Penalty kick


It is clearly Dangerous Play and if you as a ref think it is then deal with it as such. If you don't think it is dangerous then I dispair. I guess the Law makers expected that to be clear to all, including JL.

 

[thepercy]

Was this really a maul? One Argentina player attempts to tackle the ball carrier, who hands it back to a team mate, who then slides back. Another Argentina player pushes the mass of England players, weakly. Is this really enough to allow England to march down the field with lead blockers and no opponents in the maul.

If this wasn't a maul would you consider this a dangerous tackle?

 

[VM75]

Was this really a maul?

One Argentina player attempts to tackle the ball carrier, who hands it back to a team mate [who has bound on to the BC = Maul created] , who then slides back ?? .

Another Argentina player pushes the mass of England players, weakly then it's a weakly defended maul IMO.

Is this really enough to allow England to march down the field with lead blockers and no opponents in the maul? YES , if Argentina helped form the Maul but then disengaged from it, then the existing maul still exists and can trundle as long as it's able , or until argentina decide to slow it's progress by committing numbers of bodies to resist it/slow it's progress.

my take on that scenario.

 

[thepercy]

So an attempted tackle, BC hands ball to a team mate, attempted tackler now on the ground, is maul formed?

 

[VM75]

So an attempted tackle, BC hands ball to a team mate, attempted tackler now on the ground, is maul formed?

It's up to each referee to decide the 'timing' of whether a maul is formed, most let it breathe for a moment, but that's merely smartish management rather than mandated barometer.

In your description above, If the BC hasn't been taken to ground & the potential tackler is shed/nudged off then there isn't a Tackler, only an attempted tackler, I suppose you could say that the grounded attemptee isn't a mauler either cos that requires him to be on his feet.

I'd have to see it to judge against my expectations and experience the timings to make my judgement, at the moment & FWIW it sounds like an offload on/during an attempted tackle, but that's not what I saw in the vid of the OP.

 

[chbg]

So an attempted tackle, BC hands ball to a team mate, attempted tackler now on the ground, is maul formed?

Simple - at any stage were two or more other players on their feet, at least one from each side bound on to the ball carrier? If yes then a maul until it ends; if no, then no maul.

But you are not describing the OP's scenario.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Was this really a maul? One Argentina player attempts to tackle the ball carrier, who hands it back to a team mate, who then slides back. Another Argentina player pushes the mass of England players, weakly. Is this really enough to allow England to march down the field with lead blockers and no opponents in the maul.

If this wasn't a maul would you consider this a dangerous tackle?

I would suggest that Mr Hughes was not bound for moments when the ball was in his possession.

 

[Taff]

It was a cheap shot and it was dangerous.

.. This should have been RC IMO - deliberate intent to injure.

.. Totally deliberate intent to injure. RC

Exactly - I'm glad I wasn't alone in thinking it should have been a :norc:

Back in my playing days there was an unwritten law (which was quite brutally enforced) that you did not injure opponents heads or joints. This law mainly applied to rucking, but it could equally have applied to tackling; it was just accepted that you could rake or stamp on any opponent on the wrong side of the ruck provided it was on the back, thighs, calves or arse. Stamping on the head, knee or ankle was frowned on by everyone. Has this attitude honestly gone from the modern game? :sad:

 

[Pinky]

I saw this and wondered if the reason for no card was that, although he didn't agree the ref was understanding of the Argentinian thinking the mail was over and it was OK to tackle the ball carrier. That said it did appear to target the knee.

 

[didds]

well that's an interesting view of the ref. Given that there was no indication that the maul was over... hughes was bound on, the maul was going forward rapidly.

I totally fail to see how anyone could believe it was over.

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

well that's an interesting view of the ref. Given that there was no indication that the maul was over... hughes was bound on, the maul was going forward rapidly.

I totally fail to see how anyone could believe it was over.

didds

Look again at bound on, even with rose glasses you know what bound should look like. And look again at the point on contact from the Argie tacklers shoulder.

Maybe players in Argentina do not wait for the ref to tell them how to play and that mauls are over. Waiting for a ref is like Waiting for Godot