[Maul] Isn't this obstruction?

[Jz558]

https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?

 

[Dickie E]

https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?

you use the term "shearing off" and that is the critical issue. If the line that the "new" pod moves in is the same as the "old" pod, then it is the same maul irrespective of if a new defender engages.

 

[Camquin]

No that is good rolling maul technique and has been permitted since the dawn of time. The Wasp defence needed to work harder to stay square and not be twisted out of the way.

 

[Jz558]

Thanks for the replies. It just didnt look right in my head when I watched it and I guess I was over thinking it.

 

[Phil E]

The front of the maul is turned by Wasps, but the defenders don't leave and rejoin at the front.
As a consequence the original maul trundles on in the same line (the 3 players with the ball).

Things to note here:
All the wasps players effectively leaving the maul doesn't mean the maul is over. See law 16.16
The three players don't leave and go forward on a new line, they just carry on forward and everyone in front of them moves out of their way.

 

[lawsons]

https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?

I think if you want to be pedantic you could argue the leading Bath player is offside as he is only bound by his hand when he engages the new Wasps player. Would be harsh and I didn’t see it in real time, so all good.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Bath try looks good, the following Wasps try in the link is clearly not the same maul.
Too much of this going on for me at the top level.
Top refs loudly shouting same maul regularly to justify not making a decision.

 

[Blindside]

Bath try looks good, the following Wasps try in the link is clearly not the same maul.
Too much of this going on for me at the top level.
Top refs loudly shouting same maul regularly to justify not making a decision.

I cant see a thing wrong with the Wasps drive? What is it i cant see?

 

[easyalignment]

it seems fine to me too . i dont know what you are talking about