[Maul] Maul - Legal collapse

[crossref]

Yes
..

 

[Dickie E]

And must bind on to the hindmost player in the maul. That may mean they cannot joint at the goal line depending on how far over the goal line the hindmost player is.

but as a maul can't take place in in-goal, who is the "hindmost" player of the defending team? Quite possibly, the last player who is in FoP.

 

[ChuckieB]

But the Law does not say they must join from behind the hindmost foot.
It says they must join from an onside position .

2017 - If a player rejoins the maul in front of the hind most team-mate in the maul they are offside.

2018 - I am happy to accept that if the laws are not deemed to have changed that there is an offside line which may not be the hind most foot, but, only for players who are not trying to join. For those trying to join they must do so from an onside position and, in respect of the purposes of joining the maul, that onside position is the back foot.

From an onside position in respect of joining the maul is not the same as the offside line in respect of the goal line.

But this is world rugby and the book is 40% shorter and more accessible. Who am I to argue?

 

[Rich_NL]

but as a maul can't take place in in-goal, who is the "hindmost" player of the defending team? Quite possibly, the last player who is in FoP.

The maul is no longer a maul once the ball is over the line. Until then, it's a maul.

 

[Pinky]

2017 - If a player rejoins the maul in front of the hind most team-mate in the maul they are offside.

2018 - I am happy to accept that if the laws are not deemed to have changed that there is an offside line which may not be the hind most foot, but, only for players who are not trying to join. For those trying to join they must do so from an onside position and, in respect of the purposes of joining the maul, that onside position is the back foot.

From an onside position in respect of joining the maul is not the same as the offside line in respect of the goal line.

But this is world rugby and the book is 40% shorter and more accessible. Who am I to argue?

Onside position for joining a maul where one side is in the ingoal is alongside the hindmost player, not the back foot.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the new law book makes the situation clear:
[LAWS]7. Players joining a maul must:
a. Do so from an onside position.
b. Bind on to the hindmost player in the maul.[/LAWS]
Both a and b are needed, so a player cannot join in the side even in in-goal.

However, the new loaw book (as did the old one) dsays


16.1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.


Once the ball is "in goal" there is no maul. So you can join, whaterver the maul has become, from anywhere, In truth you cant join a maul in goal from anywhere, because it does not exist as a maul anymore.

 

[Pinky]

What about
16.1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.


Once the ball is "in goal" there is no maul. So you can join, whaterver the maul has become, from anywhere, In truth you cant join a maul in goal from anywhere, because it does not exist as a maul anymore.

That's true, but what we are considering here is the situation where part of the maul is ingoal before the ball gets over the line and ends the maul.

 

[ChuckieB]

You can't have half a maul nor can you apply two different sets of differing criteria to police it. That would not be consistent application of the laws.

but if a maul is over when the ball itself is on or over the goal line then all bets are off.

so you are left with a maul that the ball is at the back and not crossd does the line or then the scenario where it is likely to be wrapped up in the middle and probably unplayable. Very different things for a ref to be looking for.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That's true, but what we are considering here is the situation where part of the maul is ingoal before the ball gets over the line and ends the maul.

I was answering OBs claim that the back foot applies "in-goal". As stated in the bit quoted below.

Both a and b are needed, so a player cannot join in the side even in in-goal.

 

[Zebra1922]

Why do we constantly go down the rocking horse pooh route. How frequently are we ever likely to see the scenario that is being referred to? And even if it did happen, do you really think anyone would have a clue whether you were right or wrong to allow try/award a penalty/play on/scrum etc?

Know we need to be aware of the rare events but there are limits and 2 pages of arguing about a scenario I've never even heard of happening, let alone seen, seems a little much. How about back to the real world of 'legal' maul collapses (if such a thing exists).

 

[Christy]

Hi zebra .
The indifference in law knowledge between posters is 1 thing ..
But the scenario is very often seen in rugby..

More commonly attacking line out 5 meters from goal line .
Attacking team win ball & set up a driving maul ( obviousely opposition need to be bound for it to be a maul ) .
They then drive maul towards try line & opposition are often in side in goal .

Regarding law knowledge in this scenario is very important .

 

[Christy]

However, the new loaw book (as did the old one) dsays


16.1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.


Once the ball is "in goal" there is no maul. So you can join, whaterver the maul has become, from anywhere, In truth you cant join a maul in goal from anywhere, because it does not exist as a maul anymore.

Hi marc.yes i agree , & also below
Once the ball has crossed the line .
There is no longer a requirement for players to stay on their feet .
And as such then either team can bring the maul down ( as opposed to the actual ball carrier only ,
Which is a requirement for maul in field of play )

So the attacking team in goal can try & collapse maul , which in turn would push their ball carrier to the floor to make a grounding .
And the opposition if they so decide can have a guy on the floor , who can be a menace & he wont be penalised .

 

[Taff]

.... Once the ball has crossed the line. There is no longer a requirement for players to stay on their feet . And as such then either team can bring the maul down ( as opposed to the actual ball carrier only, Which is a requirement for maul in field of play). So the attacking team in goal can try & collapse maul , which in turn would push their ball carrier to the floor to make a grounding . And the opposition if they so decide can have a guy on the floor , who can be a menace & he wont be penalised .

Sorry Christy but I'm not sure this is right.

OK, a Maul can't exist in-goal, so "Collapsing a Maul" isn't an option - how can you collapse something that doesn't exist? A fair point.

Don't forget though that allowing players to collapse a Maul was an ELV a few years ago - it didn't last and the IRB as it was then, concluded that collapsing a Maul was dangerous. And "Dangerous Play" can certainly be penalised in-goal. My logic is this - if it's Dangerous Play to collapse a Maul say 5m into the FoP, then it is just as dangerous once it's crossed the goal line. OK, you can't call it "Collapsing the Maul" but you can call it "Dangerous Play".

 

[Christy]

Hi taff .
Yes i see what you are saying about dangerous play ..
Maybe ive used the word collapsing a maul & i shouldnt .


Maybe if a rephrase that a team mate can help his ball carrying team mate .
Get the ball to ground . & neither of them have to stay on their feet ..
Same for defending opposition , that if they know drop a knee / similar , that its simply now not a penalty scenario.

As a referee , i would be looking for immediate try or immediate held up & wouldn't allow a time consuming free for all , and would blow 1 way or another fairly quick .

 

[Pinky]

I was answering OBs claim that the back foot applies "in-goal". As stated in the bit quoted below.

OB correctly said in goal a defender had to join a mail alongside the hindmost player. This is not the same as joining from anywhere as you suggest.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nevermind.