Maul peeling off

[ChrisR]

He didnt challenge me after the match as he was invited to.

.... because he knew better.

 

[ChrisR]

BC with player pre-bound meets the criteria of "flying wedge" except the laws unwisely place the flying wedge in the context of a tap PK.

If pre-binding to a BC was prohibited as a "Flying Wedge" then the problem evaporates.

I think a maul forms when an attempted tackle (smother or otherwise) fails to bring the BC to ground but that puts the judgement back on the referee to determine when a 'tackle' transitions into a 'maul'.

 

[crossref]

I think the Laws deliberely define the flying wedge in context of a PK, as the PK scenario has
- unlimited time and space to organise a run up (if it wasn't prohibited)
- and 10m bewtwen the teams, so both teams can gather pace before the collision.

so if flying wedges were allowed at PK they'd be very high speed and precise affairs.

off the back of the ruck it's not quite the same

 

[Browner]

Ball carrier is the man in front. The problem I have with your answer is that a maul does not have to be attacker + defender then another attacker joining these, it just says "and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier" without describing an order. So if a defender joins two attacking players and binds, I assume this constitutes a maul too and therefore he can't collapse it?

I would argue that the law as originally drafted did anticipate an 3 stage order of maul creation , 1) BC + 2) stopped/held by an on feet opponent... then 3) a teammate of the BC binding.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A maul [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]begins[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] when a player carrying the ball is[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] held[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]bind on[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] the ball carrier[/FONT][/LAWS]

Law would have better if "and" was replaced with " and then"

The idea that law expected a BC would have 1-8 teammates bound on him, and then a singleton opponent was expected to stop this trundling mass of prebound together players, is unlikely.

If it was within my power I'd stop pretackle engagement of the BC by the BC teammates, as part of a antedote to "66 phases illness" strategy.

Just saying !

 

[didds]

You can't just crash down the middle of the pitch bound on to a team mate

Can't you?

why not?

happy to see a law reference

didds

- - - Updated - - -

Are you sure about this? It happens all the time in elite rugby when a mini-ruck has forwards standing off as "hammers".

and not just in elite rugby.

standard slow ball tactic.

didds

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

If this two man peel happenned in midfield and the red ball carrier was in the front. What would you give if a chasing blue defender tackled the non ball carrying red bound on player as he tried to make a tackle on the ball carrier?
Penalty to red for playing a man without the ball?
Penalty blue for obstruction?
Play on?

 

[Browner]

If this two man peel happenned in midfield and the red ball carrier was in the front. What would you give if a chasing blue defender tackled the non ball carrying red bound on player as he tried to make a tackle on the ball carrier?
Penalty to red for playing a man without the ball?
Penalty blue for obstruction?
Play on?

If blue was c&o obstructed from tackling red then yes PK to Blue. Surely everyone would ???

 

[didds]

if red support rather than being bound on already, was just running a very close support line would that still be obstruction?

if not - where is a supporting runner supposed to run?

And if so - what is the difference between a supporting runner and a teamamte already bound on?

We have to have SOME consistency surely?

didds

 

[didds]

If blue was c&o obstructed from tackling red then yes PK to Blue. Surely everyone would ???

as per the couple of situations already debated here in other threads, of support RUNNERS ahead of the ball carrier (ie offisde in general terms) preventing direct access to the BC, that were not PK'd... clearly not everybody would PK for c&o obstruction... and that is from an OFFSIDE position, not even ONSIDE as in this OP!



didds

 

[Dixie]

So providing the defender makes contact below the waist we can be happy he is trying to complete a tackle?

What about it he hits above and acts immediately to bring the defender to ground? Is that back to a judgement call, or is a maul formed the instant he makes contact?

I think in those circumstances we'd take our cue from the so-called Gator (or Saddle) Roll, which clearly forms a ruck in law, but the roller is then allowed to take it to ground. I don't like it, but since it has become part of our game we may as well use it to the game's advantage in less controversial situations such as this.

I think a maul forms when an attempted tackle (smother or otherwise) fails to bring the BC to ground but that puts the judgement back on the referee to determine when a 'tackle' transitions into a 'maul'.

Do you mean that you actually believe this to be the case (as stated), or that you think it ought to be the case, but isn't? The law is very clear; two contestants battling for a ball held by one of them is not a maul.

 

[ChrisR]

Quote Originally Posted by Marauder View Post

I think a maul forms when an attempted tackle (smother or otherwise) fails to bring the BC to ground but that puts the judgement back on the referee to determine when a 'tackle' transitions into a 'maul'.

Dixie: Do you mean that you actually believe this to be the case (as stated), or that you think it ought to be the case, but isn't? The law is very clear; two contestants battling for a ball held by one of them is not a maul.

Sorry, failed to include the BC's bound on support. As I see it:

If BC breaks from a maul, with or without a support player(s) bound on, the maul has ended. (This is a different case from the defenders all leaving the maul). We are now in general play and the BC is subject to be tackled regardless of any bound on support players.

If the tackle doesn't bring the BC to ground, and a BC support player is already bound, at some point the tackle attempt must become a maul by definition. The time elapse from tackle attempt to maul is going to be a decision of the referee.

That time will be a variable and one of the factors will be how the tackler engages the BC. Shoulder in the shorts, arms wrapping the legs is clearly a tackle attempt. Smother (choke) tackle holding up the BC should get a quicker call of "Maul!".

Dixie, is that clearer?

 

[Browner]

as per the couple of situations already debated here in other threads, of support RUNNERS ahead of the ball carrier (ie offisde in general terms) preventing direct access to the BC, that were not PK'd... clearly not everybody would PK for c&o obstruction... and that is from an OFFSIDE position, not even ONSIDE as in this OP!





didds

But a peeling player attached to the BC , th4 becoming a obstructing blocker is noticeably more c&o , therefore imo its a different consideration, hense my comment..

 

[Dixie]

Dixie, is that clearer?

Much better, thank you. And I agree with you.