Maul & the 'choke tackle'

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Did Blue go to ground with Red?
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Browner made a good observation in a separate thread. In a nutshell the Ref has 3 options:

  • Maul deliberately collapsed - call it. PK
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball available - use it.
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball not available - blow it. Turnover ball.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Browner made a good observation in a separate thread. In a nutshell the Ref has 3 options:

  • Maul deliberately collapsed - call it. PK
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball available - use it.
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball not available - blow it. Turnover ball.

I don't know about in your parts, but in my parts I'd say we refs are using too much of option 3 when option 1 should have been used (and I'm guilty). Sometimes it's hard to see if the maul was pulled down but I'm sure more often than not there's been a sneaky pulling down of the maul. In the 2nd half of the season just passed, I was more attentive of the defenders pulling down the maul and if any maul was suspect I was more inclined to PK than turnover (or perhaps I just started reading the mauls better).
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
I don't know about in your parts, but in my parts I'd say we refs are using too much of option 3 when option 1 should have been used (and I'm guilty). Sometimes it's hard to see if the maul was pulled down but I'm sure more often than not there's been a sneaky pulling down of the maul. In the 2nd half of the season just passed, I was more attentive of the defenders pulling down the maul and if any maul was suspect I was more inclined to PK than turnover.
You're not alone, as I know it's a fault of mine. I would guess that my count of PKs for deliberately collapsing a maul is very low. I'm pretty sure I'm missing most of them.

Recognising that it's an issue is the first part of correcting it.
 
Last edited:

Gracie


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
144
Post Likes
27
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Browner made a good observation in a separate thread. In a nutshell the Ref has 3 options:

  • Maul deliberately collapsed - call it. PK
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball available - use it.
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball not available - blow it. Turnover ball.




Taff, I think this is a nice succinct conclusion, as is the suggestion that certainly I've been missing out on 3, its going top of my every game 'three things to work on this game' preparation going forward
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Happy to clarify, maul called - then whenever Red were in possession, the Blue tactic was to choke tackle the rede player, preventing them from offloading, then drag the red player to ground. If they were able to get their hands on the ball, Blue simply hung onto it on the ground. Their view was that thus was all quite legal, the player in possession of the ball, or wrapped around a red player simply hung on until a scrum was awarded in their favour. Reading the views, in thus situation I think I can safely follow a pulling down maul penalty. There is not question Blue pulled the red players to ground. Hope this clarifies the situation.

BW]
G

So we have a maul. And it is Blue collapses it to get the turnover. PK against blue all the way.


Marauder said:
Did Blue go to ground with Red?

What is the relevance?
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,687
Post Likes
1,773
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Browner made a good observation in a separate thread. In a nutshell the Ref has 3 options:

  • Maul deliberately collapsed - call it. PK
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball available - use it.
  • Maul accidentally collapsed and ball not available - blow it. Turnover ball.

Taff, I think this is a nice succinct conclusion, as is the suggestion that certainly I've been missing out on 3, its going top of my every game 'three things to work on this game' preparation going forward

Just keep in mind the maul from a kick exception whn applying #3.

[LAWS]17.6 (h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.[/LAWS]
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Did Blue go to ground?

The relevance is this: If Blue, choking the Red BC, also goes to ground with Red then you have a case for collapsing the maul. If Blue stays on their feet and only Red BC goes to ground (and one knee on the deck is "goes to ground") then I'd be hard pressed to call "Collapsed maul" and flag Blue for putting him there.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Disagree I can drag you to ground and not go there myself. It does not mean I've not caused the collapse. Effective ly it is making a tack in the maul and possible and probably dangerous.
 

Ronald

Getting to know the game
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
54
Post Likes
12
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Agree with Pegleg, it is not required for player to go to ground in order to collapse a maul...if the maul is collapsed by any action of a player, it should be a PK.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Taff, I think this is a nice succinct conclusion, as is the suggestion that certainly I've been missing out on 3, its going top of my every game 'three things to work on this game' preparation going forward
Thanks, but I just copied it from a reply Browner posted in a separate thread. :biggrin:
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,408
Post Likes
1,525
Glasgow are claiming that one of their players was subjected to a choke tackle over the weekend.

to reference an earlier post, he was literally choked to the point of being rendered unconscious and necessitating lengthy medical treatment.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
PegLeg & Ronald, refer to 17.6(g) "If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground ... etc"

Is this act "collapsing the maul"? If so why is it not sanctioned as such? If only the BC goes to ground I wouldn't consider the maul collapsed.

If the BC gets a knee to the ground he must make the ball available "immediately" else a scrum must be ordered. It does not require the opponent who has the BC wrapped to release him.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
What your missing is significant.

If the ball carrier goes to ground. He is ALLOWED to go to ground. 17.2(c) whilst other players are not allowed to do so. If the law intended 17.2(c) to be interpreted as the ball player can be brought to ground (tackled) then there is no way that is the wording even the IRB would have chosen.

Pulling a ball carrier to ground is, almost certainly, likely to collapse the maul. If his is bound to other players how likely is it that he and he alone could be dragged (as in the OP) to the ground without the players bound to the ball carrier going down to. SO 17.2 (e) is going to come into play.

Are you being obtuse with this bit "refer to 17.6(g) "If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground ... etc"

Is this act "collapsing the maul"? If so why is it not sanctioned as such? If only the BC goes to ground I wouldn't consider the maul collapsed.

If the BC gets a knee to the ground he must make the ball available "immediately" else a scrum must be ordered. It does not require the opponent who has the BC wrapped to release him."

Clearly the act of the ball carrier going to ground is legal. The laws say he may do so! But there is a big difference between a play choosing to go to ground and being taken to ground.

Your last sentence applies to a maul that has collapsed with no fault. If a player is considered guilty of collapsing a maul he will be pinged for that.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Glasgow are claiming that one of their players was subjected to a choke tackle over the weekend.

to reference an earlier post, he was literally choked to the point of being rendered unconscious and necessitating lengthy medical treatment.

Its 'another' pet hate of mine, players pulling on the neck/throat/face/(head guard). whenever ive seen, always gets pinged by me, neck /face contact is illegal unnecessary inflamatory and virtually always dangerous .... Rid the game of it.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
What your missing is significant.

If the ball carrier goes to ground. He is ALLOWED to go to ground. 17.2(c) whilst other players are not allowed to do so. If the law intended 17.2(c) to be interpreted as the ball player can be brought to ground (tackled) then there is no way that is the wording even the IRB would have chosen.

Pulling a ball carrier to ground is, almost certainly, likely to collapse the maul. If his is bound to other players how likely is it that he and he alone could be dragged (as in the OP) to the ground without the players bound to the ball carrier going down to. SO 17.2 (e) is going to come into play.

Are you being obtuse with this bit "refer to 17.6(g) "If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground ... etc"

Is this act "collapsing the maul"? If so why is it not sanctioned as such? If only the BC goes to ground I wouldn't consider the maul collapsed.

If the BC gets a knee to the ground he must make the ball available "immediately" else a scrum must be ordered. It does not require the opponent who has the BC wrapped to release him."

Clearly the act of the ball carrier going to ground is legal. The laws say he may do so! But there is a big difference between a play choosing to go to ground and being taken to ground.

Your last sentence applies to a maul that has collapsed with no fault. If a player is considered guilty of collapsing a maul he will be pinged for that.

Mauls collapse, it happens, often the defending side will benefit from the collapse (via turnover) but in order to adjudge a "deliberate" offence then it needs to be C&O. If it is C& O then PK, if not, turnover ( kick2maul excepted).
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
What we're missing is the answer, not yet forthcoming, to the question: Did Blue go to ground with the Red BC?

You state that "Pulling a ball carrier to ground is, almost certainly, likely to collapse the maul." Well, did it? If it did then we have total agreement that it's a collapsed maul and we need to discern the villain if there is one.

The maul may also collapse because Red BC is fighting to get to ground, Blue hangs on trying to keep him up and the two of them, and possibly more, end up on the deck. Is Blue at fault?

I'm not intending to be obtuse but to you the picture was clear but it wasn't to me. I simply don't see this in the black and white that you do.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Expert
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Society meeting tonight.


Verdict


In a maul, the ball carrier can go to ground. No one else can put him on the ground. That will do for me.

The OP says that is what happened so that is the scenario I'm judging it is black and white as it is the scenario presented. In a game situation the scenario may be different or less clear and then a different outcome may be possible. But as described the scenario is clear.

Browner I agree C & O always applies.
 
Top