[Maul] Offside and joining the maul inside goal line, any differences?

[chbg]

cccref - as a native english speaker, I'd say that was a big clap on the back #

didds

cccref - sorry, I have been off-line for 36 hrs, but Didds has it spot on.

 

[Pinky]

The BC is allowed to go to ground.

The whole attacking team will want to go to ground if the maul moves in goal!

 

[cccref]

cccref - sorry, I have been off-line for 36 hrs, but Didds has it spot on.

don't worry, i just asked because i didn't understand the meaning of the sentence, i could translate it but i wasn't understanding how to "read" it.
According to the translation i did, it could have been sarcastic or not, probably i got the whole translation wrong :smile:

The whole attacking team will want to go to ground if the maul moves in goal!

Nobody's ever going to whistle that, but, does the "is no maul anymore" or "i am inside goal area" justify collapsing a group of people? Safety issue still remains to me.

 

[Pinky]

Nobody's ever going to whistle that, but, does the "is no maul anymore" or "i am inside goal area" justify collapsing a group of people? Safety issue still remains to me.[/QUOTE]

Everyone will whistle this as it is a try!

 

[cccref]

Nobody's ever going to whistle that, but, does the "is no maul anymore" or "i am inside goal area" justify collapsing a group of people? Safety issue still remains to me.

Everyone will whistle this as it is a try![/QUOTE]
I know, but why now is not a safety issue anymore? :smile:

 

[OB..]

Everyone will whistle this as it is a try!

I know, but why now is not a safety issue anymore? :smile:[/QUOTE]It becomes a question for the referee to decide on the facts of the particular incident.

Allowing a maul to be collapsed anywhere, anytime significantly increases the risk of injuries and prevents play being continuous.

 

[ChuckieB]

.......yes but we are trying to bring safety and order to a game that 100 + years ago I suspect never even considered such things. One could look at every forwards attempt to lunge for the line, head below hips, as being far more dangerous, in each and every case, perhaps? No thoughts to manage that I suspect?

But yes, why should something deemed not acceptable within FoP suddenly be acceptable over the goal line. Unless we say perhaps, players are far more suspecting of the possibility and better prepared knowing some form of collapse is the likely outcome once the line is breached. As such not quite so dangerous perhaps?

 

[Taff]

..... But yes, why should something deemed not acceptable within FoP suddenly be acceptable over the goal line. Unless we say perhaps, players are far more suspecting of the possibility and better prepared knowing some form of collapse is the likely outcome once the line is breached. As such not quite so dangerous perhaps?

I understand the probability that players caught up in the Maul / Not-Maul will expect a collapse once the ball is over the goal line, but what if a player DOES get hurt when it gets pulled down? Would we penalise it then - because it was blatantly dangerous in that case?

 

[ChuckieB]

I understand the probability that players caught up in the Maul / Not-Maul will expect a collapse once the ball is over the goal line, but what if a player DOES get hurt when it gets pulled down? Would we penalise it then - because it was blatantly dangerous in that case?

I'm not saying we would or wouldn't, but the reality seems to be it is not going to be directly under the maul law.

Wording of in goal laws are such that they do not to specifically exclude "most things" as evidenced by the following:

"22.10 Ball held up in-goal


When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball."

This just serves to reinforce maul laws don't specifically apply and unfortunately this then includes intentional collapse though elsewhere it is deemed dangerous play.


However, I see: 22.17 (b) A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

If you then cite an intentional maul collapse in FoP as a specific example of dangerous play where, dangerous play, under the foul play law definitions, is covered and then direct that you are seeing this as similar to a maul which is something recognised in law 22, you might well be covered!

Hope it never comes to that.

Phew!

 

[cccref]

When a maul enters the goal area i usually wait a few seconds before assigning held up ball, because i am expecting the BC to ground the ball.

Problem si that everybody in the attacking team will push downward making the group of people fall.
A white line painted on the groud doesn't make it less dangerous.

It's like not watching while you cross the street on the ‎pedestrian crossing. You are right, but if you are hit, that's still a lot of pain (let me get away with this example)

 

[ChrisR]

Why doesn't this happen in the real world? Because the defenders are not trying to collapse in goal. Quite the opposite; they are trying to prevent it.