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!