[Maul] Stealing in maul?

[nylluma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRr2qaSL9M0

Hey all,

In the last position (the maul)
a) Is what Etzebeth doing legal?
b) Why did the ref award the scrum?

 

[Jolly Roger]

See clip from 03:08 on counter

I believe that Etzebeth does two things wrong.
Firstly, he does not bind onto the maul when he joins it.
Secondly, he collapses the maul when he eventually does bind onto the red No1

Law 16
7. Players joining a maul must:
a. Do so from an onside position.
b. Bind on to the hindmost player in the maul
Sanctionenalty

11. Players must not:
Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it
Sanctionenalty

Why did the ref award a scrum to SA? Because he did not regard the actions of Etzebeth as illegal, so the maul ended unsuccessfully (collapse and ball not available to play) resulting in scum to team not in possession at the time that the maul began i.e. SA.

17A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).

One question from me: What if a player joins the maul legally (from onside position and bound) then loses binding once tied into the maul. Can he/she then reach over the top and interfere with opposition ball carrier, as per Etzebeth's actions in the middle of this maul?

 

[Ian_Cook]

See clip from 03:08 on counter

I believe that Etzebeth does two things wrong.
Firstly, he does not bind onto the maul when he joins it.
Secondly, he collapses the maul when he eventually does bind onto the red No1

Law 16
7. Players joining a maul must:
a. Do so from an onside position.
b. Bind on to the hindmost player in the maul
Sanctionenalty

11. Players must not:
Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it
Sanctionenalty

Why did the ref award a scrum to SA? Because he did not regard the actions of Etzebeth as illegal, so the maul ended unsuccessfully (collapse and ball not available to play) resulting in scum to team not in possession at the time that the maul began i.e. SA.

17A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).

One question from me: What if a player joins the maul legally (from onside position and bound) then loses binding once tied into the maul. Can he/she then reach over the top and interfere with opposition ball carrier, as per Etzebeth's actions in the middle of this maul?

Yes.

[Laws]LAW 16: DURING A MAUL
10. All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.[/Laws]

Once a player is "caught in" by other players he is free to use his arms to reach over and try to prevent the opponents from freeing up the ball.

Example in practice: Gold 5 joins the maul at the hindmost foot. Other players (either arriving or having peeled off the front of the maul and rejoined) bind on behind him, he now no longer has to keep his arms bound.

 

[didds]

One question from me: What if a player joins the maul legally (from onside position and bound) then loses binding once tied into the maul. Can he/she then reach over the top and interfere with opposition ball carrier, as per Etzebeth's actions in the middle of this maul?

presumably you are caught in the maul so legally there.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

I believe that Etzebeth does two things wrong.
Firstly, he does not bind onto the maul when he joins it.
Technically, yes but I'd allow it

Secondly, he collapses the maul when he eventually does bind onto the red No1
I didn't see it that way. Looks to me like ball carrier (and his 2 team mates) went to ground and Green player just followed them down

msf..