uncontested maul thingy

[Dickie E]

Can we try to stop MSU,

the Wolverines have been quite successful but not in recent times

 

[Dickie E]

Dickie, I believe our GMG wants us to have blue 'use it!', and even if they don't then it's accidental obstruction only and scrum over. AFAIUI Red don't need to prove the obstruction?

Edit:
GMG excerpt
Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line out as a group, then PK to attacking team.
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and creating space, and not leaving the line out, the following process should be followed:
o The attacking team would need to keep the ball with the front player if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier.)
o If the attacking team immediately passes the ball back to a player behind the front player or at the rear of the group, the referee would tell them to "Use it" which they must do immediately.
o If the team drives forward with the ball at the back (and ignores the referee’s call to “Use it”), the referee should award a scrum to the defending team for "accidental offside" (rather than PK for obstruction).

Saw this on Saturday.

Maul forms nicely from lineout and moves forward.

Then a pod of 3 attacking players - ball carrier at back - breaks free and advances with no opponent in contact.

What do we have here?

1. play on - part of the original maul
2. play on - not obstruction until opponenet makes contact with the group
3. a new maul with accidental obstruction - call "use it" or scrum
4. penalty - obstruction.

 

[talbazar]

Saw this on Saturday.

Maul forms nicely from lineout and moves forward.

Then a pod of 3 attacking players - ball carrier at back - breaks free and advances with no opponent in contact.

What do we have here?

1. play on - part of the original maul
2. play on - not obstruction until opponenet makes contact with the group
3. a new maul with accidental obstruction - call "use it" or scrum
4. penalty - obstruction.

[LAWS]17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

Unsuccessful end (17.6) doesn't bring anything new...

To me, it's play on, the Maul still exists as nothing in the law tells you it has ended.
Same way a ruck still exists when all opponents get on their feet and away from it...

Any big disagreement on this?
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[menace]

Saw this on Saturday.

Maul forms nicely from lineout and moves forward.

Then a pod of 3 attacking players - ball carrier at back - breaks free and advances with no opponent in contact.

What do we have here?

1. play on - part of the original maul
2. play on - not obstruction until opponenet makes contact with the group
3. a new maul with accidental obstruction - call "use it" or scrum
4. penalty - obstruction.

It could be any one of these...more info needed.

But this is how I would assess it (well I hope to assess it at the time it happens!)

- If the opposition left (voluntarily or otherwise) the maul and the pod of 3 exist and stay on the same path, then 1.
- if the opposition left the maul and the pod of 3 stay on the same path and then opposition re-engage to the front man, then still same maul, no obstruction,ie 2. But no obstruction when they re-engage
- if the pod of 3 break to the side ie "change lane", then not a new maul but a shout of "maul over, use it"...and if they don't comply then possibly scrum OR it's 4.

 

[Browner]

[LAWS]17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

Unsuccessful end (17.6) doesn't bring anything new...

To me, it's play on, the Maul still exists as nothing in the law tells you it has ended.
Same way a ruck still exists when all opponents get on their feet and away from it...

Any big disagreement on this?
Cheers,
Pierre.

If the group of three detach from their opponents grasping/binding , id say 'theyve' left the maul , if I read correctly you seem to be suggesting that maul ending is explicitly a singleton departing BC action (?)

Doesnt it makes more sense to deem it ended, rather than seeing two teammates 'bound' legging it off upfield seemingly protected by maul law - just doesn't look or feel right , but I'm open to be convinced, but you haven't given me good game reasons for interpreting that way .....yet ????? ....... Talbazar

 

[Dickie E]

If the group of three detach from their opponents grasping/binding , id say 'theyve' left the maul , if I read correctly you seem to be suggesting that maul ending is explicitly a singleton departing BC action (?)

Doesnt it makes more sense to deem it ended, rather than seeing two teammates 'bound' legging it off upfield seemingly protected by maul law - just doesn't look or feel right , but I'm open to be convinced, but you haven't given me good game reasons for interpreting that way .....yet ????? ....... Talbazar

so which of my 4 options would you go with?

 

[Browner]

so which of my 4 options would you go with?

2.

If they've broken free from the maul then it is common sense to think its now open play, if it remains a maul then what incentive is there for any pair of players to remain bound, unbinding keeps all the samecadvatages other than opponents in your way ! , the possession pendulum will have swung too far IMHO.

Ref to shout " balls out , or maul over" to aid the support players decision not to obstruct defender access to the BC.

 

[Dickie E]

It could be any one of these...more info needed.

- if the pod of 3 break to the side ie "change lane", then not a new maul but a shout of "maul over, use it"...and if they don't comply then possibly scrum OR it's 4.

Yes, this is what happened.

The ball carrier broke free and went for a run. Just that he had 2 team mates bound on in front of him. Looked wrong.

I think this is a new phase of play subsequent to the lineout maul so the GMG (ie my option 3) may not apply. Thoughts?

 

[menace]

Yes, this is what happened.

The ball carrier broke free and went for a run. Just that he had 2 team mates bound on in front of him. Looked wrong.

I think this is a new phase of play subsequent to the lineout maul so the GMG (ie my option 3) may not apply. Thoughts?

I tend to agree Dickie....'use it' and if not used then either scrum over or PK - use your judgment. I think you could sell either.

 

[The Fat]

So I getting this right?
The BC at the back of a maul, breaks away from the mail with 2 team mates in front of him all bound together?
If the original maul was still going and they broke away (they would have to now angle away and from behind the original maul) we now have a truck and trailer situation. If a defender moves to attempt to get to the BC, PK for obstruction.

 

[Dickie E]

So I getting this right?
The BC at the back of a maul, breaks away from the mail with 2 team mates in front of him all bound together?
If the original maul was still going and they broke away (they would have to now angle away and from behind the original maul) we now have a truck and trailer situation. If a defender moves to attempt to get to the BC, PK for obstruction.

yeah, that sums it up. I'm still a bit nonplussed by this "accidental obstruction at a maul from a lineout" ruling

 

[ChrisR]

At the moment the player with the ball is unbound from the body of players forming the maul then the maul is over.

If he is bound to players in front of him then those players are obstructing. PK.

The "unintentional offside" cannot apply,