[Maul] Wales v Georgia - penalty try not given from collapsed maul

[Pablo]

46 minutes in, Wales rolling maul is trundling at speed toward Georgian line. Collapses <5 metres short, penalty advantage signalled. Biggar cross kicks, but Williams fumbles as he dives to collect it. Luke Pearce brings us back for the penalty at the maul, but pauses for a TMO review.

On the replays, Georgia #16 very clearly drops to his knees and then under the maul, which is the principal reason for its collapse. Yellow card issued; seems fair.

What I don't get is why this wasn't a penalty try too? If the maul had continued at the same pace it was travelling at before the collapse, there's no doubt it would have reached in-goal. LP's comment was that he was happy there were lots of Georgian defenders nearby, but I can't see why that's relevant.

 

[beckett50]

What I don't get is why this wasn't a penalty try too? If the maul had continued at the same pace it was travelling at before the collapse, there's no doubt it would have reached in-goal. LP's comment was that he was happy there were lots of Georgian defenders nearby, but I can't see why that's relevant.

Good question, and the answer is because any of these defenders may have tackled the ball carrier and prevented the try being scored.

 

[Phil E]

Good question, and the answer is because any of these defenders may have tackled the ball carrier and prevented the try being scored.

Its a rolling maul, how are they going to tackle the ball carrier?

 

[Flish]

I think there's no doubt the maul would have crossed the line, is it probable that they would have grounded it? Not sure, there were a lot of bodies that could have ended up under that ball once the maul stopped existing over the line.

 

[beckett50]

Its a rolling maul, how are they going to tackle the ball carrier?

Because the ball carrier may have broken off the back of the maul.

 

[tewdric]

It was quite possible it would have been held up but, equally, it was quiye probable a try would have been scored. A 50/50 decision in my eyes and I don't fall out with LP's decision.

 

[Phil E]

Because the ball carrier may have broken off the back of the maul.

Trundling towards the line at speed and less than 5m out? Why would you?