Wallabies v Ireland mauls

[The Fat]

Anyone got video of the first 10 minutes of last weekend's game?
Interested to look at 2nd??? maul called by Glen Jackson where Ireland earned a turn-over scrum.
Remembering from watching the live broadcast, I thought he called maul where no gold team mate was bound to the ball carrier. I thought the first supporting gold player made contact with an Irish player who had moved to the Wallabies side of the ball carrier.

I think it was about the Wallabies 10m line or maybe closer to the Wallabies goal line (maybe 30m out) on near side of field.

 

[menace]

Yes. it's on my pvr so don't ask me how to get that as a video posted!

What you refer to happens at about the 11min mark. I think technically it wasn't a maul as a gold player was not, nor ever, bound to the BC. Gold were only ever bound to the green players who were bound to the BC.

This picture is about a frame or 2 before GJ calls it a maul.
View attachment 3090
For mine, it looked close enough like a maul and there was no impact of that call as green successfully steal the ball and end the maul by leaving it.

 

[The Fat]

That's the one thanks menace. My memory almost got it right, forgot that Ireland rip the ball rather than it going to ground for a turn-over.
I have no problem with how this one ended as, in reality, it was still general play. However, this is a basic mistake by Glen Jackson to call "maul" in this situation. It is something that I have seen happen every so often in my level games and one that just needs to be managed by the referee with a call of "no maul" or similar.
I wonder if this was picked up by GJ's assessor?

Ian C,
could you move this thread to the TRM section for general discussion please?

 

[crossref]

hmmm... I have trouble with the idea that's not a maul.

If you are going to referee it as general play, won't that cause you problems...

- What are the two Aussies doing, if not forming a maul ? they must be playing a man without the ball? PK ?

- If it falls over now and is unplayable will you give a scrum to Aus as they were moving forward?

Either of those I think would seem quite surprising decisions.

 

[The Fat]

It was never a maul. If it collapses, do you give green a turnover?
It is general play

 

[crossref]

It was never a maul. If it collapses, do you give green a turnover?
It is general play

well, I would treat it like GJ and call it a maul.

But I am prepared to listen to other view.

OK - but then if it's general play

1 - you didn't say : what are the two supporting Aussies doing, and how is it legal?
2 - would you let the Aus #9 come round and stand on the green side, next to the green #8 ? If not why not?

 

[Browner]

well, I would treat it like GJ and call it a maul.

But I am prepared to listen to other view.

OK - but then if it's general play

1 - you didn't say : what are the two supporting Aussies doing, and how is it legal?
2 - would you let the Aus #9 come round and stand on the green side, next to the green #8 ? If not why not?

I suspect that this would be considered a maul more often than not, by most referees..despite the non-bonafide maul construction. I'm in that group almost certainly.

 

[Dickie E]

well, I would treat it like GJ and call it a maul.

Yeah, me too.

I would take the (perhaps existential) view that any player bound into this mass is bound to every other player who is bound into this mass. Hence a maul.

 

[Taff]

hmmm... I have trouble with the idea that's not a maul.

For what it's worth I agree. I would call it a maul.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Same here. Technically its not really a maul, but for all intents and purposes I would call it a maul

What I object to is when the Ball Carrier gets grasped by two opponents who are trying to keep him up, and the referee (usually, but not always, an inexperienced one) calls "MAUL!" before any team-mates of the Ball Carrier bind on.

 

[L'irlandais]

Is this not an example of the choke tackle in action?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is this not an example of the choke tackle in action?

Yes, but there are two good defences against a choke tackle.

1. Don't defend it.
If no team-mates of the ball carrier ever bind on, then it never becomes a maul. Let the tacklers keep him up and try to take the ball off him... so long as that player remains strong and clutches the ball against his body with both hands it will take a very strong player to get it off him. I have seen instances of Ball Carriers in this situation deliberately crossing their legs below their knees so that any pushing or pulling brings them all to ground.

2. Tackle your own ball carrier around the legs, below the knees.
This is not a bind (binding is by Law definition "Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder"). Therefore this action does not form a maul, and will stop his legs moving, then any pushing or pulling by the opponent is likely to bring the three of them down.

In both cases, you end up with a tackle, and the unsuccessful choke tacklers must release and roll away.


There is third a defence too... two tacklers come in and tackle the choke tacklers around the legs. Its legal to use this method to prevent maul formation at a line-out (where it is known as "sacking the maul"), so why would it not be legal in General Play?

 

[Taff]

... There is third a defence too... two tacklers come in and tackle the choke tacklers around the legs.

Isn't that playing the man without the ball?

 

[Browner]

Isn't that playing the man without the ball?

Of course it is taff , anyway lineouts dont sack a maul, they tackle (sack) the ball carrier.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Isn't that playing the man without the ball?

It probably is, but wonder if it would be penalised

Aren't the two Gold players on the left of the Green player holding Gold 6 playing the Green player without the ball

 

[OB..]

Aren't the two Gold players on the left of the Green player holding Gold 6 playing the Green player without the ball

If the Green player gets on the "wrong side", he is preventing the Gold players from binding on to their team-mate. Obstruction?

In practice it makes sense to allow the team mates to bind on to the Green player and form a maul.

 

[L'irlandais]

A lot of ink has been used on this already (several discussions in Elite refs forum) This article by Will Greenwood says it's negative play ; I still think Will Kiss' tactic is magic.

 

[Browner]

Will Greenwoods article comes at this from the wrong direction, one of the main reasons that players aren't deciding to tackle lower is because the law changes of recent years have devalued doing so, tackling low has such a low % of possession gaining, that its becoming redundant.

Modern rugby (influenced from RL) is mostly about ( in tackling) denying the offload opportunity, aka wrapping the BC arms, or ' high'

Its tough enough trying to get possession from an opponent currently, just look at the multiphases of possession (10, 20...30!) Don't remove one of the few times when it can be done, otherwise we will have to introduce a possession count turnover .....

Browner grabs for the red silky box with his crucifix in!

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the Green player gets on the "wrong side", he is preventing the Gold players from binding on to their team-mate. Obstruction?

In practice it makes sense to allow the team mates to bind on to the Green player and form a maul.

Absolutely agree. I was just making a point to Taff