If the BC is already bound to his own player, then the opposition player grasping him above the waist forms a maul and if he brings him to ground he has collapsed the maul. If he goes below the waist, and he can do thisas it is still open play, he can tackle the BC and tackle law then applies if he brings the BC to ground. If that happens, the tackled player is not allowed to hold on to the ball and get back to his feet.
Was it THAT boring?
- Thread starter didds
- Start date
If the BC is already bound to his own player, then the opposition player grasping him above the waist forms a maul and if he brings him to ground he has collapsed the maul. If he goes below the waist, and he can do thisas it is still open play, he can tackle the BC and tackle law then applies if he brings the BC to ground. If that happens, the tackled player is not allowed to hold on to the ball and get back to his feet.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
100%.The bind in a ruck or maul is defined in Law...
[LAWS]Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with
the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.[/LAWS]
So, if the ball carrier pre-binds with a team-mate, and an opponent grasps the ball carrier below the hips, a maul is not formed by simple dint of the fact that he hasn't bound.
Last edited:
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
But this would apply to vitually every 'pod' attack..... & Do we see such ' collapse' decisions ever given?...... Nope, I don't either, instead this is routinely refereed as a tackle even if the opposition players contact is above the hip line.
If anyone can post a clip of a elite referee penalising a Pod defence collapse? ????!!