prem grade

[Sprogrugby]

No dramas BDG, thanks for clarifying - can you tell I'm a beginner

[brokendown gunfighter]

no worries,apparantly one or two posters seemed to question others on their rights to comment on club rugby----just a bit of friendly banter

[DinkyDi]

If the rumour is correct, there are personality issues that are over riding the position on the ladder situation. It's been building for some time.

The grapevine was saying that some of their stalwarts had walked last year and I heard that the situation has worsened.

RM - sorry its been a while since I have been on but been far far away. Re the Cott coach - Okay he is a miserable bastard and does his thing his own way but results talk. No Force players, away from home and still missing starting local players and they claw their way back from a 12-0 deficit to beat UWA. Something has to be going right at the Gulls. The home games seem to be well supported with the Old Gulls commenting vociferously from the nest, player numbers up, without off book payments and the remaining grades all doing okay.

Is there a shred of truth in the coaching backlash - No idea but whatever is happening, it seems to be working

[Hansie]

Great to see some chat with refs. Hats off to all them, the standard gets better year after year.

I do have one question relating to tackler releasing ball carrier though.

Tackler gets a firm grip on ball with ball carrier still upright - a bit of a ball wrestle, other player's arrive, ball carrier is held up but then manages to get one knee on ground, torso still above ground - is this when tackler must release ball carrier?

Finally in this same circumstance, tackler manages to rip ball as other players and ball carrier all collapse on the ground and tackler places ball behind him or in some occassions the ball squirts out of the tackle.

Some refs have awarded penalty to ball carrier for tackler not releasing, some refs have awarded penalty to ball carrier for tackler having hands in the ruck.

I haven't seen any refs see it as a fair rip of the ball, which is my thinking. Granted it all happens so quickly but the contest for the ball has been lost by the ball carrier, why am I wrong?

[wingman]

as soon as the ball carrier hits the ground you must let him go so he can play it regardless of whether the said player has nearly ripped it away . he is not the tackler remember unless he goes to ground as well , its a stupid law but its a law so players have to comply .

you can get turnovers but letting the carrier go show some daylight then go at the ball while your on your feet alot of players are doing well in this area at all levels

if ball carrier is on his feet and one more player from each team arrives its a maul and the opposition doesn't have to let the ball go if it collaspes , this is where some refs give penalties for hanging on . they should call collapsed maul . a ruck cannot form from a maul ! probably need to tify up in this area of a match in my view

[GIGS20]

as soon as the ball carrier hits the ground you must let him go so he can play it regardless of whether the said player has nearly ripped it away . he is not the tackler remember unless he goes to ground as well , its a stupid law but its a law so players have to comply .

you can get turnovers but letting the carrier go show some daylight then go at the ball while your on your feet alot of players are doing well in this area at all levels

if ball carrier is on his feet and one more player from each team arrives its a maul and the opposition doesn't have to let the ball go if it collaspes , this is where some refs give penalties for hanging on . they should call collapsed maul . a ruck cannot form from a maul ! probably need to tify up in this area of a match in my view

Great explanation of the law, thanks. The only thing I can add is that (despite law saying it's a maul when one player from each team is in contact over the ball carrier with the ball off the floor) most referees seem to think there isn't a maul until THEY say there's a maul.

IMHO there are a lot of collapsed mauls which go unnoticed (at all levels of the game) the true question is, when a maul is taken to ground by the ball carrier (the only player who can legally pull a maul down) what are the rights and responsibilities of the other bound players? Is the maul still collapsed, but legally? if so, hands on, no roll away is fine, play on. Is this (since it's not a ruck) played as a tackle and all players have the responsibility to release, clear the ball etc?

I guess the guidance I'm looking for is whether there will be any difference in the situation described between it being assumed to be a maul and it being assumed to be a tackle?

Assembled refs, do your work!

[RugbyRef]

You are right. Once tackled player has a knee on the floor, tackler must release the player and the ball. If they manage to rip it out first, then no problem, they are the ball carrier now.

GIGS20,

You are right, this is an area that we are taught about and the game management helps us, but normal fans and players get very little insight into (generally due to lack of interest or coaches not filtering it through, not because it's a secret).

At a tackle we are instructed to 'let it breathe'.

This basically means leave it about a second to see what happens, so the opposition may try to pinch it, and then a clean out may happen. So we are allowing the legal contest for the ball (providing opposition get there before the ruck).

If defence is there first, then it's easy as ball is generally quickly to the back.

The same applies to a tackler, if he is on the wrong side but the ball can be played I may tell that player to stay there to save his exiting causing an issue. What I look for at the tackle is that the ball is available for the attacking team to use, if it is, the tackler is no longer an issue (unless the interfere).

With Mauls we do generally call it, but remember all collapsed mauls are not illegal. Most mauls collpase because a) the ball carrier goes to ground, which they are allowed to do. Or b) just the momentum knocks it over. When this happens the ref will look to see if the ball can be played, if yes, we play on, if no, we stop and award the scrum to the team that didn't take it in (accept from a kick, but not kick off).

Remember the ball carrier can only go to ground, they cannot deliberately collapse the maul either.

Basically this is the way we get the game to flow.

Hope that helps.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Hansie]

One more question, help me understand this:

Team throwing ball into a lineout form a maul, opposition didn't contest in the air and immediately pull back from oncoming maul ( ie no opposition binding with maul) Why is penalty awarded to team not competing in air and not counter mauling?

[goony]

One more question, help me understand this:

Team throwing ball into a lineout form a maul, opposition didn't contest in the air and immediately pull back from oncoming maul ( ie no opposition binding with maul) Why is penalty awarded to team not competing in air and not counter mauling?

Personally i hate this ruling, it is almost bad sportsmanship!! I have seen many teams doing it on their defensive 5mtr line and winning a penalty, taking all the pressure off them - its a joke!!

[Ecky]

a ruck cannot form from a maul !

What if the ball carrier puts (or drops) the ball so the ball goes to ground but no players do?

Granted, this very rarely happens these days, but what if?

[Ecky]

One more question, help me understand this:

Team throwing ball into a lineout form a maul, opposition didn't contest in the air and immediately pull back from oncoming maul ( ie no opposition binding with maul) Why is penalty awarded to team not competing in air and not counter mauling?

Team throwing the ball in cannot form a maul without the participation of the opposition, so them gathering around the catcher and proceeding forward is not a maul until the oppo binds onto it.

If the ball-catcher transfers the ball to players binding on and it is smuggled to the back, then that's "truck & trailer" when the oppo binds onto the front man (who no longer has the ball), so a PK for obstruction ensues.

Technically, therefore, if the non-throwing team chooses not to bind on, their players can come around behind that pod and go for the ball from the "other" side as there's no offsides.

C'mon you coaches - train for that one and let's get some different action going!

[RugbyRef]

There are lots of benefits to the defence doing this:

1, No offside lines so the teams can run around the back of the 'group' and go for the ball;
2, If ball carrier is not at front then opposition cannot bind onto ball carrier and so cannot create the maul, this is obstruction (remember every phase can be a contest).
3, If the opposition do keep the ball carrier at the front a player can legally tackle him, this is not collapsing a maul, just tackling the ball carrier. (This is permitted through a law clarification a while ago). Similar to sacking at the lineout.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Clarification to back up what I was saying:

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?dom...arification=34

[Hansie]

I see all of that but just like I grumble when this tactic is used.

My view is: since you didn't contest the lineout and are now playing cynical rugby, it should be seen as such and play allowed to go on.

If lineout is contested, then a maul has to be formed as the lifters and jumper have to be in contact with opponents.

[Piston]

I see all of that but just like I grumble when this tactic is used.

My view is: since you didn't contest the lineout and are now playing cynical rugby, it should be seen as such and play allowed to go on.

If lineout is contested, then a maul has to be formed as the lifters and jumper have to be in contact with opponents.

Well actually you don't want them to make contact with lifters and jumpers as this can be dangerous, and therefore does not mean a maul have been formed. As Ecky said maul is formed when ball carrier and one from each team binds onto him.

Now what the ball carrier can do is to stay as the ball carrier (i.e. not distributing the ball to the back) and drive forward, scoring the easiest try ever!

If the opposition have bound onto the ball carrier (therefore forming a maul) and then bail out, the maul is still legal and they can move forward without it being ruled as obstruction.

[GIGS20]

Now what the ball carrier can do is to stay as the ball carrier (i.e. not distributing the ball to the back) and drive forward, scoring the easiest try ever!

And the way I'm reading it, if he stays the ball carrier, the instant somebody makes contact with him, it becomes a maul and he can't be grounded without risking a penalty for collapsing.

Therefore he could turn and face the rest of his forwards and walk backwards over the line, ready to pass the ball back as soon as he gets a whack in the kindeys or score a try if he doesn't.

Sounds simple until you try it in a game!