Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Mauls..

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    3,018
    vCash
    4084000

    Mauls..

    I was watching the brumbies match, and when a tackler is held up, so it becomes a maul. It doesn't seem to matter whether they are onside or not.

    In a normal maul, they would have to retire to the back, not so for a 'tackle maul'.

    why?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    North perth
    Posts
    114
    vCash
    5000000
    If a player's bound into the maul when it forms, then they are entitled to stay there, even if that appears to be on the 'wrong side'. There is no distinction between a tackle maul and maul - you can only have a 'maul'. IRB issued a directive to refs that they were not to tell players to get out of a maul, simply because they were on the oppositions side and bound in..one of those finer points that many don't realise, and another thing to shout at the ref about of course, the ref may have got it wrong in the brumbies game.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  3. #3
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    However he might not have. In my understanding the law states that a maul is formed when one or more players from both teams come into contact above the ball which must be off the ground, therefore a gang tacke only becomes a maul when the attacking team sends in a second player in support.

    (check my interpretation of law Ecky)

    Therefore the saders were perfectly justified in surrounding the ball carrier up until the point that the Brumbies sent in a supporting player.

    It would also mean that any gimp who is going to run bolt upright into a crowd (a la Pat McCabe) would be well advised to have a supporting forward grafted to his kidneys, since the instant he's held up by more than one player a maul is formed and he is protected from the wolf pack ripping for the ball.

    Of course the other option is to learn to pass....or step.....or do something that backs do!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  4. #4
    Veteran Ecky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,891
    vCash
    5004000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    However he might not have. In my understanding the law states that a maul is formed when one or more players from both teams come into contact above the ball which must be off the ground, therefore a gang tacke only becomes a maul when the attacking team sends in a second player in support.

    (check my interpretation of law Ecky)
    Yeah, nah, almost there GIGS.

    One or more players from each side in contact with the ball carrier who is on their feet. Not sure where you got the "above the ball" bit. It doesn't matter where the contact is, as long as it's on the ball carrier.

    So you are right: if there's a "gang tackle" (only it's not a tackle if the ball carrier isn't taken to ground), where the oppo players grab the ball carrier, they can grab from anywhere and it's not until the ball carrier's first team mate arrives and joins that it becomes a maul.

    I didn't watch the Brumbies match so I can't comment on the specifics in it.

    If you read Sprogrugby's post as well too also you'll get the gist. He knows a bit about refereeing as well. He's done quite well in seasons past.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #5
    Champion
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,254
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post

    It would also mean that any gimp who is going to run bolt upright into a crowd (a la Pat McCabe) would be well advised to have a supporting forward grafted to his kidneys, since the instant he's held up by more than one player a maul is formed and he is protected from the wolf pack ripping for the ball.

    Of course the other option is to learn to pass....or step.....or do something that backs do!
    or do what a lot of coaches are teaching which is when you lose the contact and are being held up as a support player hold off and have the ball carry have his knee hit the floor making in a tackle meaning everyone has to release and usually the attack retains the pill

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by pruc; 16-07-12 at 10:43.

  6. #6
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    334000
    They were teaching that in 1987...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  7. #7
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by pruc View Post
    or do what a lot of coaches are teaching which is when you lose the contact and are being held up as a support player hold off and have the ball carry have his knee hit the floor making in a tackle meaning everyone has to release and usually the attack retains the pill
    Unfortunately, since the Irish beat us in the world cup, everybody's been awake to that and we've seen McCabe and his like thrusting their ass to the floor whist everybody on the other team does their best to hold him up.

    I would also be interested to know how it would be called once the tackle is completed (by said knee hitting the floor) the tackled player must play the ball IMMEDIATELY and the tackler must release IMMEDIATELY. I know the benefit of the doubt usually rests with the tackled player in this situation, but I would suggest that's allowing a poor player to gain a reward for being ineffective.

    I'd rather reverse the favour so that the tackled player is penalized if he doesn't release.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  8. #8
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    Burgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Country WA
    Posts
    22,644
    vCash
    334000
    I'd rather they brought back full rucking

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "Bloody oath we did!"

    Nathan Sharpe, Legend.

  9. #9
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    108
    vCash
    5000000
    So would I Burgs-and stop the linesmen running in, telling tales.Go back to the (not so)old days when the players sorted out the cheats,not the officials and the judicery

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #10
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    Quote Originally Posted by onions View Post
    So would I Burgs-and stop the linesmen running in, telling tales.Go back to the (not so)old days when the players sorted out the cheats,not the officials and the judicery
    I can see that escalating quickly..
    As opposed to actually being sorted out..

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  11. #11
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    But back to mauls.. In one of the games last week, the maul rolled and the two players in front of the ball carrier suddenly had no defenders in front of them (they were all rolled around the other side). So ball carrier and crew kept going.. Immediately got called for obstruction..

    This was not a case of the ball carrier and his forward hand breaking way truck and trailer style..

    It was still the vast majority of players that had been in the maul from the start. As it accelerated though, the defenders that were now around the other side broke away.. It seemed wrong to penalise the attacking team just because the defenders got disorganised..

    So here's the question. If all the defenders suddenly let go and step back. Is the maul over?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  12. #12
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Law 17.5 and 17.6

    A maul ends successfully based upon the position of the ball (ball leaves maul, ball touches ground, ball on or over goal line)

    A maul ends unsuccessfully when it becomes stationary or collapses or the ball becomes unplayable.

    There is no mention of a maul 'ceasing to be' by the defending team dropping players off, but there is no mention of a maul being re-formed after splintering ie under what conditions does the maul continue and under what conditions is it deemed open play again. I would think the differences are interpretation and therefore subject to change.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  13. #13
    Senior Player antiussentiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Noranda
    Posts
    566
    vCash
    5014000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    Law 17.5 and 17.6

    A maul ends successfully based upon the position of the ball (ball leaves maul, ball touches ground, ball on or over goal line)

    A maul ends unsuccessfully when it becomes stationary or collapses or the ball becomes unplayable...
    Yeah I actually went and read that before i posted.. The rules section here is really good.. But that wording really did not satisfy my curiosity..

    So yeah.. Interpretation..
    Not a good thing.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    cheers auss...
    fabricarti diem punc

  14. #14
    Player Scozzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Kinross
    Posts
    201
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by antiussentiment View Post
    I can see that escalating quickly..
    As opposed to actually being sorted out..
    I don't remember too many games escalating due to lack of intervention. In fact, games seemed to flow a lot better when linesmen (and TMOs) kept a lower profile........

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #15
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Quote Originally Posted by antiussentiment View Post
    ...So here's the question. If all the defenders suddenly let go and step back. Is the maul over?
    My understanding is, no; Gigs has described how the maul finishes. If the maul split into two groups both on their feet, the attacking players in the pod without the ball would have been called for obstruction. If they had been individually stripped off or there had been a partial collapse and the pod carrying the ball had continued, then it would have still been a maul even without defenders.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mauls saved at IRB conference
    By travelling_gerry in forum Rugby Laws Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-04-09, 16:20
  2. FRONT ROW FILE
    By Bronski Beat in forum Western Force
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 25-04-08, 19:12
  3. Flattened Force feel the pain
    By laura in forum Western Force
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 31-03-08, 13:01

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •