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?
Printable View
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?
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.
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!
Yeah, nah, almost there GIGS.Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
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.
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 pillQuote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
They were teaching that in 1987...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pruc
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.
I'd rather they brought back full rucking :P
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by onions
As opposed to actually being sorted out..
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?
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.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGS20
So yeah.. Interpretation..
Not a good thing.
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........Quote:
Originally Posted by antiussentiment
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by antiussentiment
I thought the maul is over (as the description of a maul no longer fits), you've got one of them "flying wedgie" things - so obstructionness abounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyS
Nah, the laws just describe how a maul begins and how it ends. Like a ruck, once it is formed it continues until it is over.