Force v Lions

[Dodgy Bro]

When a maul forms it's the maul law that applies. That's it. End of story. Fini.

There are a lot of mauls that collapse (legally, of course) where the players seem to think it then turns to ruck law, or sometimes if the ball carrier is brought to ground and held that it becomes a tackle.

It doesn't. It was a maul. the maul must end successfully (by the ball coming out of it so play may continue) or the ref awards a scrum to the team who didn't start the maul.

The maul law is very clear and there in no need for interpretation due to its clarity. It may be that some refs don't referee it very well (none that I've seen recently), but it's really very clear. Knowledge of what constitutes a maul and perhaps identifying it for the players whose knowledge of such things is less than they think is paramount for the ref.

Herein lies the tactical decision-making of either team. If the player carrying the ball doesn't secure it well then the opposition will latch onto it so it can't come out, knowing they'll get the scrum feed. The player carrying it must have support, or be really, really strong in order to progress things in a maul and control it to the extent that when Sir calls for it to come out, it can come out.

Cheers Ecky - yes support from the Force has been lacking - they all jog up to the break down or back from a breakdown.

[GIGS20]

Sorry Gigs, I got carried away.

If a defender is under the ball carrier and they are both on the ground in a collapsed maul, the defender does not have to release the ball carrier and therefore the ball - it is then a collapsed maul and scrum should go to defenders side

In that case, I feel it is inconsistent with the remaining laws of the game, also with the general interpretation of allowing a contest for the ball. However if he's applying law correctly, good on him........force needs to learn from it.

[Ecky]

Difficulty comes when the ball actually touches the ground (not held between players off the ground) - IRB now state that this is now a ruck (sorry Ecky), and ruck law applies i.e. players must release and move away from ball.

Yeah, nah, I didn't mention this bit simply because it rarely happens. It used to happen back in the 80's and 90's but these days the participants in a maul will not likely want to just drop the pill with the view to heeling it back. The player would go to ground and then present it so it can be cleared.

In that case, I feel it is inconsistent with the remaining laws of the game, also with the general interpretation of allowing a contest for the ball. However if he's applying law correctly, good on him........force needs to learn from it.

Well excuse the iRB lawmakers!

If you are an aficionado of the rolling maul then you will know that it is almost impossible to defend against a good one and that's what makes it so fantastic. Apparently. The maul isn't really a contest for the ball where the team not in possession can win it by actually gaining it and presenting it their scrum half. They can win it if they can stop its progression and win the turnover though.

A scrum used to be a contest for the ball once too......

[travelling_gerry]

CJ van der Linde cleared

2012-05-30 11:06Email*|*PrintCJ van der Linde (Gallo Images)

Related Links

Pienaar hungry for Bok spotBok squad named after derbyEbersohn frustrated with NakaCape Town - A SANZAR judicial hearing has found Lions prop CJ van der Linde not guilty of contravening Law 10.4 (m) Acts contrary to good sportsmanship after he was cited following a Super Rugby match at the weekend.The citing was not upheld.*The incident occurred in the 10th minute of the match between the Force and Lions on May 26 in Perth.*
In his finding, Tully ruled:**For the citing to be upheld on such a serious breach of the laws of the game, it is necessary that there be a deliberate decision on the part of the cited player to bite. The cited player whilst leaning over a player on the ground was held around the mouth in the forearm of a Force player. He was pulled back. It was during this motion that the Force player’s forearm came into contact with the cited player’s mouth. The cited player denied biting. He conceded that there were red marks on the forearm of the Force player consistent with what might have been made by teeth. The finding of the judicial officer is such that he accepted the cited player’s evidence that there was no deliberate intention to bite and that the marks were more consistent with a forearm being used in a levering type motion. The matter was minor. The mark had resolved within 20 minutes of the incident.*

[sittingbison]

well no surprise there

[PerthChicka]

No surprise at all! Why do they even bother having judiciaries?? Teeth marks but no intention to bite?? P-leeeese!!!

[Sheikh]

If you get a forearm round the head which then pulls the arm into the mouth, I'd expect teeth-marks with no intent to bite. If the mark went away after 20 minutes+ then it certainly doesn't sound like much of a wound. Certainly not enough to excuse Lynn's play at the weekend - he was playing like a pansy - I think the only time he took the ball into contact he lost it, all other times he was looking round for a pass, and usually a soft pass to another forward also standing still.

+ How do they know the teeth-marks went away?