Rolling mauls..... |
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Author | |||||
John
Veteran Joined: 15 August 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 28 November 2014 at 12:25pm |
||||
I'm not a fan of rolling mauls but they exist; so two questions about the details of the laws1. Our party piece (which we don't do often enough) is to not contest them. Sometimes we don't do anything at all; sometimes we send a tackler around to tackle the ball carrier. If we don't do anything at all, (just let it rumble forward) is it a penalty to us? 2. The ball carrier at the back- how much contact does he have to maintain with the rest of rolling maul? Is it sufficient to just grab another players shirt and hang on or should he have contact by the shoulder - so in a position to push?
|
|||||
Sponsored Links | |||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more
opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the
ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least
three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from
each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the
maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play
has ended.
Unless we bind onto the ball carrier or one other player from the opposition there is NO maul, therefore there is NO offside line ! If we don't create the maul, then there is a much higher risk of the opposition making a "Truck 'n Trailer" i.e. ball carrier becoming detached then rejoining the blocking players players in front of him ! Good defence when it comes off. nowadays, opposition are more likely to get the ball away once they realise there is a risk of "Truck 'n Trailer" ! All players MUST be bound onto a Ruck / Maul or Scrum by a FULL ARM .. i.e Shoulder to Hand ! Edited by scarletman - 28 November 2014 at 2:42pm |
|||||
|
|||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Thanks for that. Seems to me most refs need to re-read this law, as they don't often apply it to the letter - especially the last bit. |
|||||
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|||||
John
Veteran Joined: 15 August 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I'll add my thanks. Although I don't see why an uncontested rolling maul isn't just a case of offside.......
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Because offside lines are set at Tackles, Rucks, Mauls, Scrums & lineouts ! If a Maul hasn't formed, ther is therefore no offside line ... No offside line ... No offside ! |
|||||
|
|||||
John
Veteran Joined: 15 August 2004 Status: Offline Points: 4995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
OK, so the player at the back with the ball in his possession-bound onto the rest of the pack who are in front of him. What's the difference between that and "crossing"? |
|||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Not a lot, IMO - and as I've written before, I'd ban the rolling maul - ugly and boring. FWIW, it would be used far less often if refs applied the law to the letter, and penalised players who carry the ball WITHOUT being properly bound (hand to shoulder - see above). Almost invariably, the ball carrier hangs on with an outstretched arm to someone's shirt, whilst peering over the top of the maul to see where the weaknesses in defence are. Refs HARDLY EVER penalise this, FFS! Edited by aber-fan - 12 December 2014 at 4:03pm |
|||||
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Crossing is a term (over) used by Jiffy on TV ... a legacy of his 13 man code days !
Unfortunately this term has been picked up on by the media & fans alike, but, there is no "LAW" that prevents players from "crossing" each other ... HOWEVER ... If one player crosses in front of the ball carrier thereby preventing a tackle or creating a diversion to the (potential) tackler, then this is "OBSTRUCTION" !!! if no obstruction takes place, then no penalty should be awarded as there has obviously been no offence to penalise ! |
|||||
|
|||||
Dan the Drover
Veteran Joined: 20 April 2005 Status: Offline Points: 3671 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Doesn't the ball carrier have to be at the front when the opposition engages for it to count as a maul (cf: "when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more
opponents". I'm sure I've seen a side penalised for accidental offside when they tried to smuggle the ball backwards before any engagement had occurred.
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Correct ... Law 17 Definition here ... "A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended." |
|||||
|
|||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
So in that case, presumably whenever the jumper passes the ball back to a player on his own team as he falls back to the ground, this should be penalised? Yet, they do it all the time! |
|||||
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I presume you mean from a Line-out ? if so, it depends, it's difficult to explain in type, but I'll have a go ... Jumper takes ball, lands & passes (backwards) to receiver, who has another player bound on to him. This is still not a maul yet as it needs an opposition player to bind onto the ball carrier first. Scenario 1 ... If at this stage the new ball carrier is driven into his own player, then it is accidental offside & the opposition get the put in at the resulting scrum. Scenario 2 ... If the ball carrier is driven into opposition but the opposition do not bind onto the ball carrier, there is still no Maul formed, so there is still no offside line therefore, the defending side can either tackle the player (no maul formed) or attempt to steal the ball from any direction (no offside line). The main dangers here are .. Attacking side 1 - Accidental offside (Scrum) 2 - Truck & Trailer (Obstruction - Penalty) Defending side Not a lot up to the point of binding, then instantly Maul Laws apply ! |
|||||
|
|||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I was thinking more of a case where the jumper gives the ball to a player of his own side BEFORE landing - making it impossible for the defending side to tackle him. If the receiver then immediately drives into the jumper as he lands, and passes the ball further back, it seems this is definitely 'accidental offside'. Timing is everything, and as I say, I don't see refs penalising players in this case, probably because they have so many things to watch out for. |
|||||
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Technically, the lineout is not over in this case, so there is no offside line drawn (still 10m behind the line of touch) also the ball is generally passed with both players in contact with the ball, so the jumper would still be a gegal part of the maul ast the "joining player" (Ball receiver) would be making initial contact with the ball whilst binding onto the jumper. |
|||||
|
|||||
aber-fan
Veteran Joined: 25 October 2004 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 18857 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Pretty complicated - who'd be a ref!
Anyway - seems it is legal, then - which means it is IMPOSSIBLE in these circumstances for the defending side to tackle the jumper (as he is allowed to feed the ball to a supporting player before landing on the ground). So the only legal, sensible tackle option is for the defending side to refuse to engage... and thus prevent a maul taking place. |
|||||
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|||||
scarletman
Veteran Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy Joined: 18 August 2004 Location: Heol-y-Cyw Status: Offline Points: 12299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
But they can't back off either, as leaving a lineout before it is over is also a penalty offence.
Fine lines ... fine lines ! |
|||||
|
|||||
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |