Collapsing the maul

Hero in the making
Posts: 505
Location: Malvern

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 12:50 pm:

Succinctly put Forrester, thanks
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 12:52 pm:

You most certainly can't take the ball carrier to ground in a driving maul Forrester. That's why they are such a powerful attacking weapon.
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1459

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 13:16 pm:

Gloucester Mute wrote:You most certainly can't take the ball carrier to ground in a driving maul Forrester. That's why they are such a powerful attacking weapon.


Yes you can, you see it all the time. Whether it’s to the letter of the law or not is irrelevant, that’s the way it is reffed. Bar stopping any forward movement it’s the only way to really defend it. If you can get through or over a maul to the ball carrier and you are legally bound in then you can take them to ground and get the resulting put in.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2811

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 13:21 pm:

I thought you can only bring the ball carrier to ground before the maul had formed, hence the phrase sacking as a defensive term. Once the maul is formed you then can't bring it down, unless the side who are in control of the ball brings it down.

The one I don't understand is that as soon as the defensive choke tackle is successful the defending team brings it down to get the scrum. I thought once called maul you don't bring it down
On the board
Posts: 794

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 13:24 pm:

That’s my point Vic...

A choke tackle is over once the maul has been called...and from that point It shouldn’t be brought down. Once the maul is called the attacking team have no incentive for it to collapse as if it does, they’ll lose possession.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 15:06 pm:

One is static the other is moving.

Once a driving maul is halted and stopped (in the air or on the ground) it will be a turnover as well as from a choke-tackle that does not reach the ground ie; when it would become a tackle and release is needed.

Forrester - I assure you that you cannot take down the ball-carrier in a driving maul. You can sack them straightaway but once moving it is illegal and would cause a collapse.

I now realise why so many asinine remarks are made on SW about referee's decisions. People don't know the Laws !!
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
On the board
Posts: 850

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 15:15 pm:

Could it be that in a choke tackle, the player with the ball is the one collapsed, had he managed to get the ball to another player and it was then collapsed, I assume, that would have been a penalty?

This is allowed in a maul from a lineout as well. If the defending team manages to get to the ball carrier and stop it from moving, they collapse it and get the ball back.

We seem to try the choke a lot and it rarely pays off.

I did think the ref was making some odd decisions. Don't get me wrong it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but Garvey seemed to get pinged a few times in the maul when it didn't look like he did anything wrong.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1459

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 16:03 pm:

Gloucester Mute wrote:One is static the other is moving.

Once a driving maul is halted and stopped (in the air or on the ground) it will be a turnover as well as from a choke-tackle that does not reach the ground ie; when it would become a tackle and release is needed.

Forrester - I assure you that you cannot take down the ball-carrier in a driving maul. You can sack them straightaway but once moving it is illegal and would cause a collapse.

I now realise why so many asinine remarks are made on SW about referee's decisions. People don't know the Laws !!


I do know the laws thank you. I suggest you watch the premiership final again and watch Joe Launchbury stop Exeter’s driving mauls by getting through them and sacking the ball carrier, each time winning a scrum for Wasps. As I said above whether it’s to the letter of the law or not is irrelevant, the referees allow you to do it.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2022

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 16:13 pm:

First of all a maul is a maul regardless whether it's moving, static, upside down, inside out.
Law 16:
The purpose of a maul is to allow players to compete for the ball, which is held off the ground.
A maul can take place only in the field of play.
It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.
Once formed, a maul must move towards a goal line.

Secondly a choke tackle is not a tackle; if two people hold up the ball carrier it is by definition a maul and law 16 goes onto say;
Players must not:
Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.
Attempt to drag an opponent out of a maul.

For some reason, referees are very slow to call a maul when the player with the ball is held up by the opposition despite it by definition it is immediately a maul. In line with the essence of this thread I have never seen a referee give a penalty when the scenario described has resulted in a deliberate collapse. I can't believe for one minute that the team holding the ball at the start of the maul would want it to end in such a way knowing the the referee under the current convention will give the resultant scrum to the defending team.
I spoke to Nigel Owen on a European trip and he said "it was being looked at" and "we don't call maul straight away at the choke because if we did it would happen all the time". Complete and utter bollards.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 1459

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 16:21 pm:

Asgard wrote:First of all a maul is a maul regardless whether it's moving, static, upside down, inside out.
Law 16:
The purpose of a maul is to allow players to compete for the ball, which is held off the ground.
A maul can take place only in the field of play.
It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.
Once formed, a maul must move towards a goal line.

Secondly a choke tackle is not a tackle; if two people hold up the ball carrier it is by definition a maul and law 16 goes onto say;
Players must not:
Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.
Attempt to drag an opponent out of a maul.

For some reason, referees are very slow to call a maul when the player with the ball is held up by the opposition despite it by definition it is immediately a maul. In line with the essence of this thread I have never seen a referee give a penalty when the scenario described has resulted in a deliberate collapse. I can't believe for one minute that the team holding the ball at the start of the maul would want it to end in such a way knowing the the referee under the current convention will give the resultant scrum to the defending team.
I spoke to Nigel Owen on a European trip and he said "it was being looked at" and "we don't call maul straight away at the choke because if we did it would happen all the time". Complete and utter bollards.


It’s definitely one where the referees have decided on an interpretation regardless of what the laws actually are. I don’t understand why players are allowed to just lie on top after it’s collapsed either, once you are on the floor you are out of the game and have to get out of the way.
PreviousNext

Return to Gloucester Rugby