Collapsing the maul

Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 16:28 pm:

[quote="Forrester" I do know the laws thank you. As I said above whether it’s to the letter of the law or not is irrelevant, the referees allow you to do it.[/quote]

Forrester I'll let you read back what you wrote and leave it at that !! ;)

"The team not in possession of the ball cannot deliberately collapse the maul. This is for safety reasons."
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2022

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 18:06 pm:

Gloucester Mute wrote:
"The team not in possession of the ball cannot deliberately collapse the maul. This is for safety reasons."


Where did you find that, Mute - couldn't trace it in World Rugby Laws; straight from the horses mouth https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 18:41 pm:

On some RFU Laws web-site. Is a statement/guidance rather than part of the Law. The critical bits from Law are :

All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet.

Players must not: Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it. Sanction: Penalty.

A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
The ball becomes unplayable.
The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).

The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the ball does not emerge.

The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2022

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 19:25 pm:

It transpires it is from Moore & Guscott on a BBC website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... the%20maul.

But it still doesn't explain why there is never a penalty given when a maul (starting from a "choke") is collapsed.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 19:30 pm:

Because it's the ball-carrier who is held-up and hasn't played the ball - turnover + scrum - OR the ball-carrier collapses under the sheer weight of numbers. And if he does and can IMMEDIATELY play/present the ball the maul is over and it's a tackle/ruck situation.

Complicated !! ;)
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
On the board
Posts: 809
Location: Northants

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 19:49 pm:

Is John Shedweb's answer to John Holder on TMS? Ask the umpire...
On the board
Posts: 794

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 20:46 pm:

Mute ... it is also possible that the defending team collapse it. As such, there should then be times when a penalty is awarded... as per the laws helpfully posted by Asgard.

You do love being all contrary!

Be reassured...Acknowledging that someone else has a point, or that your own point may not be the whole story is not a sign of weakness.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 2022

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 21:19 pm:

Gloucester Mute wrote:Because it's the ball-carrier who is held-up and hasn't played the ball - turnover + scrum - OR the ball-carrier collapses under the sheer weight of numbers. And if he does and can IMMEDIATELY play/present the ball the maul is over and it's a tackle/ruck situation.

Complicated !! ;)

I'm sorry Mute but you've got it round your neck (which in a tackle is a penalty :D ).
Ball carrier held up by one opposing player - open play. When a third player joins it is a maul. If that maul is collapsed deliberately it is a penalty against the player who collapses it. If the maul collapses unintentionally and the ball is playable the maul ends. If the maul collapses unintentionally and the ball is unplayable it is a scrum to the defending team.
In a successful choke maul the ball holder cannot play the ball so why would he want to collapse the maul when either he is penalised with a penalty or he concedes a turnover by way of a resultant scrum.
The point of this thread (if I can remember that far back) is that no-one can remember a situation where following a choke maul a referee has ever awarded a penalty for collapsing. Yet if a player collapses any other maul, say from a line-out the ref is looking for a deliberate collapse against the defending team.
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3111
Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 21:21 pm:

theoptimist wrote:Mute ... it is also possible that the defending team collapse it. As such, there should then be times when a penalty is awarded... as per the laws helpfully posted by Asgard.

You do love being all contrary!

Be reassured...Acknowledging that someone else has a point, or that your own point may not be the whole story is not a sign of weakness.


???? TO - without being obtuse IF you look back at all that I wrote (trying to be helpful and answer your query) you will see that I said same !! :roll: :roll:
Last edited by Gloucester Mute on 22 Nov 2020 21:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
On the board
Posts: 794

Re: Collapsing the maul

22 Nov 2020 21:39 pm:

Well I’m confused Mute...

Are you agreeing that there should have been times when the defending team should have been penalised following their collapse of a maul that was started following a choke tackle?
PreviousNext

Return to Gloucester Rugby