Crusaders v Chiefs
-
We have a maul, red in possession.
Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
We have a maul, red in possession.
Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?
Only the ball carrier may go to ground. Every other player must stay on their feet.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
We have a maul, red in possession.
Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?
Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.
Is that in the laws?
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
We have a maul, red in possession.
Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?
Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.
Is that in the laws?
No it’s not. I’ve never ever seen an attacking team penalised for collapsing their own maul but it looks like they could be if I’m reading the maul law correctly.
-
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Haha why is Ta'avao still on the field?
How he became an AB is beyond me.
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Haha why is Ta'avao still on the field?
How he became an AB is beyond me.
-
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
-
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
I think the bigger problem is that the maul not going forward isn't called quickly enough.
-
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
@african-monkey No.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
I think the bigger problem is that the maul not going forward isn't called quickly enough.
@anonymous I hate the two-goes at going forward rule too. If you stop going forward why should you get another go?
-
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
Thought there was a period there around 2019 where he was coming good.
-
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
@african-monkey He was a lot better before the injury.
-
@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?
@african-monkey He had his moments, but not at test level.
-
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?
I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.
I think the bigger problem is that the maul not going forward isn't called quickly enough.
@anonymous or the maul going backwards is seen as ok.
-
@anonymous I hate the two-goes at going forward rule too. If you stop going forward why should you get another go?
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@anonymous I hate the two-goes at going forward rule too. If you stop going forward why should you get another go?
You're only supposed to if it stops for less than 5 seconds the first time. I'm not entirely convinced that's how it is officiated in practice.
-
@bones but thats always the case, and the benefit of being the attacking team, you control the maul.
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones but thats always the case, and the benefit of being the attacking team, you control the maul.
How often do you hear a ref say a team has taken a maul down and not penalise them?
