Brumbies v Waratahs, Sat 1st April, GIO

[cyclopath]

The thing is, I've tackled a ball carrier to ground many times and no ref has ever penalised me and I've seen it done many times too. This was legitimately the first I've seen a ref penalise someone for tackling a ball carrier to ground.

I don't disagree with you at all.

 

[Slim 293]

The thing is, I've tackled a ball carrier to ground many times and no ref has ever penalised me and I've seen it done many times too. This was legitimately the first I've seen a ref penalise someone for tackling a ball carrier to ground.

That’s bizarre, because this gets penalised all the time…

He collapsed the maul, which is what he was pinged for.

 

[qwerty51]

That’s bizarre, because this gets penalised all the time…

He collapsed the maul, which is what he was pinged for.

Happy to be wrong if you can show me a few others since it happens all the time?

 

[Slim 293]

Happy to be wrong if you can show me a few others since it happens all the time?

I mean, you are wrong and I would’ve assumed it was common knowledge that you can’t bring down the ball carrier when they’re still part of the maul, as stated in the laws…. Because it is effectively collapsing the maul.

But off the top of my head I’m certain Neville was done for the same thing not long ago , possibly on the spring tour, and I’ve seen the Brumbies be penalised for the same thing in the past.

 

[Slim 293]

They key thing is the Brumbies maul was still advancing forward, and it’s up to the Tahs defenders to stay on their feet…

HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) pulls the ball carrier down, thus collapsing an active maul - penalty.

 

[dusk]

Thought Ned Hanigan was a powerhouse last night and was so consistent in the lineouts

 

[John S]

Teams in that situation should probably play like they have no advantage, and stick to processes. I thought the repetitive scrum sets seemingly with the aim of drawing YCs maybe took them away from their usual patterns. I was surprised it took so long to go for a maul (which ironically they buggered up).

Yeah the guys I was with (Brumbies fans) were saying to just kick it out, as the scrum resets were winding the clock down on HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) and his 10 minutes

 

[rugbyskier]

Lindommer, have you seen the plans for the new stadium in Christchurch? It's an indoor stadium with a transparent roof but a nicer design than Forsyth-Barr Stadium in Dunedin. I'm trying to link to an image but the iPad won't do it. Will post a pic later when I get on the laptop.

Back home and on the laptop. Here's a design image of the new Christchurch stadium:

 

[Brumby Runner]

They key thing is the Brumbies maul was still advancing forward, and it’s up to the Tahs defenders to stay on their feet…

HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) pulls the ball carrier down, thus collapsing an active maul - penalty.

With some refs might have been a penalty try as well as a YC.

 

[KOB1987]

With some refs might have been a penalty try as well as a YC.

And with some refs we might have been allowed to continue the game with 15 players.

 

[KOB1987]

They key thing is the Brumbies maul was still advancing forward, and it’s up to the Tahs defenders to stay on their feet…

HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) pulls the ball carrier down, thus collapsing an active maul - penalty.

Berry said HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) was fine until he brought the ball carrier down - my interpretation of that is that he had conveyed the maul was over.

 

[Slim 293]

Berry said HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) was fine until he brought the ball carrier down - my interpretation of that is that he had conveyed the maul was over.

He was fine as he came through the middle to attach himself to the ball carrier, but he was then penalised for collapsing by pulling the ball carrier down as the maul was ongoing.

Had he not collapsed the maul, he would’ve most likely held up the ball carrier and then it would’ve been a goal line dropout.

 

[KOB1987]

He was fine as he came through the middle to attach himself to the ball carrier, but he was then penalised for collapsing by pulling the ball carrier down as the maul was ongoing.

Had he not collapsed the maul, he would’ve most likely held up the ball carrier and then it would’ve been a goal line dropout.

I know what the law is, I’m saying that HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) thought the maul was over. And im wondering why he thought that.

 

[qwerty51]

I mean, you are wrong and I would’ve assumed it was common knowledge that you can’t bring down the ball carrier when they’re still part of the maul, as stated in the laws…. Because it is effectively collapsing the maul.

But off the top of my head I’m certain Neville was done for the same thing not long ago , possibly on the spring tour, and I’ve seen the Brumbies be penalised for the same thing in the past.

So none.

 

[KOB1987]

All that aside, I agree with the many on here that think the maul laws are ridiculous. If a player has the ball he should be allowed to be tackled, as long as the tackler makes a legal tackle and comes from an onside position. That law, and the maul laws in general, are designed to allow the home nations to leverage off their traditional strengths and get the red carpet rolled out to the try line.

 

[Brumby Runner]

All that aside, I agree with the many on here that think the maul laws are ridiculous. If a player has the ball he should be allowed to be tackled, as long as the tackler makes a legal tackle and comes from an onside position. That law, and the maul laws in general, are designed to allow the home nations to leverage off their traditional strengths and get the red carpet rolled out to the try line.

Quite likely KOB, but it is what it is and all teams including the Tahs use it to score tries from a 5m line out.

 

[Slim 293]

So none.

Aside from the law that clearly states…

A player must not intentionally collapse a maul.

 

[Pfitzy]

If it's still a maul, it can't be collapsed.

The definition of the maul - how it starts, ends, and the sanctions therein - are clearly stated in the laws.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept, regardless of whether it makes sense.

 

[qwerty51]

It's not collapsing the maul; it's tackling the ball carrier, which is always allowed - at any time.

I've watched a lot of rugby. This was the first time I've ever seen a player penalised for "collapsing a maul" when tackling the guy with the ball.

If the call was correct, fine but something has changed.

 

[Pokinacha]

It's not collapsing the maul; it's tackling the ball carrier, which is always allowed - at any time.

I've watched a lot of rugby. This was the first time I've ever seen a player penalised for "collapsing a maul" when tackling the guy with the ball.

If the call was correct, fine but something has changed.

It’s the timing really. Had HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) waited a second or two between latching onto the ball carrier, and going to ground, would have been a scrum to the Tahs.
Its all moot at the end of the day and despite it being a great local derby, it won’t bring the crowds back unless the laws become interpretable by NRL followers.