• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Brumbies v Waratahs, Sat 1st April, GIO

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
What is the maul rule. The ref said HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) had come through legally and when he grabbed the ball carrier and tackled him he then infringed. Are you required to stay on your feet once you get to the person in possession? If so, why?

He was fine until he collapsed the maul…
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
My obvs from last night:
Improved performance from the Tahs. Pietcsh much better on the left flank than Nadolo. Nawaqanitawase was a bit rocks and diamonds.

Holloway immense but also coupled with solid shifts from Seu and Hangian. Front row pretty poor once HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (potentially harshly?) got sent.

Thought the Brumbies tight five were immense. Dominated the Tahs at scrum time and shaded them around the ground. Particularly Slipper. Backrow was effective without being outstanding.

Toole is fast as hell. Great try saver and finish to snatch the game.

Tahs lost that in the second half through patches of play where they made a series of poor choices or unforced errors.

Edit: oh and Gordon much improved. Why is he playing 80 though?
 

griffins

Ted Thorn (20)
Take another look at the penalty count and see what you think.

I am completely neutral having no great love for either Brumbies or Waratahs other than a useful contribution to the Wallabies - but that game was skewed to the hilt by a one-sided reffing performance. imo.

Tahs being under pressure from defending long passages/their scrum having trouble while HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) was off accounts for a lot of those.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Not while the ball carrier is still attached and part of the maul…
So not only is he being shepharded into goal but he also can't legally be tackled.

Might as well just throw down a red carpet and hand the hooker a glass of champagne on his way.
 

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
So you cant tackle the player with the ball even if you get to him legally? Fuck i hate mauls.
From where I was it almost looked like he got there legally and then had his legs taken out by another tah and he was the one pinged
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
So not only is he being shepharded into goal but he also can't legally be tackled.

Might as well just throw down a red carpet and hand the hooker a glass of champagne on his way.

If he’s stayed on his feet he probably would’ve held the Brumbies up after they crossed the line.
 

NCT

Chris McKivat (8)
In a maul a defender can rip the ball from the ball carrier or lock it up so that the carrier can't get it back to their team but cannot pull the player down. If the maul doesn't go forward and the ball carrier can't get the ball out it is a turnover so defenders try to wrap up the ball so it can't come out. As soon as the ref has called maul the ball carrier needs to look to go to ground if his maul is not going to move. Once a knee touches the ground it is a tackle so everyone needs to release the ball carrier then it becomes a ruck.

The tackler needs to get the ball carrier to the ground initially in the tackle so that a maul can't be formed, but difficult to achieve in lineout situations.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Right so not only is the ball carrier being shepherded and can't legally be tackled (by the opposition) but if he fancies it he can decide to take the maul down himself and be tackled. Continues to make less and less sense.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
So not only is he being shepharded into goal but he also can't legally be tackled.

Might as well just throw down a red carpet and hand the hooker a glass of champagne on his way.
Yeah, I’m with you. It begs the question, when can you sack a maul? And how can you stop the opposition from scoring if you can’t literally tackle the player with the ball? I thought tackling the player with the ball was the idea of the game if you don’t have it.
 
Last edited:

Pokinacha

Cyril Towers (30)
Yeah, I’m with you. I begs the question, when can you sack a maul? And how can you stop the opposition from scoring if you can’t literally tackle the player with the ball? I thought tackling the player with the ball was the idea of the game if you don’t have it.
Before it’s formed. But then to form a maul you have to pass the ball back from the front only when the jumpers feet touch the ground and when they’re tackled. As we saw with the obstruction from Neville, if there is a player in front of the ball carrier, it’s not a maul.
the maul, while being a unique part of our game, is also the stupidest because it allows obstruction and destroys the contest.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Except the Brumbies did have the ball, with several penalties awarded towards then in the red zone playing against 13 men… and they failed to capitalise in that moment.
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).
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
I hate to say it, but I thought Jake Gordon had a pretty good game. Holloway was phenomenal.
Gordon's season so far has been well below his normal play at Super rugby level so sooner or later he would have a better game; and I agree he was pretty good. Agree re Holloway.
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
What is the maul rule. The ref said HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) (Harry Johnson-Holmes) had come through legally and when he grabbed the ball carrier and tackled him he then infringed. Are you required to stay on your feet once you get to the person in possession? If so, why?
AFAIK D the ball carrier still can't be brought to ground while part of the maul. Had he collapsed it would have been scrum to the Tahs. Being tackled in the maul is a penalty against the tackler.
 
Top