Brumbies v Waratahs, Sat 1st April, GIO

[Brumby Runner]

Seems to me the only legal way to stop a maul is to hope they slip over lol.

Well, clearly not so. Tahs managed to legally stop a couple or more of the Brumbies mauls last night as have most of their opponents so far this year. Just too much anxiety being expressed here about the maul effectiveness.

 

[Silverado]

Well, clearly not so. Tahs managed to legally stop a couple or more of the Brumbies mauls last night as have most of their opponents so far this year. Just too much anxiety being expressed here about the maul effectiveness.

Even Justin "Brony" Harrison said it shouldn't have been a penalty. Oh well, was called a card and life moves on

 

[Marce]

Roger. It'd seem you haven't picked that up from my many posts extolling the virtues of "the beautiful Blue Mountains".

Roger is a city over there?

 

[Froggy]

The way it looked to me was HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) collared the ball carrier, then as the maul moved forward both went down, as the force of the 16 bodies moving forward made it impossible for either man to hold his feet. Is that a penalty? I have to say I honestly don't know.
As to the repeated scrum infringements that followed, Slipper, probably our most capped LHP ever, certainly dominated a very young THP probably playing his 20th minute of professional rugby, however another ref could just as easily have penalised Slipper for deliberately going around the corner.
Before anyone jumps into me over this, I am not suggesting Berry won the game for the Brumbies, the reality is the Tahs, in their creativity, despite effort and effectiveness, are able to consistently find ways to lose a game of rugby!

 

[qwerty51]

Show me where in the laws you cannot tackle the ball carrier in a maul.

 

[whitefalcon]

Added to this the boos and whistles from the crowd when Tahs were attempting conversions and p goals is peak Canberra.

From memory the Boos were where the crowd thought either the penalty was BS or there was a forward pass in the lead up. Not at the kicker as such

 

[cyclopath]

Even Justin "Brony" Harrison said it shouldn't have been a penalty. Oh well, was called a card and life moves on

Harrison made about as much sense as Rodha last night, so I would put too much stock in his utterances. Sounded like blood was diverting from his brain to another organ. Almost Kearns-like.

Cue Dismal Pillock

 

[Pokinacha]

Show me where in the laws you cannot tackle the ball carrier in a maul.

You can tackle the ball carrier in the mail if you come through the maul, but you can’t then deliberately take the ball carrier to ground or flip on them with the intent of collapsing the maul.
Yes it’s a stupid law

 

[qwerty51]

You can tackle the ball carrier in the mail if you come through the maul, but you can’t then deliberately take the ball carrier to ground or flip on them with the intent of collapsing the maul.
Yes it’s a stupid law

"tackle the ball carrier" ok
"can't take the ball carrier to ground" not ok

what is tackling?

 

[Derpus]

You can tackle the ball carrier in the mail if you come through the maul, but you can’t then deliberately take the ball carrier to ground or flip on them with the intent of collapsing the maul.
Yes it’s a stupid law

They sound like the same thing.

Well, clearly not so. Tahs managed to legally stop a couple or more of the Brumbies mauls last night as have most of their opponents so far this year. Just too much anxiety being expressed here about the maul effectiveness.

Its not a dig at the Brumbies use of it BR - if its there you might as well. Just struggling to comprehend why it exists.

 

[fatprop]

Harrison made about as much sense as Rodha last night, so I would put too much stock in his utterances. Sounded like blood was diverting from his brain to another organ. Almost Kearns-like.

Cue Dismal Pillock

He is a cliché machine

 

[Brumby Runner]

Even Justin "Brony" Harrison said it shouldn't have been a penalty. Oh well, was called a card and life moves on

Tell me, what does Googy know about laws of the game? So many here complain all the time about each and every commentator on STAN or FOX not knowing the laws.

 

[Silverado]

Tell me, what does Googy know about laws of the game? So many here complain all the time about each and every commentator on STAN or FOX not knowing the laws.

Point taken, they are a biased, and ignorant bunch

 

[Pokinacha]

"tackle the ball carrier" ok
"can't take the ball carrier to ground" not ok

what is tackling?

Like I said, stupid law.
The only player who can stop a maul is the ball carrier. It is illegal for the opposing team to collapse the mail regardless of if they have tackled the ball carrier. So the only way to stop it is to tackle the carrier, stay on your feet and let the carrier go to ground then not letting go, the ball becomes unplayable and possession is overturned with a scrum.

 

[qwerty51]

Can you show me the law that says this?

 

[Th0mo]

Can you show me the law that says this?

Law 16
DURING A MAUL
8. The ball-carrier in a maul may go to ground provided that player makes the ball
available immediately. Sanction: Scrum.
9. All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet.
10. All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
11. Players must not:
a. Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.
b. Attempt to drag an opponent out of a maul.

So you can't really tackle the ball carrier but often the ball carrier looks to go to ground to break free. Didnt really see either way who was seeking to go to ground on that one.

 

[rugbyskier]

Fixed.

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.

 

[qwerty51]

Law 16
DURING A MAUL
8. The ball-carrier in a maul may go to ground provided that player makes the ball
available immediately. Sanction: Scrum.
9. All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet.
10. All players in a maul must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
11. Players must not:
a. Intentionally collapse a maul or jump on top of it.
b. Attempt to drag an opponent out of a maul.

So you can't really tackle the ball carrier but often the ball carrier looks to go to ground to break free. Didnt really see either way who was seeking to go to ground on that one.

This doesn't say anything about not taking the ball carrier to the ground.

Tackling the ball carrier (to the ground) has always been allowed.

 

[cyclopath]

This doesn't say anything about not taking the ball carrier to the ground.

Tackling the ball carrier (to the ground) has always been allowed.

I reckon they lump "tackling" the ball player as effectively "intentionally collapsing" it. So, a penalty.
But I remain in the camp that mauls are legalised obstruction the way they are set and played these days, and this is contrary to the ethos of rugby as a "contest for possession". The fact they they rarely ping players swimming back or joining in front of the ball carrier emphasise this contradiction.

 

[qwerty51]

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.