Rebels v Force Rd 14 Sun 29th May

[swingpass]

on one occasion the penalty was for a dangerous tackle, Hanson got under the ball carrier and lifted him, on another McMahon was penalised for coming in offside after the maul was formed , ie after the first tackler, English i think, had run around and grabbed the ball carrier at the back, thereby forming the maul. i also saw on the replay in the lead up to Scoble's try two Force players enter the maul in front of the ball carrier "a la" Brumbies 2015. not penalised. generally the policing of offside and slowing down at the breakdown was pretty much non existent on Sunday, both sides benefitted from and lost out on, those decisions.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Thanks SP. The dangerous tackle mystifies me. Even if he was lifted slightly, it didn't look untowards to me.

 

[swingpass]

Thanks SP. The dangerous tackle mystifies me. Even if he was lifted slightly, it didn't look untowards to me.

i suppose the logic was if the maul then collapsed players would be at risk.

 

[Highlander35]

But when the tackle was made it wasn't a maul (pedantry, yes, salty, also yes)

 

[daz]

They have the benefit of only being wrong once they've been sat down after the game and told about their fuckups.

Not true. The big screen replay gives them an indication, and if they still refuse to notice, the crowd is usually quick to let them know. Loudly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks SP. The dangerous tackle mystifies me. Even if he was lifted slightly, it didn't look untowards to me.

In the Hanson case his first attempt at the tackle was fine. He couldn't get the player to ground which effectively made it a maul.

He then got penalised because he was trying to lift the players legs which was dangerous play.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Thanks for clarifying. Am I right though in thinking the lineout is over when the pack moves forward but it's not a maul until it is engaged, and if the ball is moved back beforehand it would be obstruction? And is it correct that if the first defending player legitimately comes around the back to tackle the ball carrier (is that even possible?) then that forms the maul at that point?

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks for clarifying. Am I right though in thinking the lineout is over when the pack moves forward but it's not a maul until it is engaged, and if the ball is moved back beforehand it would be obstruction? And is it correct that if the first defending player legitimately comes around the back to tackle the ball carrier (is that even possible?) then that forms the maul at that point?

All those things are correct.

When Thomson came around the maul it was because it had moved off the line and thus the lineout was over. He was perfectly legal.

Once he had engaged though there was a maul and then McMahon got penalised for joining from an offside position.

 

[Brumby Runner]

OK. So the best method of defending the moving non-maul, might be for the first defender to try to tie up the ball carrier at the front so that he can't dispose of the ball. Then there'd be a maul which could be taken legitimately to ground for a turnover scrum feed.

NB - this conversation, if it goes any further, would probably be better located on the referee decisions thread?

 

[MonkeyBoy]

OK. So the best method of defending the moving non-maul, might be for the first defender to try to tie up the ball carrier at the front so that he can't dispose of the ball. Then there'd be a maul which could be taken legitimately to ground for a turnover scrum feed.

NB - this conversation, if it goes any further, would probably be better located on the referee decisions thread?

You can't "legitimately" take a maul to the ground, The first man in must take the ball carrier straight to ground as it then a tackle. Once the maul is formed any collapse by the defending team is illegal.