Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

Right so he only has to release if he goes to ground but is still bound? Assuming he's come unbound and the maul has ended there are about 12 Wallabies being impeded.

That's what people said in the match thread, but I'm actually less sure about it having seen it again.

The interpretation is usually that a maul can't disappear once it's over.

If he hadn't gone to ground I don't think I we would have looked twice at it

 

[Derpus]

Got a clip handy?

 

[Dan54]

That's what people said in the match thread, but I'm actually less sure about it having seen it again.

The interpretation is usually that a maul can't disappear once it's over.

If he hadn't gone to ground I don't think I we would have looked twice at it

Yep because whenever the halfback takes the ball aren't all the opposition players in a maul then impeded? Doesn't quite add up, of would certainly open a huge can of worms if this was the case,

 

[JRugby2]

Here is the clip:

The fall/slip is immaterial.

As someone mentioned above the maul is over when Marx becomes unbound (ie: his arm and shoulder clearly detach) but it's not an immediate obstruction as you can't expect a maul to disappear.

Marx hanging onto the player in front of him may have come under scrutiny if this created a barrier between any defenders and himself, but it didn't. Whether Marx has a hold of the players in front of him or not, it doesn't change the location of either Marx or the previous maul in front - Noah had as clear access to him as he was ever going to get that close to the line in that exact circumstance. It's also hard to argue that Marx attempts to recreate that maul as the moment Noah engages him he dives for the try line.

He's not been tackled either, so 13.1.a - Players who go to ground with the ball must immediately: Get up with the ball.

 

[TheScrumMachine]

Marx going to ground and diving for the try line without being tackled doesn't violate Law 13.1.a because he is not required to release the ball or get up in the same way a tackled player would be. The critical point is that he wasn't obstructing the defenders by holding onto a teammate, and he wasn’t tackled, so the law about players going to ground with the ball doesn't require him to do anything differently than what he did.