PDA

View Full Version : collapsing own maul



capithad
16-11-14, 20:11
Game on Saturday - dumb situation #1

Green take ball into maul, and are driving forwards. Green player - not the ball-carrier - tugs the maul down, and succeeds in collapsing it. Pen adv, then penalty to Gold.

Picked up huge flak from Green ex-county player in the bar. Polite version:
'Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?'
'Because they are, erm ... weren't thinking?'
'If that's your answer ref, well ... good luck in your refereeing career, is all I can say'

So - just checking - is there a case for acting differently? What would you have done?

Ian_Cook
16-11-14, 21:11
You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?

OB..
16-11-14, 21:11
You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?
Or "Why would I need to know?"

Ian_Cook
16-11-14, 21:11
Or "Why would I need to know?"


Yes, I thought of that but that is a question which invites further debate.

Dickie E
16-11-14, 22:11
'Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?'


I've seen this happen on occasion. It occurs when the collapser (ie team mate of ball carrier) decides that it is time to get the ball on the ground because:
1. the maul is slowing and the ref has already called "that's once",
2. it is perceived that the ball is being wrested from the ball carrier and possession may be lost, or
3. game plan is to get ball to the backs at this point.

It is, as you correctly ruled, illegal.

It can get a little murky if the ball carrier legally attempts to go to ground but isn't strong enough. Can a team mate "assist"?

Ian_Cook
16-11-14, 23:11
It can get a little murky if the ball carrier legally attempts to go to ground but isn't strong enough. Can a team mate "assist"?

That is the risk he takes.

If he brings his own ball carrier down, and the maul stays up. fine!

If he brings his own ball carrier down, and the maul collapses, and you think his actions were the cause, PING!

Dickie E
16-11-14, 23:11
When he says "Fred, I'm going to collapse the maul now so that you can get the ball back to SH" might be a giveaway :)

ChrisR
17-11-14, 15:11
You made the right call, and your "Green ex-county player" is a numpty.'


My answer to his question "Why would you collapse your own maul, going forwards?" would be "to try conning the referee into awarding you a penalty kick?


My answer to the Ex-county blah, blah, blah would be: "I was wondering that too. Why don't you go and ask him. Seemed like a stupid thing to do at the time"

Browner
17-11-14, 15:11
" collapsing own maul" fits into the same bracket as "dropping own player in lineout" both safety related laws. Why would a player do it? Various reasons ( including being a prop!! :love:) ....but if you do, then nevertheless a PK it is.

Dickie E
17-11-14, 20:11
" collapsing own maul" fits into the same bracket as "dropping own player in lineout" both safety related laws. Why would a player do it? Various reasons ( including being a prop!! :love:) ....but if you do, then nevertheless a PK it is.

One is deliberate and one is accidental so hardly in same bracket unless its a very broad bracket. Then it wouldn't be a bracket

OB..
18-11-14, 02:11
One is deliberate and one is accidental so hardly in same bracket unless its a very broad bracket. Then it wouldn't be a bracket
More like Hinge and Bracket?

Gracie
12-12-14, 17:12
As an addendum to this one can a defending player player help pull his own ball carrying team mate to ground? My situation was that in a well established and upright maul the defending ball ball carrier was not able to get to ground. He was 10 m from his own try line. He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team - the coach was far from happy:smile: He argued:


17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues

I counter argued:


17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

Browner
12-12-14, 17:12
As an addendum to this one can a defending player player help pull his own ball carrying team mate to ground? My situation was that in a well established and upright maul the defending ball ball carrier was not able to get to ground. He was 10 m from his own try line. He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team - the coach was far from happy:smile: He argued:


17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues

I counter argued:


17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

You win, for me anyway,

if a ball carrier ( note the restricted permission) chooses to go under the feet of x12 other players and risk all those players weight standing/landing on him then Law permits that choice, but another player doesnt get delegated authority to produce that scenario ( even if implied, or whispered, or team strategy, consent is claimed! )

I'd understand any coach facing a maul turnover near their own line, wanting you to give his decision.

ChrisR
12-12-14, 18:12
If the player with the ball goes to ground this is not 'collapsing the maul' and so is not an offence. Therefore assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence unless it brings others in the maul to ground.

In and of itself it is not dangerous play. No harm, no foul, no whistle.

Browner
13-12-14, 00:12
If the player with the ball goes to ground this is not 'collapsing the maul' and so is not an offence. Therefore assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence unless it brings others in the maul to ground.

In and of itself it is not dangerous play. No harm, no foul, no whistle.

& No agreement.

Where does Law permit any other player than the ball carrier to deliberately go to ground in a maul? Why would you allow one team to try and collapse the maul or do something that their opponents aren't similarly allowed to do?

If law wanted to permit a teammate then it would say " A player must not intentionally collapse a maul ( unless he is assisting/helping/directing or forcing tbe ball carrier in going to ground) "

It doesn't.

Your maul collapse assist, can't escape

SimonSmith
13-12-14, 01:12
If only the ball carrier goes to ground, then has the maul collapsed - that may be the question Marauder is raising

Ian_Cook
13-12-14, 01:12
If only the ball carrier goes to ground, then has the maul collapsed - that may be the question Marauder is raising


No.

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball
must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee
will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.


Since there appears to be no PK sanction for a ball carrier going to ground in a maul, then it cannot be collapsing (at least not intentional)

ChrisR
13-12-14, 13:12
Browner, if only the BC goes to ground then not 'collapsing the maul'.

If an opponent or teammate goes to ground with the BC then you have a case for 'collapsing the maul' that I would rule on by case situation and ball availability.

Clearer now?

Browner
13-12-14, 13:12
Browner, if only the BC goes to ground then not 'collapsing the maul'.

If an opponent or teammate goes to ground with the BC then you have a case for 'collapsing the maul' that I would rule on by case situation and ball availability.

Clearer now?

I agreed with the decision of the OP , which said
He was bouncing up and down with his get off the ground in an attempt to get to ground, but was well held up, until team mate hauled him down. I penalised the team

You appeared to take a contrary view when you said
"assisting that player to get to ground is not an offence"

A teammate who "hauls someone down" who if it were not for this intervention would have remained "well held up" , is IMO collapsing the Maul (read..collapsing a Mauler)

The BC (albeit separately described as a BC) remains one of the original Maulers, and despite Law permitting him to go to ground, he can't be hauled/or collapsed to there by another teammate or an opponent.

Clear enough? :booty:


In the OP, & as I read it, BC teammate collapsed the mauler seeking to avoid a scrum possession turnover.

I'm PK'g the "collapsed" ( who you term the assist) , as turnovers of possession are generally a good thing in this code IMHO, there is another code where turnovers of possession arent encouraged!

ChrisR
13-12-14, 15:12
Browner, so you would arrest a person for "aiding and abetting" someone who was not committing a crime?

That would probably work over here in the US of A. We're big on chucking the innocent into the slammer.

RobLev
13-12-14, 17:12
Browner, so you would arrest a person for "aiding and abetting" someone who was not committing a crime?

That would probably work over here in the US of A. We're big on chucking the innocent into the slammer.

Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?

didds
13-12-14, 18:12
if the bc has been brought to ground alone then the maul has not been collapsed ?

didds

SimonSmith
13-12-14, 19:12
We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

But for the sake of the discussion of the never-going-to-happen scenario: if the ball carrier, and the ball carrier alone, goes to ground, the maul has not collapsed. If a team mate helps him out, and the rest of the maul stays up, it's difficult to make the case that the maul has collapsed or been collapsed, no?

Ian_Cook
14-12-14, 00:12
We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

But for the sake of the discussion of the never-going-to-happen scenario: if the ball carrier, and the ball carrier alone, goes to ground, the maul has not collapsed. If a team mate helps him out, and the rest of the maul stays up, it's difficult to make the case that the maul has collapsed or been collapsed, no?

The issue could be moot anyway. I can't speak for other referees, but for me, in the case where the ball or the ball carrier ends up on the ground, I would want that ball available quicker than greased weasel poo or I'm blowing the maul up, even if everyone else is still on their feet... 17.6 (g) backs me up on that....

(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting,
the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.


Players who collapse the maul are pinged for dangerous play, but an accidentally collapsed maul is just as dangerous so get it out of there pronto

Browner
14-12-14, 11:12
Browner, so you would arrest a person for "aiding and abetting" someone who was not committing a crime?

That would probably work over here in the US of A. We're big on chucking the innocent into the slammer.

Yes, if my friend wants to buy a new tie , but the shop is closed, I'd arrest the 'aider' who unilaterally smashed the door in , that then allowed my friend to take the tie and leave $10 by the till as payment.

On a rugby field , I'd also penalise any 'illegal blocker' who by doing such act created a gap for an 'innocent BC' to run through, ( Paul O'Connell on Launchbury, for Kearney try v England at HQ ). as Mr innocent still gains an advantage through the illegal activity of his offending "aiding and abetting" teammate.

:buttkick:

SimonSmith
14-12-14, 14:12
You're ducking the question there.

RobLev
14-12-14, 14:12
You're ducking the question there.

To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

SimonSmith
14-12-14, 14:12
Personally? The logic flow says "no".

Do I see that EVER happening? Fat effing chance. This is an entirely abstract conversation.

didds
14-12-14, 14:12
the point is not about whether the ball is available immediately, but whether 2 players going to ground while everyone else on their feet constitutes the maul being collapsed.

Its about whether its a PK or play on ...

didds

ChrisR
14-12-14, 14:12
Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?

No.

if the bc has been brought to ground alone then the maul has not been collapsed ?

True.

We are dancing on the heads of pins here.

Yes we are.

And for Browner: People who throw bricks through store windows and rugby players who willfully obstruct are not innocents and should be punished for their crimes. I'm already regretting starting the analogy.

Do I see that EVER happening?

I reckon that it happens (see the OP) but discerning cause and effect is another matter.

The issue could be moot anyway. I can't speak for other referees, but for me, in the case where the ball or the ball carrier ends up on the ground, I would want that ball available quicker than greased weasel poo or I'm blowing the maul up, even if everyone else is still on their feet... 17.6 (g) backs me up on that....

I'm not familiar with the properties of 'greased weasel poo' but agree totally with the sentiment.

Browner
14-12-14, 15:12
To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

I'll answer RobLev, cos Simon is clearly 'ducking' that question , .... for collapsing one of the mauling players.... A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.. Clearly there isn't a requirement to collapse ALL of the maulers !?!

Imagine the ball carrier caught on his own 22, held up, maul forms, now he is driven back toward own goal line . As his own GL approaches his teammates recognise that if they don't do something desperate to end this legitimate drive there will likely be a scrum 5m from their own line with opposition feed. ....crikey!!!

I can easily see why they would now want to haul the Original BC to ground hoping that the referee will decide that it has subsequently become a 'ruck' ( under c.2\2011 ) or the ball becomes available & so then give it '5s to emerge' , its a no lose situation.

So IMO hauling the BC to ground, can't be allowed, by either team.

I accept that if it werent C&O then you wouldnt PK, but the OP described C&O to me.

Browner
14-12-14, 15:12
. Do I see that EVER happening?

Maurader : I reckon that it happens (see the OP)

Hooray, at last Meanderer ...... You got there, & it wasn't really that difficult was it. :pepper:

Pinky
14-12-14, 15:12
To repeat to you the question I posed to Marauder: "Would you PK an opposition player who brings the BC - and only the BC - to ground?"

If so, for what offence?

Yes, bringing the BC to ground is normally called a tackle. Once a maul has formed, neither side by collapse it, except that the BC may go to ground and play will continue if the ball is immediately available.

So PK agains the opponent to the BC for collapsing the maul.

didds
14-12-14, 18:12
but we are not discussung an opponent bringing the bc to ground?

didds

Gracie
14-12-14, 18:12
The scenario Browners observed above is pretty much what happened in my game.

For me if the BC can get themselves to ground on their own then that would have been fine. However my interpretation was and still is that any playing hauling any other player to ground, or pushing them to ground in a maul is collapsing the maul, even if it just one player who goes to ground. This is true whether it is their own player or an opposition player.

BW
G

Pegleg
14-12-14, 19:12
The scenario Browners observed above is pretty much what happened in my game.

For me if the BC can get themselves to ground on their own then that would have been fine. However my interpretation was and still is that any playing hauling any other player to ground, or pushing them to ground in a maul is collapsing the maul, even if it just one player who goes to ground. This is true whether it is their own player or an opposition player.

BW
G

Agree with that.

didds
14-12-14, 19:12
i don't.

the collapsing the maul thing is a safety issue/dangerous play scenario, which is why it is illegal.

From the descriptions given there is no dangerous/safety aspect to be concerned about - in the same way that a single BC going to ground alone is not a safety/danger issue.

didds

Pegleg
14-12-14, 19:12
If you are taking one man, who is bound to others, to ground there is an clear probability that the whole maul is going to go the same way.

If the ball carrier is able to detach and go to ground we have a different situation.

Gracie
14-12-14, 19:12
Didds - for me it is simply factual thing - any attempt to haul down maul has the potential to be dangerous, unless as Pegleg note they are able to detach. Once any balance/support is undermined I'd gauge a risk arises

RobLev
14-12-14, 22:12
but we are not discussung an opponent bringing the bc to ground?

didds


the collapsing the maul thing is a safety issue/dangerous play scenario, which is why it is illegal.

Why is it dangerous for an opposition player to bring the BC to ground, but not for a player from his own side? For me, there's no distinction - if an oppositon player bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul, then a team-mate bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul.

Pinky
14-12-14, 23:12
Why is it dangerous for an opposition player to bring the BC to ground, but not for a player from his own side? For me, there's no distinction - if an oppositon player bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul, then a team-mate bringing the BC alone to ground is collapsing the maul.

that is true and both should be penalised.

didds
15-12-14, 01:12
there is clearly nothing illegal or perceived as in itself one person bringing another to ground normally - otherwise we would never have a tackle.

the collapsed maul thing is because - AIUI - you CAN end up with several bodies all collapsing with no control on top of players underneath whose bodies/legs etc may be in positions that don't bend the way the force goes.

one player being taken to ground inside a maul where everybody else remains standing ie does not collapse in heap uncontrollably does not fit this "danger" scenario. In other words, the maul has not collapsed. Just one player has been put on the ground.

didds

SimonSmith
15-12-14, 14:12
I'll answer RobLev, cos Simon is clearly 'ducking' that question , .... for collapsing one of the mauling players.... A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.. Clearly there isn't a requirement to collapse ALL of the maulers !?!

Imagine the ball carrier caught on his own 22, held up, maul forms, now he is driven back toward own goal line . As his own GL approaches his teammates recognise that if they don't do something desperate to end this legitimate drive there will likely be a scrum 5m from their own line with opposition feed. ....crikey!!!

I can easily see why they would now want to haul the Original BC to ground hoping that the referee will decide that it has subsequently become a 'ruck' ( under c.2\2011 ) or the ball becomes available & so then give it '5s to emerge' , its a no lose situation.

So IMO hauling the BC to ground, can't be allowed, by either team.

I accept that if it werent C&O then you wouldnt PK, but the OP described C&O to me.

Take a look at post #28 you cretinous little man.

Your assertion of "clearly" is anything but, and making a statement like that doesn't make it "clearly". If it did, we wouldn't be having this debate.

RobLev
15-12-14, 14:12
there is clearly nothing illegal or perceived as in itself one person bringing another to ground normally - otherwise we would never have a tackle.

the collapsed maul thing is because - AIUI - you CAN end up with several bodies all collapsing with no control on top of players underneath whose bodies/legs etc may be in positions that don't bend the way the force goes.

one player being taken to ground inside a maul where everybody else remains standing ie does not collapse in heap uncontrollably does not fit this "danger" scenario. In other words, the maul has not collapsed. Just one player has been put on the ground.

didds

So you wouldn't penalise an opposition player who takes the BC - alone - to ground within the maul?

didds
15-12-14, 15:12
its a very fair question... but has the maul collapsed? Clearly not.

Frankly IMO this situation isn't covered by the laws. Or the laws need to stipulate that one person going to ground via another is a "collapse".

didds

Browner
16-12-14, 13:12
you cretinous little man.
.

Name calling, im really hurt, classy :sarc:

RobLev
16-12-14, 20:12
its a very fair question... but has the maul collapsed? Clearly not.

Frankly IMO this situation isn't covered by the laws. Or the laws need to stipulate that one person going to ground via another is a "collapse".

didds

Sorry, didds, but is that a "Yes I would" or a "No I wouldn't" to the question?

Browner
25-01-15, 17:01
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtLz6NV8wsM

In this Clip it looks like Harlequins are set to hold up a maul, White 18 appears to deliberately collapse it , NO or AR surely can't have missed it, so any guesses as to why he didnt give a PK to Harlequins

PS.....( no wonder PK counts are down !)

FlipFlop
26-01-15, 09:01
Because NO said it was a tackle only...... (not saying I agree, but this seems to be a trend across elite refs)

Browner
26-01-15, 13:01
The Fat : So many things wrong in that clip.

Questions:

1. NO calls "Maul now". If Quins player had done the same as Wasps 18, who thinks NO would have thrown the arm out for advantage? What about White 16's actions?

2. When the maul goes to ground, there are no players left on their feet. Wasps player then places the ball on the ground and Wasps player, who appears to be in the SH position is over the ball. Quins player then comes through and makes contact with the Wasps player. NO then gives the "Take a step" signal with his arms to the Quins team mates but not penalised the Quins player who is in contact with (some would say playing) the white SH, so NO must be now saying we have a ruck. If that is the case, what about the actions of Wasps #20?

3. NO then allows other white players to join the ruck, still motioning for Quins players not involved to stay onside, before a new SH clears the ball and play continues it requires a bit more discussion of the different phases of play involved here and the actions of several other players, specifically 18, 16 & 20 white???

Please discuss

Your points are now inserted into the correct thread TF , ( again apols, for my bad cross-threading).

If this becomes a permitted counter action/collapse toward opponents that are trying to "choke/hold" up the ball carrier , then it will completely muddy the maul collapse law/scenario, as I can't imagine that near the Goal Line NO would allow a similar collapsing to take place unpunished by PK/YC.

The last thing i need is another aspect of the game being interpretated wholly differently depending on pitch locations.

RobLev
27-01-15, 10:01
Because NO said it was a tackle only...... (not saying I agree, but this seems to be a trend across elite refs)

Did he? I heard a call of "Maul now" before the collapse.

liversedge
01-02-15, 21:02
At the risk of being facetious, would you award a penalty for the BC (and team mates) taking the ball to ground on the goal line ?
And not award a try ...

RobLev
01-02-15, 23:02
At the risk of being facetious, would you award a penalty for the BC (and team mates) taking the ball to ground on the goal line ?
And not award a try ...

The BC's allowed to go to ground in a maul; and in any event the maul would have ceased to be so once it crossed the goal line (Law 22.6).

liversedge
02-02-15, 02:02
The BC's allowed to go to ground in a maul; and in any event the maul would have ceased to be so once it crossed the goal line (Law 22.6).

My point being related to 'safety' .. its not a concern when across a bit of white paint ?
Or perhaps collapsing the maul needs to be defined, and include taking *opposition* players to ground.

RobLev
02-02-15, 14:02
My point being related to 'safety' .. its not a concern when across a bit of white paint ?
Or perhaps collapsing the maul needs to be defined, and include taking *opposition* players to ground.

The effect of the bit of white paint is that unless the ball hits the ground toot sweet after reaching the line, there's a sweet toot from the ref to stop any prolonged wrestling match - for safety reasons. So it's not a question of ignoring the danger represented by the collapse of a maul once it's over the goal line; instead, the ref will stop play before any danger does arise.

Crucial
02-02-15, 22:02
The effect of the bit of white paint is that unless the ball hits the ground toot sweet after reaching the line, there's a sweet toot from the ref to stop any prolonged wrestling match - for safety reasons. So it's not a question of ignoring the danger represented by the collapse of a maul once it's over the goal line; instead, the ref will stop play before any danger does arise.

I think the point is that the perceived danger of a maul collapse is that players are bound together in all sorts of strange ways (including headlocks which go unpoliced) and a collapse increases the risk factor enough to make it a penalisable offence.
The 'white line' does not change that increase of risk

RobLev
02-02-15, 23:02
I think the point is that the perceived danger of a maul collapse is that players are bound together in all sorts of strange ways (including headlocks which go unpoliced) and a collapse increases the risk factor enough to make it a penalisable offence.
The 'white line' does not change that increase of risk

Agreed.

Crucial
03-02-15, 21:02
As most armchair refs will agree though. Only the non BC side is ever penalised at a maul despite BC players joining ahead of the ball, the BC being barely bound at the back, splitting with obstruction etc etc.
Meanwhile the poor defender who has legally joined and remained bound is told to detach if spun past the centre.

liversedge
04-02-15, 00:02
Agreed.

Then would you penalise a team collapsing the maul in the process of scoring a try?

RobLev
04-02-15, 09:02
Then would you penalise a team collapsing the maul in the process of scoring a try?

No maul can exist in in-goal.

Were I a referee, I would penalise a team for dangerous play in in-goal.

liversedge
04-02-15, 13:02
No maul can exist in in-goal.

Were I a referee, I would penalise a team for dangerous play in in-goal.

Brave !

FWIW, a maul obviously will exist in this scenario, the players don't vanish, its just the laws pertaining to the maul no longer apply once the ball crosses the goal line. Player safety still applies obviously.

I really do think that 'collapsing a maul' needs a definition !

crossref
04-02-15, 13:02
No maul can exist in in-goal.

Were I a referee, I would penalise a team for dangerous play in in-goal.

I think you would normally avoid that - when there is a maul maul-like thing in the in-goal then you don't need to be prescient to know that it's going to collapse --- quickly and heavily .

If this collapse is going to be dangerous, and the ball is in the middle anyway and very unlikely to be visible for a try - then I think you should whistle before it happens and give held up, attacking scrum

It's not generally good to allow prolonged wrestling for a ball in goal.

RobLev
04-02-15, 14:02
I think you would normally avoid that - when there is a maul maul-like thing in the in-goal then you don't need to be prescient to know that it's going to collapse --- quickly and heavily .

If this collapse is going to be dangerous, and the ball is in the middle anyway and very unlikely to be visible for a try - then I think you should whistle before it happens and give held up, attacking scrum

It's not generally good to allow prolonged wrestling for a ball in goal.

Agreed; hence my #55:


The effect of the bit of white paint is that unless the ball hits the ground toot sweet after reaching the line, there's a sweet toot from the ref to stop any prolonged wrestling match - for safety reasons. So it's not a question of ignoring the danger represented by the collapse of a maul once it's over the goal line; instead, the ref will stop play before any danger does arise.

ChrisR
04-02-15, 20:02
This has come up before.

When a maul gets driven into goal the defenders have two options: 1. Try to hold the ball up and concede a 5m scrum to the ops or 2. attempt to drive the now non-maul into touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line and get out of jail with a 22 drop-out.

If the non-maul is still in motion give the defense a chance to execute option 2.

B52 REF
05-02-15, 14:02
17.2 D" ALL PLAYERS IN A MAUL MUST ENDEAVOUR TO STAY ON THEIR FEET " sanction is PK (bc is excluded if goes to ground provided he makes ball immed. avialbe ) ergo any teammate or oppo. who deliberatly goes to ground with bc (as in op ?) is liable to pk.,whether or not the maul collapses..