PDA

View Full Version : [Maul] Uncontested maul. Edinburgh v Glasgow. Why was this allowed ?



CrouchTPEngage
24-12-17, 22:12
Video here ( 2min 35 secs into video )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42444403

Lineout to 6 metres out. Catch and maul is setup ( or attempts ) except that there is not contact with defending players. Hence, a maul is not formed. The ball appears to be passed backwards in the melee of players. Looks to me like its a classic truck and trailer and yet this melee is allowed to march forward towards and into the in-goal where a try is awarded.
Why is this not blown for an accidental offside ?

CrouchTPEngage
24-12-17, 22:12
Upon rewatching. It looks like the ball was never transferred from the first man in the front. It was very clever as it looked as though it had been passed back to the rear of this melee. This may explain it.

HappyScrummie
26-12-17, 02:12
Upon rewatching. It looks like the ball was never transferred from the first man in the front. It was very clever as it looked as though it had been passed back to the rear of this melee. This may explain it.

Clever play from Glasgow - my only thought was whether there is any issues with teammates binding onto the ball carrier and driving him forward if there isn't a maul scenario (as here, where the opposition stood off)? i.e. when no opposition are in contact with them?

tim White
26-12-17, 10:12
Another instance of poor defensive ploy so close to your own line; if its legally done you have no time to readjust.

ChrisR
26-12-17, 12:12
A non-maul 9ie. players bound arround a BC without ops), moving forward, resembles a "Flying Wedge".

From the 2018 desinitions:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack,
either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward.
Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before
engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ballcarrier.


Just add "or a lineout" to red.

crossref
26-12-17, 13:12
Or ruck ?

It's a funny Law. In practice I think it is only ever penalised at a PK or FK

beckett50
26-12-17, 22:12
Ball was kept at the front, so the player was liable to be tackled. The supporting players did not bind in front of him and therefore create a block (obstruction).

Defending team got too clever for their own good as no-one took responsibility for the "what if.."

HappyScrummie
27-12-17, 07:12
A non-maul 9ie. players bound arround a BC without ops), moving forward, resembles a "Flying Wedge".

From the 2018 desinitions:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack,
either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward.
Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before
engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ballcarrier.


Just add "or a lineout" to red.

So do we reckon that, by law, binding around a player when you've taken the ball down from a line out isn't illegal?

didds
27-12-17, 10:12
Clever play from Glasgow - my only thought was whether there is any issues with teammates binding onto the ball carrier and driving him forward if there isn't a maul scenario (as here, where the opposition stood off)? i.e. when no opposition are in contact with them?

can't see any reason why that would be wrong, unless you were going to shoehorn a flying wedge scenario into the mix here. The body of players (BoP) walks forward rather than runs at any pace.

That's what you get for taking a defensive gamble I guess.

Black were up for a PK potentially as well for playing the man without the ball (defender at rear of BoP pulling the last man out)

didds

didds

didds
27-12-17, 10:12
A non-maul 9ie. players bound arround a BC without ops), moving forward, resembles a "Flying Wedge".

From the 2018 desinitions:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack,
either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward.
Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before
engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ballcarrier.


Just add "or a lineout" to red.


That would indeed cover the scenario above.

And by doing so you now effectively make any "maul attack" from a lineout impossible - at least "near the tryline". Oppo don't engage and send a man around the back.

Can't move forward, can't pass the ball back.

Is that really what we want?

didds

ChrisR
27-12-17, 11:12
My post was as much a comment on "Flying Wedge" as anything. It just struck me that what was described in the OPO was a Flying Wedge, just of the plodding kind.

beckett50
27-12-17, 12:12
My post was as much a comment on "Flying Wedge" as anything. It just struck me that what was described in the OPO was a Flying Wedge, just of the plodding kind.

Chris, point notes, but a "Flying Wedge" was where - and I'm sure my learned colleagues will correct me - the attacking team would take the 'tap and go' Prior to the tap a forward - usually a front row player - would run forward with a couple of his team mates bound on. At the appropriate moment the #9 would tap the ball and pass it to this charging collection. As I am sure you can imagine - in the realms of player safety - it was banned.

When I asked how this differs from the current 'pick and go' close to the try line with a supporting player latched-on, I was told that the not only were there not the same number of players, but also that the speed of the collision was lower.
Personally as a 65kg person I wouldn't want to be anywhere near either, but....:D

Jolly Roger
27-12-17, 13:12
I watched this on rewind a number of times when I first saw the game but even as an Edinburgh supporter I could not criticise Glasgow for their attack. Indeed, my view is that the score serves Edinburgh right for not engaging and hoping for a technical penalty rather than playing the game.

If Edinburgh defence (black) had dived in low before any team mates had bound they could have brought down (collapsed) the Glasgow (white) forwards quite legally as no maul was formed. Just standing off and hoping for a technical obstruction is a hopeful gamble and negative play in my book. Served them right.

A great win in the end for an Edinburgh team having gone 0-7 down in the second minute and then down to 14 men after 5 mins.

On a separate point I thought that Simon Berghan’s sending off was the right call; stupid and wholly unacceptable action. He faces a lengthy ban, and probably a large club fine.

ChrisR
27-12-17, 20:12
Chris, point notes, but a "Flying Wedge" was where - and I'm sure my learned colleagues will correct me - the attacking team would take the 'tap and go' Prior to the tap a forward - usually a front row player - would run forward with a couple of his team mates bound on. At the appropriate moment the #9 would tap the ball and pass it to this charging collection. As I am sure you can imagine - in the realms of player safety - it was banned.

When I asked how this differs from the current 'pick and go' close to the try line with a supporting player latched-on, I was told that the not only were there not the same number of players, but also that the speed of the collision was lower.
Personally as a 65kg person I wouldn't want to be anywhere near either, but....:D

Yes, that is what I would imagine the writers of the laws had in mind but the description in the 2018 definitions starts with "usually" and ends with "often". The only unambiguous part is "team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition". Just like forming a maul from a lineout. However, I'm just pointing out poor law writing, not expecting it to be called from a maul.

I, too, am concerned about latchers binding to the BC before contact. It doesn't just happen from pick & gos, player are latching on a pitch and hitting the line at speed. There's no clear target for the tackler where he won't get clobbered by the latcher.

VM75
04-02-18, 20:02
A non-maul 9ie. players bound arround a BC without ops), moving forward, resembles a "Flying Wedge".

From the 2018 desinitions:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the
attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack,
either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward.
Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before
engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ballcarrier.


Just add "or a lineout" to red.

No No No, don't!

Flying wedge banning at a FK/PK where the opposition are 10m away is a safety issue, based on mass & velocity - In lineouts the opposition are supposed to be 1m away which means there is zero chance of a velocity based injury risk.

There is simply no justification for extending FlyingWedge law into Lineouts [or Rucks for that matter Crossref]

VM75
04-02-18, 21:02
Yes, that is what I would imagine the writers of the laws had in mind but the description in the 2018 definitions starts with "usually" and ends with "often". The only unambiguous part is "team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition". Just like forming a maul from a lineout. However, I'm just pointing out poor law writing, not expecting it to be called from a maul.

I, too, am concerned about latchers binding to the BC before contact. It doesn't just happen from pick & gos, player are latching on a pitch and hitting the line at speed. There's no clear target for the tackler where he won't get clobbered by the latcher.

If C&O 'Latching' prior to engagement with a defender was outlawed i'd applaud.

Sadly the 'repeat possession' agenda is curtailing the possession contest IMO. I do not believe RU's USP of the contest for possession is being best served by 30/40/50+ phases of repeat possession that sometimes gains 0.5m per time, that's boring pedestrian yawnrugby which only ever becomes mildly exciting in the closing moments of an concluding match.

Decorily
04-02-18, 22:02
No No No, don't!

Flying wedge banning at a FK/PK where the opposition are 10m away is a safety issue, based on mass & velocity - In lineouts the opposition are supposed to be 1m away which means there is zero chance of a velocity based injury risk.

There is simply no justification for extending FlyingWedge law into Lineouts [or Rucks for that matter Crossref]
So just to play Devils advocate......
If the defenders decide not to engage a 'maul' after a lineout and the bound mass of bodies gains momentum towards the defenders on the 10m offside line is that a flying wedge/dangerous?