South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

All things Rugby
Post Reply
Kid Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:30 pm

South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Kid Rock »

Refs on the board is this legal or not? I really don't know what to make of this. They did it twice in the game v Samoa and both times it was very effective.

Image

The only way to attack it it seems is to smash burger, otherwise you'd be coming in offside.
User avatar
tiddle
Posts: 3821
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Location: look behind you

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by tiddle »

it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
User avatar
Laurent
Posts: 17470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: balbriggan
Contact:

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Laurent »

tiddle wrote:it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
Binding Prior to the tackle is illegal though (Flying wedge)
User avatar
Liathroidigloine
Posts: 8478
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Liathroidigloine »

You could probably ping Du Plessis as he is not "bound" in that his shoulder isn't in contact but that would be nit picking. I'd ping it for looking f**king ugly and against the spirit of the game anyway.
User avatar
Jensrsa
Posts: 24483
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Jensrsa »

Strictly in this instant according to the law Jannie DuP isn't bound to Flo and this could be blown as truck and trailer

Definition Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.
C69
Posts: 39585
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by C69 »

Liathroidigloine wrote:You could probably ping Du Plessis as he is not "bound" in that his shoulder isn't in contact but that would be nit picking. I'd ping it for looking f**k ugly and against the spirit of the game anyway.
Yip and we know that world rugby find breaking the spirit of the law just as heinous as breaking the actual laws they set down
User avatar
Jensrsa
Posts: 24483
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Jensrsa »

tiddle wrote:it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
Ball is already with Duane
User avatar
Keith
Posts: 5646
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:55 pm
Location: God's own country

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Keith »

Liathroidigloine wrote:You could probably ping Du Plessis as he is not "bound" in that his shoulder isn't in contact
This
User avatar
Cartman
Posts: 7780
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Cartman »

Jannie is just incredibly stupid.
If I was a ref trying to nail SA I'll just watch him all game.
Of course ten minutes into the game he'll have his second yellow, so it won't be too hard to still ref the game properly
ruskeye7
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:15 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by ruskeye7 »

The caterpillar reinvented? Remember the tactic from a few years ago to create more space for the scrumhalf's box kick.
User avatar
Turbogoat
Posts: 21769
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle East

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Turbogoat »

Conga-ing with Intent.

They should be sewn into the Human Centipede they are emulating.
User avatar
sorCrer
Posts: 12286
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by sorCrer »

Liathroidigloine wrote:You could probably ping Du Plessis as he is not "bound" in that his shoulder isn't in contact but that would be nit picking. I'd ping it for looking f**k ugly and against the spirit of the game anyway.
Fairymuff. You could probably ping every player arriving at the breakdown for not binding.
Kid Rock
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:30 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Kid Rock »

So if Jannie is bound it's legal? How would you go about defending a 10 man conga line? Just smash the first player to smithereens or try something else?

Also, why is it that when a player goes into contact and it forms into a maul, when it collapses sometimes the opposing team get the scrum but other times the team with the ball get a penalty for the opposing team collapsing it?

The maul area is an absolute mess for me.
ruskeye7
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:15 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by ruskeye7 »

ruskeye7 wrote:The caterpillar reinvented? Remember the tactic from a few years ago to create more space for the scrumhalf's box kick.
Ahhh, the centipede is what I meant.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q= ... 8432700353
OB..
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by OB.. »

But my main bugbear with this season has been the Saracens human centipede at the breakdown. Their link of seven men or so to give the scrum-half nine yards of space for a box kick is a joke. They lose seven or so runners in the process and for me it is utterly stupid. What has happened to the skill levels of scrum-halves if they can't box kick in a couple of yards? It's just ridiculous and I think Leicester will really target that. We could see the death of the human centipede at Welford Road this weekend!
Austin Healey May 2012 http://en.espn.co.uk/premiership-2011-1 ... 63818.html

Since the team in possession commit more players than their opponents, this cannot be a sensible attacking option. Two defenders drive the front man away and still have more defenders than the ball carrying team has attackers.
OB..
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by OB.. »

But my main bugbear with this season has been the Saracens human centipede at the breakdown. Their link of seven men or so to give the scrum-half nine yards of space for a box kick is a joke. They lose seven or so runners in the process and for me it is utterly stupid. What has happened to the skill levels of scrum-halves if they can't box kick in a couple of yards? It's just ridiculous and I think Leicester will really target that. We could see the death of the human centipede at Welford Road this weekend!
Austin Healey May 2012 http://en.espn.co.uk/premiership-2011-1 ... 63818.html

Since the team in possession commit more players than their opponents, this cannot be a sensible attacking option. Two defenders drive the front man away and still have more defenders than the ball carrying team has attackers.
Jay Cee Gee
Posts: 18269
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Jay Cee Gee »

Surely it's only really useful for giving the halfback plenty of room to clear the ball? You're not gonna make much ground mauling like that, I'd think.
Magpie26
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Magpie26 »

Pretty difficult to see how you could 'come through the middle' of that maul :?
User avatar
zt1903
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by zt1903 »

Jensrsa wrote:
tiddle wrote:it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
Ball is already with Duane
Who isn't bound either.
User avatar
saffer13
Posts: 25660
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by saffer13 »

Jensrsa wrote:
tiddle wrote:it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
Ball is already with Duane
But it's impossible to tell, from one still photo, what happened before that...is this the very first couple seconds of the maul or is this after mauling it downfield for 20m already...how did it start, etc.?

That being said, Jannie deserves a red card and 5 game suspension.
User avatar
Insane_Homer
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Insane_Homer »

17.4 OFFSIDE AT THE MAUL
(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave
the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may
continue
and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs
through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in
possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the
team in possession at the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
unlike England who against Fiji 'changed lanes'
User avatar
Springer
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Springer »

Perfectly legal until a referee deems it not to be.
Splat
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Splat »

Kid Rock wrote:Refs on the board is this legal or not? I really don't know what to make of this. They did it twice in the game v Samoa and both times it was very effective.

Image

The only way to attack it it seems is to smash burger, otherwise you'd be coming in offside.
Legal & exemplifies what is wrong with the laws today on this
goeagles
Posts: 8613
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by goeagles »

ruskeye7 wrote:The caterpillar reinvented? Remember the tactic from a few years ago to create more space for the scrumhalf's box kick.
Why bother when you can set a ruck and have all kinds of guys nowhere near the ruck just blocking for the scrumhalf?
User avatar
Taranaki Snapper
Posts: 17306
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Taranaki Snapper »

Illegal, immoral and racist...
User avatar
Diego
Posts: 20176
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Diego »

Well for starters that's not a maul as there's only one Samoan there.
User avatar
Insane_Homer
Posts: 12145
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafy Surrey, UK

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Insane_Homer »

Diego wrote:Well for starters that's not a maul as there's only one Samoan there.
Wrong. A single defender can create a maul.
DEFINITIONS
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents,
and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul
therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players
So a min of 1 defender + 2 attackers = a maul

2 defenders + attacker = tackle
User avatar
Diego
Posts: 20176
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Diego »

I stand corrected.
User avatar
Johnny Marrmight
Posts: 9622
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Johnny Marrmight »

Sarries used to do this a few seasons back.....it's called the caterpillar


Stopped doing it for some reason
Killer Rabbit
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Caerbannog

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Killer Rabbit »

Is it legal to attack the player at the front of the queue and drive him sideways, one defensive player could achieve this if they drove in the right direction? The player behind would have to release the front man quickly or the caterpillar would turn to the side and potentially more than just the first man would peel off. Why try to drive straight against the attacking team where they are the strongest?

KR
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17438
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Ted. »

Jensrsa wrote:
tiddle wrote:it depends on how the ball is transfer to the tail. if burger has possession when contact is made with the opposition and then feeds it back, it's legal. otherwise it's considered obstruction.
Ball is already with Duane
If the ball started with Vermeulen, though rarely policed, it is definitely illegal.
User avatar
Kiwias
Posts: 41212
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Kiwias »

Referees should be policing the binding strictly.

The guy bound on JdP is spot on as is 6's bind on Burger.
User avatar
saffer13
Posts: 25660
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by saffer13 »

goeagles wrote:
ruskeye7 wrote:The caterpillar reinvented? Remember the tactic from a few years ago to create more space for the scrumhalf's box kick.
Why bother when you can set a ruck and have all kinds of guys nowhere near the ruck just blocking for the scrumhalf?
Agree, that blocking never gets called. As a saffa I'd love them to ban blocking....it will force us to abandon the box kick after a 20m driving maul. :x
Râguebi
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Râguebi »

Magpie26 wrote:Pretty difficult to see how you could 'come through the middle' of that maul :?
:)
Râguebi
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Râguebi »

Kid Rock wrote:Refs on the board is this legal or not? I really don't know what to make of this. They did it twice in the game v Samoa and both times it was very effective.

Image

The only way to attack it it seems is to smash burger, otherwise you'd be coming in offside.
Indian row maul?
User avatar
metro71
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:40 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by metro71 »

Kid Rock wrote:Refs on the board is this legal or not? I really don't know what to make of this. They did it twice in the game v Samoa and both times it was very effective.

Image

The only way to attack it it seems is to smash burger, otherwise you'd be coming in offside.
Should be illegal more to the point.....the only things missing are the shackles and chains between their legs.
User avatar
deadduck
Posts: 6158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Vandean Coast

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by deadduck »

It'd be pretty easy to splinter that maul
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20019
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by Enzedder »

Liathroidigloine wrote:You could probably ping Du Plessis as he is not "bound" in that his shoulder isn't in contact but that would be nit picking. I'd ping it for looking f**k ugly and against the spirit of the game anyway.
refs will ping people for not engaging and then standing by the scrummy - but not this. Interesting and shows who still makes the laws.
User avatar
ElementFreak
Posts: 7784
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: South African maul - legal? Illegal? (PIC)

Post by ElementFreak »

Kid Rock wrote:Refs on the board is this legal or not? I really don't know what to make of this. They did it twice in the game v Samoa and both times it was very effective.

Image

The only way to attack it it seems is to smash burger, otherwise you'd be coming in offside.
Can't tell from a still image. If the ball started at the front and was moved legally backwards, as well as Samoa bound at the start then it's legal.
Post Reply