Newcastle Red Bulls

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Adding a one eyed perspective, one of Wasps tries appeared to have been held up over the line, but the man in the middle, whilst attempting to recover some dignity after falling on his brain in front of the terrace, gave try with no hesitation & arguably no view. A try for Falcons on the line in the closinging seconds was not allowed, again as the ref was unsighted.
(Mayhem as touch judge did not inspire me with confidence).

Simon Shaw had the quietest (& therefore most honest) game I've ever seen him have, Wurzel played like a flanker should, off his feet & over the top at every breakdown.

Wasps deserved the win, but they were poor. Unfortunately we were poorer.

CS - As a forward I would like your perspective on the rolling maul try please. Didnt see it myself but listened on the radio. It sounded like we were pushed back a good 30+ metres and could do very little that was legal about it. My question really is do we take the moral high ground and play within the rules and accept giving 7 points away plus all it leads to (I am sure that try had a direct influence on the penalty try scored later); or should we have pulled it down much much earlier as was suggested in commentary, thus giving away a pen, poss 3 points and maybe yellow card?

quite frankly after about 10 metres(when there were 30 odd left to the try line) and we could very easily have realised it was going to go a long way, we should have just pulled it down and given walder a shot at 3 points
we should have done the same with the 40m scrum when we played saints. just a lack of basic intelligence and rugby nous.

Perhaps Moriarty could have a word,he doesn't seem to be much good for owt else!

as long as he's not talking about substitutions

SG, it looked as though we had too many players standing off & looking to tackle a player leaving the maul on the fringes, rather than getting stuck in to slow or stop the maul - something we had done well in the first half.

Wasps at one point in the first half had a maul that was lacking momentum which Lemi joined, as well as a couple of other backs, to try & restart the pressure (Lemi joined in front of the back foot & at the side, I'm not bitter ) but Wasps could not get going so broke & went for a try in the corner. Falcons had the measure of the Wasps maul, imho, fist period, slacked off on that 60 yard maul & paid for it.

I don't condone cheating, which is what pulling a rolling maul down deliberately constitutes, but a bit of nous, as displayed by other teams in such situations, wouldn't go amiss.

As it started that far from the try line why didn't all our forwards break off contact?

It's then no longer a maul and if a single player then went in to make contact and one of the Wasps was in front of the ball carrier we would get the penalty.

Exactly Touchy completely agree, would have thought a forwards coach may have realised that as well!!

Quote:

TouchLine
As it started that far from the try line why didn't all our forwards break off contact?
It's then no longer a maul and if a single player then went in to make contact and one of the Wasps was in front of the ball carrier we would get the penalty.

I don't think this is quite true. Once a maul has been formed, it can't be un-mauled, so to speak, simply by having all the defending players peel off. It remains a maul and has to end in one of the usual ways.

I disagree.

Quote:

A maul occurs when three or more players, including the ball carrier and at least one other player from either side, are in contact together.

ie once there are no opposing players in contact then it is no longer a maul

Yes, you would appear to be right. It's a strange one, but the link seems to support your view.

Clarification

You learn something new every day!

Weirdly, however, in my pedantic searching for clarification on the clarification, I have found a couple of articles supporting my initial view that the maul is still in existence. Curiouser and curiouser,

So to stop a maul when it's still quite far out but has momentum you simply all disengage from it and then someone can just go and tackle the ball carrier (and potentially be obstructed in doing so buy the attacking "maulers")?

Seems too easy to be true, or am I misunderstanding it? The link Dobbin posted would indicate this is the case.

To further muddy the waters, we have this which purports to be an explanation of the above clarification and makes a distinction between players voluntarily leaving the maul and being ejected by the attacking team. It seems to contradict the clarification itself, however.

I thought I had read that the maul is not over if the defending team detach, and it wasn't on the site I've just linked to. Trouble is, I can't remember where it was.

(sorry for hijacking the thread)

Spot on Hideo no defenders no maul, if another defender cannot tackle due to being blocked by attacker, (Player at front of maul) a penalty should be awarded for obstruction by the attacking team.

Problem solved - I was right first time. It's actually in the lawbook.

17.4(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.

We can all rest easier now, I'm sure.

Good luck for the rest of the season.

Which is what I said.

In the distant past and the glorious days of Squeaky and the Falcons playing in the HC I seem to remember a match against SF in which this was came up. Allegedly the French speaking Irish ref was consulted before the match and confirmed this was the case. However when the Falcons did it in the match he promptly forgot/ignored the opinion he had given.

I'm sure someone with a better memory than me (Leipy perhaps) may recall in more detail.

Ah, now you're talking about when no maul has been formed in the first place.

Quote:

As it started that far from the try line why didn't all our forwards break off contact?
It's then no longer a maul and if a single player then went in to make contact and one of the Wasps was in front of the ball carrier we would get the penalty.

It's the phrase "no longer a maul" that has confused the issue. If no maul has formed then your scenario above is applicable. However, once the maul has been formed, it doesn't cease to be a maul just because all the defenders have (voluntarily) detached. In that scenario, it continues to be a maul.

No, maul was formed and players detached as we've discussed.

By the way the law also says that players must be bound onto the maul and not just resting a hand on. In many cases the ball carrier at the back is only in contact by his fingertips yet is never penalised.

Then I refer you back to Law 17.4(f)

Quote:

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.

The maul still exists, there is no obstruction, and the defending team can only rejoin the maul from the front.

Which contracts the preceding definition and clarification of a Maul


Where is Clive Norling the First when we need him!

I think it's a relatively new piece of law that has superseded the clarifaction I linked to earlier. For some reason it's hidden away in the off-side section of the maul laws.

The definition of the maul you're talking about relates to the formation of the maul and not its end. Once it's a maul, it can't be de-mauled by detaching.

Rugby Union - dontcha just love it.

I've noticed defenders at the Maul this season "stumbling" whilst bound onto the maul and falling at the attackers feet causing them to trip and therefore collapsing the maul yet it seems that no-one gets penalised for this.

A ref's opinion would be useful as the clarification is specifically addressed to this issue. Yes the maul has'nt ended but it's simply ceased to exist and the laws of open play apply

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling
4-2008
Union
RFU
Law Reference
17
Date
24 September '08
Request
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

Law 17 Maul, Definition
A maul occurs 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 of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.

As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul.

The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

Explanation

Quote:

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/090430sglaexplanatory_7684.pdf
here

. 2009 changes so the clarification is no longer relevant.

At that distance from the try line, I wouldn't want my players to engage in the maul in the first place. Therefore, they wouldn't have to then try and leave it.

Touchy - I remember the SF incident. It was specifically to do with the lineout. The SF hooker threw the ball in, their second row caught and landed in the traditional manner with supporting SF players binding on.

HOWEVER, all the Falcons lineout took a step back and none engaged. Therefore there was no maul. In theory they could then run round the back of the SF group and tackle the ball carrier, or, simply bump into one of the bound SF players and get the obstruction penalty.

I can't remember how the ref handled it but it didn't seem to work!

As I remember he penalised us for coming in from the side contrary to what he'd said before the game. The moral is never trust a French speaking Irishman!