• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Unopposed Maul. Is it obstruction?

S

shazbooger

Guest
Not sure if anyone else saw this in the Argentina v Georgia match but from a lineout, the Argentinians formed a maul, the Georgians retreated with their hands in the air and did not engage with the maul. The Argies advanced unopposed and the Georgians screamed for a penalty (which wasnt given) when the maul made contact with one of their players.

Surely this is obstruction no?
 
E

el_tk

Guest
It's obstruction technically as there are Argentininans in front of the ball bound onto the carrier but if a Georgian player makes contact it becomes a maul as there is now at least one player from each team plus the ball carrier in contact.

As far as I understand.
 
S

shazbooger

Guest
but if a Georgian player makes contact it becomes a maul as there is now at least one player from each team plus the ball carrier in contact. [/b]
Surely that would constitute an attempted tackle, and the guys at the front would be obstructing it no?

I havent a clue, just thought it was really weird to see it today.
 
S

Substitute

Guest
It is still classified as a maul regardless of the presence of the opposition. So if Georgia were to join in it is still a maul and without it would be. Otherwise when maul is formed obstruction could be called.

A maul is disengaged when the ball carrier seperates alone from the maul.
 
D

darwin_23

Guest
Not sure if anyone else saw this in the Argentina v Georgia match but from a lineout, the Argentinians formed a maul, the Georgians retreated with their hands in the air and did not engage with the maul. The Argies advanced unopposed and the Georgians screamed for a penalty (which wasnt given) when the maul made contact with one of their players.

Surely this is obstruction no?

[/b]

Yes this is definately obstruction under the current laws - I saw the incident you were refering to and wondered why there was no penalty given. Under the new Stellenbosh laws which will likely come into affect after the world cup this will no longer be illegal as long as there was a maul (involving players from both teams) formed origanally.
 
F

Fushitsusha

Guest
I belive the Reds were the first team to ever try this during the Super 14 last year.

I think it was either the Highlanders or the Hurricanes who tried to form a maul from a lineout but the Reds simply retreated and were awarded the penalty.

I might be wrong, but I think they pulled it off twice last year?
 
R

RoyalBlueStuey

Guest
As a side issue to this weren't they going to make it legal to pull down a maul?

The none-engagement tactic is a very cunning one as long as you are happy the ref will enforce the rule, he got it wrong in last night's game. I notice Italy send a man round to tackle the ball carrier on one of those clips.
 
E

el_tk

Guest
It is still classified as a maul regardless of the presence of the opposition. So if Georgia were to join in it is still a maul and without it would be. Otherwise when maul is formed obstruction could be called.

A maul is disengaged when the ball carrier seperates alone from the maul. [/b]



No. A maul exists when the ball carrier and at least one player from each side are in contact, i.e. at least 3 players. A maul cannot exist with players from just one team.
 
D

dullonien

Guest
I remember Wales using this tactic a few times, was it in the 2006 6 nations?



Full defonition of a Maul:

Originally posted by irb
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.



To me this suggests that it has to start with a one on one tackle, the ball carrier managing to stay on his feet till one of his team mates arrives and creates a maul. It doesn not work the other way round where the guy with the ball get's behind a few of his players and then an opposition player comes in, this would be accidental offside/obstruction surely.



Therefore if the oposing team stand back from a driving lineout and the attacking team form a 'maul' without any defending players taking part, this should result in instantly penalising the attcking team for obstruction, or at least penalising when a defender attempts to tackle the guy with the ball at the back only to find out there's 7 people in front of him!



They need to sort out exactly what the rule is, some referees seem to give it as obstruction, and some don't like last night.
 
R

RC

Guest
Yeha, i was screaming "penalty" when the georgians pulled away from it, throwing their hands in the air.

Truck and Trailer, guys?
Am i wrong here.
But that's what's going on.
 
S

Seaeagles

Guest
We actually had this done to us last year and were penalised for it, its the flying wedge or truck or trailer
 
B

Boggle

Guest
Technically it is illegal and probably should have been a penalty, BUT.



I think it's just negative play really, I think the Cheetas did it a lot in the 2005 - 2006 Currie cups, when a Maul is formed at a linout I believe the oposing team should just counter maul as well. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with that, but that's what I think.
 

Latest posts

Top