Innovation or return of the good old days

[LE18]

That would be illegal. The other players don’t bind on until the player has the ball. Flying wedge players were pre bound

I realise that. But, in Paris yesterday, you could see its development. Ruck collapses into a messy heap (as always) ball recycled and Joe Heyes and others stand with arms poised to instantly bind on. So, no pre-bind but as soon as, so making little practical difference.

Yes and no. There is a big difference between 5 or 6 blokes already bound and moving, hence flying wedge, and a player taking the ball, turning his back to the opposition and his mates binding on him, a driving maul.

Didn't that used to be penalised as Truck and Trailer?

[northerntiger]

I realise that. But, in Paris yesterday, you could see its development. Ruck collapses into a messy heap (as always) ball recycled and Joe Heyes and others stand with arms poised to instantly bind on. So, no pre-bind but as soon as, so making little practical difference.

Yes and no. There is a big difference between 5 or 6 blokes already bound and moving, hence flying wedge, and a player taking the ball, turning his back to the opposition and his mates binding on him, a driving maul.

Didn't that used to be penalised as Truck and Trailer?

Pretty sure Truck and Trailer was when players were bound in front of the ball carrier before the opposition were in contact, therefore obstruction

[mightymouse]

The difference is that to be legal the ball carrier must engage with the opposition before his team mates bind on and drive. Once the opposition realise what is going on it a relatively simple fix. Just look back at the old tapes, you just have to hit the ball carrier low and hard .. as with everything in rugby you’re going nowhere on the floor. As soon as you let them bind on you cannot collapse, that why the first defender must hit the legs before the bind.
Of course back in the “good old days” that would instead have been immediately changed in to a very fast foot ruck laying it on a plate for the diminutive laddie with a 9 on his back who’d have slung it out to the bloke in the clean shirt on the wing who’d have lapped up the glory by scoring in the corner having not seen the ball for the previous 75minutes … that’s if. He didn’t drop it of course!!

[Rugbygramps]

Yes Yes and Yes.

Mightymouse is of course correct and is the same as at a lineout if you can tackle the ball carrier before the maul is formed then you’re ok

[sk 88]

Ulster in their victory over Racing scored 2 tries from tap penalties 5 metres out.
Ball was tapped by the 9 and passed to a forward who turned his back to the opposition while other forwards bound onto him and drove the ball over the line, a good old fashioned maul. All perfectly legal as long as the opposition are able to get to the front ball carrier until the maul is formed and moving when it can be transferred. Good to see and very hard to stop if done properly.

What next will it be the return of the Pivot

It's not legal though.

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched 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 ball-carrier.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/d ... #laws_let6

On both the clips I've seen the Ulster players were bound before the tackle was started and it was a poor miss from the match official.

[Rugbygramps]

Ulster in their victory over Racing scored 2 tries from tap penalties 5 metres out.
Ball was tapped by the 9 and passed to a forward who turned his back to the opposition while other forwards bound onto him and drove the ball over the line, a good old fashioned maul. All perfectly legal as long as the opposition are able to get to the front ball carrier until the maul is formed and moving when it can be transferred. Good to see and very hard to stop if done properly.

What next will it be the return of the Pivot

It's not legal though.

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched 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 ball-carrier.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/d ... #laws_let6

On both the clips I've seen the Ulster players were bound before the tackle was started and it was a poor miss from the match official.

Split second but I don’t agree

Why is it posters always have to look to poke holes and question refs decisions. Just enjoy the rugby without looking to find fault, and realise the ref knows far more than you or I and the tries will have been reviewed by the TMO

[sk 88]

Sorry for having my own opinion. Would a quiet message board without dissenting opinions.

[Rugbygramps]

Sorry for having my own opinion. Would a quiet message board without dissenting opinions.

I don’t disagree and of course you have your own valid opinion.

My question above still stands why not enjoy the smart piece of play instead of questioning what happened, and why question the officials and the TMO review.

That’s my opinion which I’m not sorry for having

[Tiglon]

I would agree that the supporting players bound on just before the tackler made contact. It was close, but I would expect the officials to have at least had a second look at both in slow motion before confirming the scores.

The bound on supporting players then go straight to ground with the ball carrier, which is also a penalty offense - although maybe it doesn't count if it's past the goal line?

Still, the "choke tackle" has been breaching maul laws for a decade or so, and no one seems to care much about that either...

[Rugbygramps]

I would agree that the supporting players bound on just before the tackler made contact. It was close, but I would expect the officials to have at least had a second look at both in slow motion before confirming the scores.

The bound on supporting players then go straight to ground with the ball carrier, which is also a penalty offense - although maybe it doesn't count if it's past the goal line?

Still, the "choke tackle" has been breaching maul laws for a decade or so, and no one seems to care much about that either...

So we’re not saying it was a poor miss by the match officials. Again it was split second which no one except you and SK88 have noticed. Maybe it caught the match officials by surprise too.
Once the ball is over the goal line all bets are off, hence players sliding in to block the officials and camera angle

Why does the choke tackle breach maul laws

[Tiglon]

I would agree that the supporting players bound on just before the tackler made contact. It was close, but I would expect the officials to have at least had a second look at both in slow motion before confirming the scores.

The bound on supporting players then go straight to ground with the ball carrier, which is also a penalty offense - although maybe it doesn't count if it's past the goal line?

Still, the "choke tackle" has been breaching maul laws for a decade or so, and no one seems to care much about that either...

So we’re not saying it was a poor miss by the match officials. Again it was split second which no one except you and SK88 have noticed. Maybe it caught the match officials by surprise too.
Once the ball is over the goal line all bets are off, hence players sliding in to block the officials and camera angle

Why does the choke tackle breach maul laws

Because, more often than not, defensive players join from the wrong side after maul has been called by the ref, to block in the ball, and then defensive players intentionally bring the maul to ground.

I've even seen maul called for a choke tackle when no other offensive player has bound on.

Basically 90% of maul laws are not enforced during a choke tackle maul.

If you're ever bored and can't think of anything better to do, watch through clips of a few choke tackles and see, after maul is called, how many defensive players change their bind, join from the side or even front, do not bind onto the hindmost player, and collapse the maul.

[Rugbygramps]

I must admit to never hearing that argument before.
My counter point would be that if the first player makes a tackle it is still a tackle until the 2nd defensive player arrives when it becomes a maul therefore my understanding is that he can approach it from anywhere, and then players must approach from the right side.
Again I may be wrong but there is no benefit to the defensive side collapsing once maul is caused, it may collapse because the attacking team are driving the tackle forward to try and regain possession.

Not something I have ever seen mentioned or discussed before but I shall keep an eye out for it

[Rugbygramps]

Just goes to show how wrong you can be. In my mind a maul is formed when 3 players come together at least 2 of which can be from either the attacking or defending side.

Definition from World rugby is:

A maul occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and one or more of the ball carrier's team-mates holds on (binds) as well (a maul therefore needs a minimum of three players). The ball must be off the ground.

I happily stand corrected

[LE18]

I would agree that the supporting players bound on just before the tackler made contact. It was close, but I would expect the officials to have at least had a second look at both in slow motion before confirming the scores.

The bound on supporting players then go straight to ground with the ball carrier, which is also a penalty offense - although maybe it doesn't count if it's past the goal line?

Still, the "choke tackle" has been breaching maul laws for a decade or so, and no one seems to care much about that either...

So we’re not saying it was a poor miss by the match officials. Again it was split second which no one except you and SK88 have noticed. Maybe it caught the match officials by surprise too.
Once the ball is over the goal line all bets are off, hence players sliding in to block the officials and camera angle

Why does the choke tackle breach maul laws

Because, more often than not, defensive players join from the wrong side after maul has been called by the ref, to block in the ball, and then defensive players intentionally bring the maul to ground.

I've even seen maul called for a choke tackle when no other offensive player has bound on.

Basically 90% of maul laws are not enforced during a choke tackle maul.

If you're ever bored and can't think of anything better to do, watch through clips of a few choke tackles and see, after maul is called, how many defensive players change their bind, join from the side or even front, do not bind onto the hindmost player, and collapse the maul.

Parts of the Laws like this are so complex that its so easy for posters to call out refs thinking they are correct and ref is wrong, vice versa refs dont often get to see those precious split seconds.

I thought I had a broad understanding of the Laws but it seems I dont and I wonder how many of those posters calling out refs actually do know them either?

[Tiglon]

So we’re not saying it was a poor miss by the match officials. Again it was split second which no one except you and SK88 have noticed. Maybe it caught the match officials by surprise too.
Once the ball is over the goal line all bets are off, hence players sliding in to block the officials and camera angle

Why does the choke tackle breach maul laws

Because, more often than not, defensive players join from the wrong side after maul has been called by the ref, to block in the ball, and then defensive players intentionally bring the maul to ground.

I've even seen maul called for a choke tackle when no other offensive player has bound on.

Basically 90% of maul laws are not enforced during a choke tackle maul.

If you're ever bored and can't think of anything better to do, watch through clips of a few choke tackles and see, after maul is called, how many defensive players change their bind, join from the side or even front, do not bind onto the hindmost player, and collapse the maul.

Parts of the Laws like this are so complex that its so easy for posters to call out refs thinking they are correct and ref is wrong, vice versa refs dont often get to see those precious split seconds.

I thought I had a broad understanding of the Laws but it seems I dont and I wonder how many of those posters calling out refs actually do know them either?

If you ever look at rugby stuff on Facebook (I wouldn't recommend it) you'll quickly find that the majority haven't got a clue about that rules, but that doesn't stop them being incredibly forthright. It seems much better on here as most contributors are serious rugby fans.

It doesn't help that what gets said about the laws by pundits, commentators and journalists is often misleading, inaccurate or just very poorly worded. They generally just latch onto catchphrases or buzzwords, often using them incorrectly, and then before you know it 99% of the public think the laws are quite different to what the referees think they are, hence a lot of the shouting at refs.

I'd be genuinely interested to talk to a ref about choke tackles and understand why they are refereed as they are - maybe I've interpreted the laws incorrectly (or perhaps just differently) or there's a sensible reason why things are done as they are.

It's why I think it's so important that we have ex-referees as pundits. It would be great to have one on every show, so they can comment on the refereeing debates/controversies and the ex-player pundits (who mostly don't have a scooby about the laws) can just stick to talking about the rugby itself.