The Laws of Rugby

[Oldschool]

I think it's actually SOB pushing the point that if that was actually a ruck it should have been a holding on penalty on both occasions, since none was given it wasn't a ruck. This is with a ref O'Brien has described as someone there is no talking to, so he's trying another approach to try and get what Ireland should of received.

That's good disciplined play by SOB, " pushing the point " of a Law for which he showed a fair degree of ignorance, with an international referee,while standing in an offside position

He attempted it twice, one warning, one penalty, didn't try it again. That is pretty disciplined play given his well known and extremely understandable frustrations with Wayne Barnes.

The less said the better.

[leinsterforever]

Most people involved in Rugby don't know the laws

The laws are bloody complicated and full of contradictions and inconsistencies in the first place. Referees interpreting them differently makes them even more confusing.

How many times do you see a collapsed maul from a lineout penalised? Quite frequently. How many times do you see a collapsed maul from a choke tackle penalised? Quite infrequently. They're both collapsed mauls.

Can you tackle the ball carrier in a maul?
If a maul can only take place in the field of play, does it mean that if one person in a maul puts his foot on the touchline, then it's no longer a maul? Why/why not?

How many people realise that you only need three people to form a maul?

"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, 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."
[source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17 ]

So if a supporting player latches on to the ball carrier who is being held by an opposition player, that is, by definition, a maul. Why do we see mauls with five or six players involved being called [and refereed] as 'tackle only'?

Because the ball-carrier has managed to touch the ground with a knee?

[johng]

Ain't that the new law interpretation to combat the choke tackle? Player's knee hits the ground = no maul

[hugonaut]

Most people involved in Rugby don't know the laws

The laws are bloody complicated and full of contradictions and inconsistencies in the first place. Referees interpreting them differently makes them even more confusing.

How many times do you see a collapsed maul from a lineout penalised? Quite frequently. How many times do you see a collapsed maul from a choke tackle penalised? Quite infrequently. They're both collapsed mauls.

Can you tackle the ball carrier in a maul?
If a maul can only take place in the field of play, does it mean that if one person in a maul puts his foot on the touchline, then it's no longer a maul? Why/why not?

How many people realise that you only need three people to form a maul?

"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, 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."
[source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17 ]

So if a supporting player latches on to the ball carrier who is being held by an opposition player, that is, by definition, a maul. Why do we see mauls with five or six players involved being called [and refereed] as 'tackle only'?

Because the ball-carrier has managed to touch the ground with a knee?

"Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers."
[source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15]

If there are no tacklers, how can there be a tackle? Somebody from the opposite team has to tackle the player in possession and go to ground themselves in order for there to be a tackle.

If the upright 'tackler' makes full contact with the ball carrier while a player from the ball carrier's team is bound to him, he's instantly in a maul [as above, you only need the right three people - two from the attacking team and one from the defending team - to form a maul]. Just because the ball carrier puts his knee on the ground, it doesn't mean he is tackled – he needs the player from the opposite team to go to ground too for there to be a tackle. You can't have a tackle without a tackler [as Law 15 above states].

But "a player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play." [source http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17 ]. The 'tackler' is already in a maul once he is in full contact with the ball-carrier and the leach. He can't collapse a maul, otherwise he gives away a penalty.

Or can you always tackle the ball carrier in a maul, even if there are 16 men in it and the whole thing subsequently collapses?

[johng]

or to look at it the other way round....

If ball carrier getting his knee on the ground turns a maul into a tackle. Who is the tackler? Does it turn the players in contact with said kneeler into tacklers?

[ronk]

Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

[ronk]

or to look at it the other way round....

If ball carrier getting his knee on the ground turns a maul into a tackle. Who is the tackler? Does it turn the players in contact with said kneeler into tacklers?

A maul can't become a tackle. It can go to ground.

[leinsterforever]

"Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers."
[source: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15]

If there are no tacklers, how can there be a tackle? Somebody from the opposite team has to tackle the player in possession and go to ground themselves in order for there to be a tackle.

If the upright 'tackler' makes full contact with the ball carrier while a player from the ball carrier's team is bound to him, he's instantly in a maul [as above, you only need the right three people - two from the attacking team and one from the defending team - to form a maul]. Just because the ball carrier puts his knee on the ground, it doesn't mean he is tackled – he needs the player from the opposite team to go to ground too for there to be a tackle. You can't have a tackle without a tackler [as Law 15 above states].

But "a player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play." [source http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17 ]. The 'tackler' is already in a maul once he is in full contact with the ball-carrier and the leach. He can't collapse a maul, otherwise he gives away a penalty.

Or can you always tackle the ball carrier in a maul, even if there are 16 men in it and the whole thing subsequently collapses?

My understanding would be that for a maul to form the first player from the ball-carrier's team has to bind on after the tackler has made contact with the ball carrier. This would mean that a tackler doesn't form a maul if he tackles a ball-carrier with a leech already attached.

Can you not call anyone attempting a regulation tackle a ''tackler'' until they're on the ground?

[johng]

or to look at it the other way round....

If ball carrier getting his knee on the ground turns a maul into a tackle. Who is the tackler? Does it turn the players in contact with said kneeler into tacklers?

A maul can't become a tackle. It can go to ground.

Fair enough. So the ball carrier must get his knee to the ground before it becomes a maul. Otherwise the ref can't call tackle.

Which leaves the problem of who is the tackler then.

Hmmm. Perhaps the authors of this directive/law interpretation to combat choke tackles didn't think it through.

[Oldschoolsocks]

or to look at it the other way round....

If ball carrier getting his knee on the ground turns a maul into a tackle. Who is the tackler? Does it turn the players in contact with said kneeler into tacklers?

A maul can't become a tackle. It can go to ground.

Fair enough. So the ball carrier must get his knee to the ground before it becomes a maul. Otherwise the ref can't call tackle.

Which leaves the problem of who is the tackler then.

Hmmm. Perhaps the authors of this directive/law interpretation to combat choke tackles didn't think it through.

They've obviously just decided they no longer want choke tackles so probably told refs cal tackle as soon as you can if at all possible and ignore the laws around the formation of a maul unless it's a line out in which case whatevs