Boof1050
Bill Watson (15)
Pretty sure ref clarified he was fine until he collapsed.
Week 8 - Waratahs vs Force - Saturday 15 April @ 7:35pm
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
How did he get to the ball though? Through the middle or around the side? To my eyes, Pugh came around. I could be wrong. As Froggy says, the momentum of all those other players had a hand in both instances. If the defending player legally gets to the ball carrier it should be legal to bring the ball carrier to ground. Like in every other facet of the game. But I guess it’s a maul, where the obstruction rule doesn’t apply, so why should tackling the player with the ball apply?
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Pugh was on the ball carrier from the start of the maul as the Tahs didn’t form it very well…
Silverado
Dick Tooth (41)
Maybe, when up against a rolling maul, just go behind the goal line and prepare for the kick off
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
Ok. I’m not going to rewatch. But will take your word for it. But with the current laws what would Pugh and HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) do to not get penalized and stop the ball carrier at the same time? Why was the one from (I think) the Rebels Reds game last week where the same scenario happened not a penalty?
Last edited:
It’s the collapse that where the penalty is coming from. Both players came from an onside position, through the maul (Pugh less so) ‘tackled’ the ball carrier and took them to ground.
The fact that the only person who can end a maul is the ball carrier who is being obstructed by up to 14 players shows that the law must change.
The fact that the only person who can end a maul is the ball carrier who is being obstructed by up to 14 players shows that the law must change.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Except there are so many of these where the ref says the "collapser" is fine as he was on the ball carrier and awards a scrum to the defending team.
Need a proper referee to clarify what's going on here.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
So I guess the only way either player could do anything was if they stripped the ball from the ball carrier while remaining upright? Ridiculous. Yeah, rule needs revising.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
First few minutes.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Conversely, everyone knows the laws of the maul are a mystery to all and mauls should be scrapped when it doesn't suit their team.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It was off the kick off. Doesn't look good. Probably why he can't ever play Tests again until the red card law is changed.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
either way.
Boof1050
Bill Watson (15)
Has it been upgraded?
He’s been cited. The chocolate wheel of justice rolls on
molman
Peter Johnson (47)
There 'could have been a TMO review in the background, that's what 'should' be occurring, with them flagging possible foul play with the referee if they feel its warranted. So that 'could' have happened, or they just totally missed it. The fact that it's been cited is a fair indication that it was worth more of a look.
It's hard to judge how bad it is without a better camera angle, but it didn't look great, but like some have mentioned, there appears to be a few things being missed (or ignored) across all games which I'm surprised at. It would be interesting to have some insight as to how the referee teams are approaching this SuperRugby season.
It seems completely different between RA and RNZ refs. And then dependent on each team. That’s concerning coming into a RWC because we’re going to be playing with non RA refs and the Kiwis won’t get RNZ refs. There will be a learning period and I believe the team that adjusts the quickest, will be in the front runner for a finals spot.
Sadly that takes away from the rugby itself