Laws of the game question

Re: Laws of the game question

Davers 13 Nov 2019 07:57 am said..

As long as the maul is moving towards a goal line there is no requirement to move the ball to the rear most player.

Law 18.2

The ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if:

a. The ball reaches the plane of touch but is caught, knocked or kicked by a player who is in the playing area.

b. A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and catches the ball, and then lands in the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.

c. A player jumps from the playing area and knocks (or catches and releases) the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.

d. A player, who is in touch, kicks or knocks the ball, but does not hold it, provided it has not reached the plane of touch.
Posts: 137
Davers
Senior squad member

Re: Laws of the game question

GlawsyD 13 Nov 2019 07:57 am said..

SteveM, the ball is normally moved to the rear of the maul to keep it away from opposition players. Hence why 'swimming' up the side or joining from the side are illegal. It also makes breaking from the maul easier.
'He sent his men all over England' - William I Gloucester 1086
Posts: 3041  Location: Moonraker Capital
GlawsyD
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

lucifer 13 Nov 2019 09:18 am said..

Regarding the Saracens backs joining the maul, they did it a couple of times to great effect, yet our backs didn't reciprocate. Any good reason why?
Posts: 1198
lucifer
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

Gloucester Mute 13 Nov 2019 10:45 am said..

Unawareness, laziness or not having been coached to do so.
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Posts: 1699  Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County
Gloucester Mute
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

lucifer 13 Nov 2019 11:01 am said..

If the latter, why would you do that? JA is obviously no fool and the only explanation I can think of is it would leave gaps in the defensive line - but then again the opposition have fewer back in line anyway so they're defending nothing.
Posts: 1198
lucifer
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

Gloucester Mute 13 Nov 2019 20:08 pm said..

It is amazing how few teams encourage their backs to join a driving maul.

Yes - it's high risk if a turnover occurs BUT it doesn't half give some weight advantage !!
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Posts: 1699  Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County
Gloucester Mute
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

Mark from Stroud 13 Nov 2019 20:51 pm said..

Gloucester Mute wrote:It is amazing how few teams encourage their backs to join a driving maul.

Yes - it's high risk if a turnover occurs BUT it doesn't half give some weight advantage !!


Mr Fanolua, take a bow!
Posts: 1043
Mark from Stroud
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

Castle Grim Reaper 14 Nov 2019 10:18 am said..

Gloucester Mute wrote:It is amazing how few teams encourage their backs to join a driving maul.

Looking at the usual circumstances for this, maybe a lot of them know the laws and don't because you are not allowed to until the line-out is over :oops:
Posts: 2858  Location: Hell
User avatar
Castle Grim Reaper
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

Gloucester Mute 14 Nov 2019 10:45 am said..

Yes CGR but lineouts do end (and can then be joined) and driving mauls can occur from other plays than line-outs.

I just think GRFC sometimes miss a trick...….
Nothing wrong with free speech or having an opinion - as long as it matches mine !!
Posts: 1699  Location: Dursley - At the heart of the County
Gloucester Mute
Hall of Famer

Re: Laws of the game question

theoptimist 15 Nov 2019 09:26 am said..

Thought I’d post this Q on this thread rather than start a new one...
A question about the build up to Sarries first try on Sat. The phase before Tomkins crossed the line the ball came out to Manu Vunipola. He shaped to kick the ball but then dummied and carried the ball to the line. At this point he ran into Earl whilst the Gloucester player (Kriel I think) tried to effect the tackle. Earl pulled Vunipola forwards giving him significant impetus and also preventing a contest for the ball.

Earl was always in front of Vunipola so how was this not obstruction or offside?

Think Sarries had advantage anyway so perhaps not significant ...
Posts: 611
theoptimist
Hero in the making
PreviousNext

Return to Gloucester Rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Chris in Spain, Davers, Google [Bot], Lebowski, Neilio44, Pauntley Boy, PeterD, RTS2, shawnsheep, vitesse and 31 guests