North vs South
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean yes it does. That what the law defines a maul
That's how it becomes a maul.
A maul ends and play continues when:
- The ball or ball-carrier leaves the maul.
- The ball is on the ground.
- The ball is on or over the goal line.
-
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
So you answered your own question. The ball carrier left the maul. Hence those in front of him was offside
He was still bound to other players from the maul, so the maul continues.
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
So you answered your own question. The ball carrier left the maul. Hence those in front of him was offside
The ball carrier and those bound to him ...therefore still a maul
-
@antipodean clearly other players have to include opposition. The definition of a maul can't change midway through a maul
-
@antipodean said in North vs South:
@Rebound said in North vs South:
So you answered your own question. The ball carrier left the maul. Hence those in front of him was offside
He was still bound to other players from the maul, so the maul continues.
Correct. Taylor did not peel off on his own, they changed their point of impact.
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean clearly other players have to include opposition. The definition of a maul can't change midway through a maul
I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you.
When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball intentionally leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul continues.
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean clearly other players have to include opposition. The definition of a maul can't change midway through a maul
Opposition is only needed to start one, there would be countless examples where one has driven straight through the middle of the opposition...they don’t just stop
-
@antipodean said in North vs South:
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean clearly other players have to include opposition. The definition of a maul can't change midway through a maul
I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you.
When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball intentionally leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul continues.
That is exactly how I saw it.
-
@antipodean the only players intentionally leaving the maul in this case was the team in possession
-
I read Akira saying he'd been in a dark place the last couple of years.. sure as hell wasnt a ruck or maul
Lineout throwing is SHIT
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean the only players intentionally leaving the maul in this case was the team in possession
So by your understanding, if a defending team is getting bulldozed...they should all just step off, no opposition then then the team in possession has to stop?
-
@Rebound said in North vs South:
@antipodean the only players intentionally leaving the maul in this case was the team in possession
You simply don't understand the law, which is a polite way of saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
