Crusaders v Chiefs

[Tim]

@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?

[African Monkey]

Well executed but lazy inside defence from the Chiefs fatties.

[gt12]

@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

Well executed but lazy inside defence from the Chiefs fatties.

Even worse, its a replacement.

[taniwharugby]

@kiwimurph line was superb too, but you need both for it to come off, how often do we see a runner take a great line but the ball carrier not able to get it to him

[Bones]

@hydro11 yeah see what I said just above your post, you don't usually hear the ref saying the attacking team has collapsed it.

Is Jordan allowed on the field without scoring a try?

[antipodean]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Only the ball carrier may go to ground. Every other player must stay on their feet.

[Billy Tell]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.

Is that in the laws?

No it’s not. I’ve never ever seen an attacking team penalised for collapsing their own maul but it looks like they could be if I’m reading the maul law correctly.

[KiwiMurph]

Haha why is Ta'avao still on the field?

[gt12]

That absolute lack of set piece is incredibly embarrassing.

[Bones]

@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?

I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.

[gt12]

@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

Haha why is Ta'avao still on the field?

How he became an AB is beyond me.

[Dice]

Ta'avao has been terrible as a scrummager since he came back from injury.

[African Monkey]

@gt12 One of Steve Hansen's masterstrokes during the end of his tenure....

[African Monkey]

@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?

[Anonymous]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?

I reckon there should be, in situations like this one where red took it down to avoid a turnover.

I think the bigger problem is that the maul not going forward isn't called quickly enough.

[sparky]

@african-monkey No.

[Tim]

@anonymous I hate the two-goes at going forward rule too. If you stop going forward why should you get another go?

[Bones]

@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@dice Was he ever a good scrummager?

Thought there was a period there around 2019 where he was coming good.

[Dice]

@african-monkey He was a lot better before the injury.

[Tim]

@african-monkey He had his moments, but not at test level.