Crusaders v Chiefs

[Steven Harris]

@hydro11 all the above ..it’s easy to focus on the decisions that are not going your way and forget the ones that are in your own hands ..

[Crazy Horse]

@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?

Nit just a Red problem. Teams in possession have been getting away with collapsing the maul for ages.

[Bones]

@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?

[Bones]

@crazy-horse 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?

Nit just a Red problem. Teams in possession have been getting away with collapsing the maul for ages.

Yeah but you don't usually hear the ref saying that they collapsed it...

[antipodean]

@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

And Quinn Tupaea just does exactly what you shouldn't on Mo'unga, proving my point.

He's been crap. Gave away the penalty that got the Crusaders into the Chief's half straight from the kickoff and changed the momentum of the first half.

[hydro11]

@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?

I guess you are technically correct but it isn't bias because I have never seen in refereed that way.

[Crazy Horse]

Wow. Surely even Chiefs fans can appreciate that.

[gt12]

Nice try!

[taniwharugby]

what a ball

[KiwiMurph]

@taniwharugby the line was better than the ball.

[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.