Same maul, different maul rule

Ok now we hear ref saying same maul or different maul as a justification for calling an obstruction or not.

In this example no obstruction is called:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IACpesMS3vc

But here, penalty for obstruction is called:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkIDvq06EZ8

This is extremely frustrating when you are on the wrong end of a decision like that, i don't see much difference between the 2 example above.

Am i missing something?

I think that by the letter of the law, the Edinburgh one should have been penalised. But I think the strategy of not engaging with the maul leading to a penalty against the attacking side is BS and against the spirit of the game- and the letter of the law, if applied with too much rigour, is not a good thing.

What I would say is that in the situation where the Edinburgh pack goes for the maul and no-one engages, they should be allowed to go forward for a few seconds before the referee calls use it the same way he would with a stationary maul. Or at least warned about the impending penalty. Maybe 'Opposition not engaged, use it'. And if they don't use it it's a penalty. But the player at the back of the maul will find it difficult to know that the opposition are not engaged, he will almost never realise that right away. He needs warned that he has to immediately disengage and play the ball before the whistle goes for me.

I don't like the facet of the law that is exploited by the defending team to avoid engaging with the maul as it is a disadvantage to the attacking team over the defending team and, in my view, rewards cynical play.

As for the Glasgow one, I think it would be extremely harsh refereeing to disallow that try. While the referee I feel is wrong in saying it was the same maul, and therefore technically it should be a penalty, I think the reason the maul splintered off there was because Treviso 7 and 5 are in at the side and they could have been penalised there for that too. That one is a mess really.

I watch a lot of rugby and i never know what i will get from a lineout drive, sometimes the ref calls for obstruction, player in front of the jumper, collapsing the maul when the maul falls on his own... This facet of the game is a mess and even more so than the scrum as far as i am concerned.

At first i thought it looked smart to not engage to a maul and tackle the player with the ball but it got tiresome pretty quick and i agree with you it does feel against the spirit of the game and it shows the defending team feels weak about it. It doesn't send a positive message. Scarlets did that a lot last season now it seems Glasgow are doing it at least 2-3 times a game.

Notch wrote:I don't like the facet of the law that is exploited by the defending team to avoid engaging with the maul as it is a disadvantage to the attacking team over the defending team and, in my view, rewards cynical play.

Disagree, not that hard to make sure the ballcarrier makes contact first if you really want to. Letting teams set up a wedge feels more against the spirit of the game to me.

First one I have no problem with - the maul formed and then splintered with the ball carrier and supporter rolling off the side. No loss of bind between them and the change of direction was not unreasonable for a maul (never stopped going forwards)

Second one is much more marginal - . Clearly Edinburgh couldn't just go straight forwards as there were bodies on the floor, but the deliberate sideways steps were a bit obvious. Probably to the strict letter of the Law it was an offence, but wasn't it also an offence by the defending team to try and pull down (rather than tackle the ball carrier specifically)?

I thought the call for the Edinburgh game was very harsh, this happening at the 77th minute didn't help either. They indeed had no other choice than to run over them so to call for the changing of lane was a bit unfair imo.
I guess the ref didn't call 'maul' yet so the defending team was in their right to pull it down.

dummy_half wrote:First one I have no problem with - the maul formed and then splintered with the ball carrier and supporter rolling off the side. No loss of bind between them and the change of direction was not unreasonable for a maul (never stopped going forwards)

Second one is much more marginal - . Clearly Edinburgh couldn't just go straight forwards as there were bodies on the floor, but the deliberate sideways steps were a bit obvious. Probably to the strict letter of the Law it was an offence, but wasn't it also an offence by the defending team to try and pull down (rather than tackle the ball carrier specifically)?

Agree with you there. I also think on the second one that the defender on the far side might have kept contact with the maul during the transition which would have kept continuity. Unfortunately it was the opposite side to the ref and he might not have seen it.

You are correct though, maul was formed, defenders collapsed the front and that should have been a clear cut advantage which the ref could have whistled back to.