As I have said to Pinky - Ian's video evidence shows that that's not the way that showbiz rugby is refereed - and that's where the issue has arisen. And why the insistence on me risking a PK/YC by playing a player without the ball, when it's quite clear I can't get to the ball-carrier?
I have seen Ian's videos of Matfield handing off before he comes back to earth and agree with his sentiments regarding the illegal formation of the maul in such situations.
I was simply responding to this statement,
"If the ball has already disappeared to the back of a phalanx of players, I'm not going to attempt the tackle, because you are going to say I was engaging in the maul".
All I am saying is that if the ball is already at the back, if you attempt to tackle (presumably by making contact initially at the front players of the group), you cannot be engaging in the maul as it is impossible for one to form. In such situations, I believe it should be a PK against the team with the ball for obstruction. The new laws suggest that the ball carrier's team will be given the opportunity to use it instead.
As for your last sentence, I'm saying PK the group of players, not you for playing a player without the ball. I'm not sure how you thought I was suggesting this.
I think we are basically on the same team with this one.