But nobody questions it. Every team I know accepts that if there's a maul and ball gets to ground (and all the other conditions for a ruck exist) then we have a ruck. The only thing that can catch us out is if a BC goes to ground but can't get the ball to the ground, then we have a collapsed maul and not a ruck; and the restart is different.
Surely you cant be suggesting that, even if all the criteria for a ruck are met in accordance with the laws, that you should ignore that and call what you believe the average player can understand because he's not bright enough to realise anything different?
Same for me.To me it sounds like a ruck ending unsuccessfully ...
If Black want the throw in, then they have to stop that ball getting to ground and forming a ruck. It came from a maul, so even if they failed to keep the BC from going to ground, there was was no requirement for them to release either the BC or the ball. It then becomes a collapsed maul and they get the turnover.... Red catch and drive from line out 10m out. I call maul. Black eventually get defence sorted and stop forward momentum at 5m line. Before I say anything red realise the momentum has stopped and ball carrier goes to ground and places ball on floor, where I can see it clearly. Red scrum half about to pick it up but bodies from both sides collapse , not deliberately and ball is now unplayable.
To me it sounds like a ruck ending unsuccessfully but I guess that’s why we love the game. We can see what’s written but don’t interpretate it the same way
Same for me.
If Black want the throw in, then they have to stop that ball getting to ground and forming a ruck. It came from a maul, so even if they failed to keep the BC from going to ground, there was was no requirement for them to release either the BC or the ball. It then becomes a collapsed maul and they get the turnover.
No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.Now that sounds really confusing. It's become a ruck but if it collapses you will ref it as a maul again ?
No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.
That view now seems to have been eroded to the point of non-existence.
No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.
Fair enough.
It doesn't happen very often I think, but on those infrequent
occasions when you decide a maul has become a ruck I would advise a loud shout so that everyone realises what has happened and can play accordingly.
For instance would you now allow body rolls and similar techniques to clear out (which are allowed in a ruck but in a maul would be collapsing)?
(I just think a maul becoming a ruck is rife with complications, confusion and potential gotchas)
For me, wait a second or so, if the ball disappears play on, if it doesn't , maul ended unsuccessfully