17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet

[DrSTU]

Interesting one for me at the weekend. Very evenly contested game that saw a lot of forward play.

One incident during the game gave rise to a question from one of the players (who is also a ref) that actually made me have to stop and think

Black, going forward. Ball carrier takes the ball into contact and is held up by two white players. (An)other black player joins and we eventually get a maul that moves abut 5m upfield.

The ball carrier (who is still wrapped in by the two original tacklers) then decides to go to ground. The two original white players (still on their feet) are shouting for the player to release. The ball isn't available immediately due to the white players holding onto the man and ball...

As I read the law, the ball carrier is within his rights to go to ground?

Who has the onus upon them to make the ball available, the carrier I assume?

Do the white players on their feet have to release him first though?

Thoughts? (never happened in a game before!)

 

[chbg]

There is no tackle as the ball carrier has not been "brought to ground". A maul is formed when the 2nd Black player joins (assuming that he binds on). The ball carrier in a maul is allowed to go to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, providing the ball becomes available immediately and play continues. 11.2(d) applies to other players not staying on their feet - sanction PK. 11.6(f) applies when the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available - unsuccessful end to maul so scrum to White.

Other players do not have to allow ball carrier to go to ground, or release the ball, but if they hold on they have merely caused an unsuccessful end to the maul.

There is no sanction (under Law 11) for the ball carrier in a maul who holds onto the ball when he/she has gone to ground - a long mis-perception by myself until this season - the ball has just not become immediately available. I really do not think that "the game is played by players on their feet" applies in this circumstance.

 

[The umpire]

My reading of the law suggests that the ball carrier has to release the ball (or place it, pass it or whatever - make it available to be played) as soon as he is off his feet.

 

[The umpire]

There is no sanction (under Law 11) for the ball carrier in a maul who holds onto the ball when he/she has gone to ground - a long mis-perception by myself until this season - the ball has just not become immediately available. I really do not think that "the game is played by players on their feet" applies in this circumstance.

No, but Law 17.2(d) lumps non ball carriers going off their feet together with ball carrier going to ground and ball not being available immediately and provides the sanction of PK.

 

[ddjamo]

you went from general play to maul law. 17.6(g)

 

[Deeps]

you went from general play to maul law. 17.6(g)

Notwithstanding. The principles of the game make it clear that the game is for players on their feet, by going to ground voluntarily which he is allowed to do, the ball carrier must make the ball immediately available.

If the ball carrier fails to complete his action of going to ground because of the support of opposition players in the maul and ends up in a half and half limbo then, as soon as he is off his feet, he is no longer allowed to participate and must release the ball if able to do so. If he is unable to release the ball then the maul must end unsatisfactorily.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is no tackle as the ball carrier has not been "brought to ground". A maul is formed when the 2nd Black player joins (assuming that he binds on). The ball carrier in a maul is allowed to go to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, providing the ball becomes available immediately and play continues. 17.2(d) applies to other players not staying on their feet - sanction PK. 17.6(f) applies when the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available - unsuccessful end to maul so scrum to White.

Other players do not have to allow ball carrier to go to ground, or release the ball, but if they hold on they have merely caused an unsuccessful end to the maul.

There is no sanction (under Law 17) for the ball carrier in a maul who holds onto the ball when he/she has gone to ground - a long mis-perception by myself until this season - the ball has just not become immediately available. I really do not think that "the game is played by players on their feet" applies in this circumstance.

IMO, this post is correct in every respect (except that you have said Law 11 and I am sure you meant Law 17, so I corrected it).

The provisions of Law 15 as regards players being on their feet do not apply to this situation as there has been no tackle, and a maul was formed before a tackle could be made.

Similarly, Law 14 does not apply, even though it is "Ball on the ground, No tackle" because the definitions of that Law are not similar in any respect to this situation.

Some might argue that this section of Law 14 definitions might apply...

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.

The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.

...but I don't believe so, because if they did apply, then the act of going to ground itself would be a PK offence. Since it is clearly allowed in the Maul - Law 17.6 (g) - it would create a conflict in the Laws (surprise, surprise).

 

[Skid986]

So I have a maul formed with opposing players wrestling for the ball and the player who carried the ball into the maul tries to drop to the ground. Other players from both teams are holding the ball and he is unable to take both himself and the ball to ground. As soon as his knee hits the ground he should release the ball by my reckoning. The fact that he leaves the ball behind for other players is his problem. Failure to release the ball while his knee/s are on the ground and the ball is in the air being held by other players should be a penalty. Correct?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So I have a maul formed with opposing players wrestling for the ball and the player who carried the ball into the maul tries to drop to the ground. Other players from both teams are holding the ball and he is unable to take both himself and the ball to ground. As soon as his knee hits the ground he should release the ball by my reckoning. The fact that he leaves the ball behind for other players is his problem. Failure to release the ball while his knee/s are on the ground and the ball is in the air being held by other players should be a penalty. Correct?

Yes, and the players holding onto him have no obligation to let go of him or the ball but this situation represents the end of the Maul, so if the ball is not immediately available...

Law 17.6 (g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

 

[Taff]

... Black, going forward. Ball carrier takes the ball into contact and is held up by two white players. ... we eventually get a maul .... The ball carrier (who is still wrapped in by the two original tacklers) then decides to go to ground. The two original white players (still on their feet) are shouting for the player to release. ... As I read the law, the ball carrier is within his rights to go to ground? Who has the onus upon them to make the ball available, the carrier I assume?

IIRC this was amended in the 2011 version. AIUI only the ball carrier has the right to go to ground -provided he makes the ball available quicker than "greased weasel shit". That phrase isn't in the LoTG in case you go looking for it. In that case, provided the "tacklers" are on their feet, they can keep their hands on the ball ie they don't have to release and go back in for it.

... Do the white players on their feet have to release him first though?

I'm pretty sure they don't, as the ball carrier went to ground voluntarily and that is an important distinction. I'm sure the normal tackle sequence is reversed if the ball carrier goes to ground voluntarily, so the onus is on the ball carrier to release first, which makes perfect sense when you bear in mind "the man on his feet is king".

 

[Dickie E]

but this situation represents the end of the Maul, so if the ball is not immediately available...

Could advantage apply here?

 

[Taff]

Could advantage apply here?

I can't see why not Dickie, as it's not one of the 5/6 instances where advantage is not allowed, but as the "tackled" player is effectively shielding the ball there probably won't be much of an advantage.

 

[Toby Warren]

My main suprise is that you haven't seen this before, it happens in 50% games I ref and I was coached it as a player. We used to call it deflating the maul.

When there is a bun fight and the oppo have got hands on, sharply turn your shoulder to 'rip the ball' whilst using your body weight to go to ground thereby freeing up the ball.

I normally manage depending on the situation who is 'winning' the contest and if I'm not happy peep unplayable at maul scrum (with T/O)

 

[Taff]

.... I normally manage depending on the situation who is 'winning' the contest and if I'm not happy peep unplayable at maul scrum (with T/O)

Do you award a PK as per 17.2(d) or a TO scrum for an unsuccesful end to a maul though?

17.2(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Dickie E]

I can't see why not Dickie, as it's not one of the 5/6 instances where advantage is not allowed, but as the "tackled" player is effectively shielding the ball there probably won't be much of an advantage.

taff, I'm picturing this:

1. Blue ball carrier wrapped up by Red and maul forms
2. Blue ball carrier attempts to go to ground but ball is held up by Red
3. Blue forced to release ball to Red as he is on a knee
4. Red now have good possession in a maul.

Advantage Red?

 

[Taff]

taff, I'm picturing this:

1. Blue ball carrier wrapped up by Red and maul forms
2. Blue ball carrier attempts to go to ground but ball is held up by Red
3. Blue forced to release ball to Red as he is on a knee
4. Red now have good possession in a maul.

Advantage Red?

See your point, but as Blue hasn't offended (he's released the ball) what is the advantage for? I would play on.

 

[Dixie]

taff, I'm picturing this:

1. Blue ball carrier wrapped up by Red and maul forms
2. Blue ball carrier attempts to go to ground but ball is held up by Red
3. Blue forced to release ball to Red as he is on a knee4. Red now have good possession in a maul.

Advantage Red?

The bit in red is the contentious bit, and the crux of the thread. The law is aguably slightly ambiguous, but pretty clear in my view that a scrum ensues rather than a PK. I think it is up to those who argue for the PK to rationalise it. 17.6(g) is to my mind very clear:

(g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

So, we have a ball carrier, and we know who he is. We are wondering what happens when he goes to ground (e.g. by having a knee touch the ground). Is not 17.6(g) absolutely clear? If this happens, the ref orders a scrum. There is an exception to this (and only one): if the ball is immediately available, he plays on. Where's the scope for a PK in that? Those who posted the comments below need to find a law reference that is as clear as 17.6(g), and which clearly overrides it.

My reading of the law suggests that the ball carrier has to release the ball (or place it, pass it or whatever - make it available to be played) as soon as he is off his feet.

No, but Law 17.2(d) lumps non ball carriers going off their feet together with ball carrier going to ground and ball not being available immediately and provides the sanction of PK.

Notwithstanding. The principles of the game make it clear that the game is for players on their feet, by going to ground voluntarily which he is allowed to do, the ball carrier must make the ball immediately available.

If the ball carrier fails to complete his action of going to ground because of the support of opposition players in the maul and ends up in a half and half limbo then, as soon as he is off his feet, he is no longer allowed to participate and must release the ball if able to do so.

As soon as his knee hits the ground he should release the ball by my reckoning. ... Failure to release the ball while his knee/s are on the ground and the ball is in the air being held by other players should be a penalty. Correct?

IIRC this was amended in the 2011 version. AIUI only the ball carrier has the right to go to ground -provided he makes the ball available ... I'm sure the normal tackle sequence is reversed if the ball carrier goes to ground voluntarily, so the onus is on the ball carrier to release first, which makes perfect sense when you bear in mind "the man on his feet is king".

 

[Phil E]

If the ball carrier has one knee on the ground and the ball isn't available immediately I order a turn over scrum.

Get the ball to the back of the maul where the opposition can't get hold of it, or lose it.

If you keep it in the middle and let the opposition get their hands on it you run the very real risk of a turnover.

Maul rule No 1: Use it or lose it.

 

[OB..]

Law 17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet.Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground provided the ball is immediately available and play continues.

This surely means that the ball carrier must make the ball immediately available (who else could it possibly apply to?), and if he doesn't, the sanction is a penalty kick.

Law 17.6 (g) If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.

This looks like a conflict.

My solution is that provided the ball carrier does his bit in making the ball available, no penalty. If the ball becomes unavailable for some other reason, scrum.

Question: if the ball is available on the ground, is another player entitled to pick it up? If it is still technically a maul, then he can handle the ball, but if it is a ruck he cannot. In practice it appears to be treated as a ruck that can still be ended under Law 17 - an odd hybrid.

As for opponents taking the ball from the ball carrier - provided they are on their feet, why not? He is entitled to go to ground with it, but that does not mean they are obliged to let him do so.

 

[chbg]

Quote:
Law 17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet.Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground provided the ball is immediately available and play continues.

This surely means that the ball carrier must make the ball immediately available (who else could it possibly apply to?), and if he doesn't, the sanction is a penalty kick.

Because of the conflict that you explained I interpret 17.2(d) to apply to all the other players in the maul. It is a sibling of 17.2(e) - collapsing the maul - with the same sanction.