A Maul Brought To Ground Safely And Ball Carrier Not Releasing The Ball?

[Womble]

The maul only ends successfully if the ball comes out.

Correct, simple and this thread finished then epper:

 

[damo]

Correct, simple and this thread finished then epper:

I mean there might be some more finesse to it, but basically that is the point.

If the maul collapses and you haven't the foggiest where it is then you blow and give it to the team who didn't take it in.

If it collapses and the ball is on the ground and available you play on as if it were a ruck (not going there today)

If it collapses and the ball is in the middle of a few players but it looks like it will come you say "use it halfback" and if he doesn't the maul ends unsuccessfully.


Simple.

 

[crossref]

If it collapses and the ball is in the middle of a few players but it looks like it will come you say "use it halfback" and if he doesn't the maul ends unsuccessfully.


Simple.

when you say 'use it half back' are the players from the opposing team who are on the ground allowed to grab the ball in an attempt to prevent him using it?

 

[damo]

when you say 'use it half back' are the players from the opposing team who are on the ground allowed to grab the ball in an attempt to prevent him using it?

Yes. You don't want to have a prolonged wrestling match so if the ball ain't gonna come because the opposition is holding it then blow it up.

 

[L'irlandais]

b) obviously. Would anyone disagree?

The maul only ends successfully if the ball comes out.

Hmm,
The Lawbook lists more than just one way for a maul to end successfully
[laws]17.5 Successful end to a maul

A maul ends successfully when :

• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
• the ball is on the ground
• the ball is on or over the goal line.

[/laws]

So does an RRF discussion end successfully when all relevant points of Law have been exhausted?

 

[damo]

Hmm,
The Lawbook lists more than just one way for a maul to end successfully
[laws]17.5 Successful end to a maul

A maul ends successfully when :

• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
• the ball is on the ground
• the ball is on or over the goal line.

[/laws]

So does an RRF discussion end successfully when all relevant points of Law have been exhausted?

There's always one smartarse. :hap:

 

[Davet]

when you say 'use it half back' are the players from the opposing team who are on the ground allowed to grab the ball in an attempt to prevent him using it?

No.

Law 14 definitions.

Law 14 relates to player on the ground who has the ball and has not been tackled.
The game is to be played by players on their feet.
A player who makes the ball unplayable.....must be penalised.


You are on the ground - you seize the ball - you make it unplayable - you are penalised.

 

[damo]

No.

Law 14 definitions.

Law 14 relates to player on the ground who has the ball and has not been tackled.
The game is to be played by players on their feet.
A player who makes the ball unplayable.....must be penalised.


You are on the ground - you seize the ball - you make it unplayable - you are penalised.

Its a maul, until it is no longer a maul. Law 14 rules do not apply because we are in a maul. A maul ends successfully or unsuccessfully. In the description described it hasn't ended yet (either way) so its still a maul.

In that clarification, the IRB seem to think it should never happen because if it does the ball has not been made available:

d) When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?”

(d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=17&clarification=83

 

[Browner]

Originally Posted by damo If it collapses and the ball is in the middle of a few players but it looks like it will come you say "use it halfback" and if he doesn't the maul ends unsuccessfully.

when you say 'use it half back' are the players from the opposing team who are on the ground allowed to grab the ball in an attempt to prevent him using it?

I'm not convinced that saying 'use it' is helpful ...... players will expect to have 5 seconds

" A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses" suggests it's an immediate decision to be made ?

 

[damo]

I'm not convinced that saying 'use it' is helpful ...... players will expect to have 5 seconds

" A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses" suggests it's an immediate decision to be made ?

I was getting at the situation where you can see the ball, and it is basically available but it will take a bit of digging around one's players to get it out. Perhaps one shouldn't say "use it" because that phrase is now a legally meaningful one, but I am telling the halfback that if he can't get it out of there pretty damn smart then I will deem it unavailable.

No good?

 

[Browner]

IMO ...... 17.6 doesn't allow for play to continue after a maul collapses. The language seems definate.

otherwise it would have said something like ......
"A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses , & in the case of collapse - if it is not immediately available to be played (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered"

 

[damo]

IMO ...... 17.6 doesn't allow for play to continue after a maul collapses. The language seems definate.

otherwise it would have said something like ......
"A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses , & in the case of collapse - if it is not immediately available to be played (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered"

So if the ball is visible and the halfback has 2 hands on it but he needs a second or two to free it you blow the whistle and hand it over?

Might be OK but seems a little harsh, and you might have trouble selling it to the players and the crowd.

 

[Dickie E]

IMO ...... 17.6 doesn't allow for play to continue after a maul collapses. The language seems definate.

17,6(g) also seems pretty clear:

[LAWS]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.
When the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

"Immediately available" is not the same as "immediately played".

 

[Browner]

17,6(g) also seems pretty clear:

[LAWS]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.
When the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

"Immediately available" is not the same as "immediately played".

yep, fair enough .... but damo was indicating it needed a bit of digging out. If it's out & immediately available then lets play , if it's not then lets scrum.

 

[Phil E]

yep, fair enough .... but damo was indicating it needed a bit of digging out. If it's out & immediately available then lets play , if it's not then lets scrum.

As with a ruck and use it; it is up to the referee to decide if the ball is available or not.

 

[Davet]

Law 14 rules do not apply because we are in a maul.

Really - sez who?!

Law 14 applies when the defintions say it applies, which covers the situation described.

Why would you feel that being in a maul makes a difference? Please provide a Law reference that says so.

 

[Dixie]

Really - sez who?!

Law 14 applies when the defintions say it applies, which covers the situation described.

Why would you feel that being in a maul makes a difference? Please provide a Law reference that says so.

Quite apart from Damo, that would be me - in post #29, which you didn't question at the time:

Law 14 is part of a section dealing with -During the match -- In the Field of Play. This section has the following subsections:

Law 13 - kick-off and restart kicks
Law 14 - ball on the ground - no tackle
Law 15 - tackle
Law 16 - ruck
Law 17 - maul
Law 18 - mark

I think most reasonable people would accept that within the section, each subsection deals with its own scope and they don't overlap. So it would be wholly wrong to apply law 14 within the context of a ruck or maul.

 

[Davet]

it slipped past me.

and maybe I don't qualify as "reasonable" - but the definitionis quite straightforward.

So - law reference for your inference? No? That's sorted, then?

 

[OB..]

I have long argued that there is a missing law which would deal with transitions between phases. At present such bits as exist are scattered across individual laws and are insufficiently coherent. The advent of the jackler has made the problem particularly obvious.

 

[L'irlandais]

it slipped past me.

and maybe I don't qualify as "reasonable" - but the definitionis quite straightforward.

So - law reference for your inference? No? That's sorted, then?

That'll be

6.A.4 The duties of the referee in the playing enclosure
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

A collapsed maul is a dangerous situation, no referee should dally about for long before blowing up.
As long as Phil is acting fairly, using the same measure for both teams, I don't see any problems with that call.

The laws as they stand are porous, that's why Law Amendment Trials happen.