Boys will be boys III

[Greg Collins]

U18's A division rugby. Blue = best team in county riding high certs to win league. Red = will prob avoid relegation, just.

10m out from thier own goal line, a red counter attack is stopped when a blue player checks, legally, the red ball carrier.

Blue adjusts his grip and is wrestling for the ball with red whilst driving him back towards the line. Another red player joins them but sort of falls off the maul. The two original protagonists fall over each other and have a wriggle and a jiggle on the ground about 3m short of the Red goal line. I called release but nobody did.

Attacking scrum 5m?

If it was a maul it was only one for about .25 second.
It if wasn't a maul was it really a tackle?
5m attacking scrum seemed most equitable outcome.

Yay nay or another way?

 

[Donal1988]

Attacking scrum 5m sounds fair decision.

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team.

So it is clear that at one point a maul did exist.

A maul ends successfully when :
• the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul

As far as I understand it the ball carrier left the maul. There are less than 3 players and I would be happy for the non ball carrier to tackle the other now. There is a tackle and ball is unplayable with neither tackler rolling away nor ball carrier releaseing (did you just call release or direct it to either of them). Anyway scrum is fair option.

 

[DrSTU]

I'm with you Greg.

 

[OB..]

Yes.

I would only add that it would be a good idea to make sure they both realise they are supposed to release. Neither is entitled to get up with the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

based on description I would probably penalise blue for not releasing red ball-carrier post-tackle.

 

[SimonSmith]

If he's holding the ball/wrestling for the ball, is he necessarily a tackler?

 

[Greg Collins]

Yes.

I would only add that it would be a good idea to make sure they both realise they are supposed to release. Neither is entitled to get up with the ball.

In conformance with my on pitch reference "WWOBD?" we had a little chat before the scrum!

 

[Greg Collins]

If he's holding the ball/wrestling for the ball, is he necessarily a tackler?

I thought not at the time.

 

[Dickie E]

I thought not at the time.

so how did the 2 of them end up on the ground?

 

[Taff]

... I would only add that it would be a good idea to make sure they both realise they are supposed to release.

Ok, but is the onus on the tackler to release first? In an ideal world, I'm sure they should both release simultaneously, but being realistic that just isn't going to happen, so would it make for a smoother game if the tackler was expected to release before the tackled player?

 

[TheBFG]

Niether is going to let go!

Unless there is a legal player on their feet trying to win ball, Quick whistle attacking scrum!

 

[Greg Collins]

Ok, but is the onus on the tackler to release first? In an ideal world, I'm sure they should both release simultaneously, but being realistic that just isn't going to happen, so would it make for a smoother game if the tackler was expected to release before the tackled player?

Certainly that is how we referee the tackle laws but it is an almost universal refereeing convention NOT the LotG. But when you get real close to the goal line I start to get uncomfortable about conventions over laws. But we've argued it before and split into two camps; me and OB and the rest!

How it became the convention I can't say. OB?

 

[Greg Collins]

so how did the 2 of them end up on the ground?

Thought that was plain from the OP. Two players grappling for the ball fell over each other.

I fell over last year (5 odd games ago), took another player to ground with me. I didn't tackle him.:wow:

 

[Greg Collins]

Niether is going to let go!

Unless there is a legal player on their feet trying to win ball, Quick whistle attacking scrum!

how it panned out....

Peep! "Up you get lads, red xx blue x come here please. Guys, no one in that situation is going to let go of the ball. No one. Ever. But Blue you aren't getting a penalty for it. There was no one on their feet competing for the ball. If you appeal again I will penalise you. Understand?" "Sir!" "Good. Right. Scrum 5 attacking ball"

20 seconds later Blue scored in the opposite corner.

 

[scrumpox2]

I think I'm with Taff and Dickie on this (Greg already knows it's him and OB v ROW)

The red ball carrier is stopped and taken to ground by blue, I find it very difficult to imagine how that is not a tackle and after calling "release" would want to see the tackler release first. So PK to red.
If the blue player wants to be rewarded for positive play he should release and regain his feet to challenge for the ball - I don't see why he and his team should be rewarded for holding onto red and ball on the ground.

 

[Greg Collins]

"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground."

What does 'held' mean? Who has to hold what?

Red was wrapped by Blue whilst all were on their feet. Blue released him instantly and tried to rip the ball from Red's grasp. Red did not let go of the ball. Blue then, whilst still grappling for the ball in a classic attempted striping movement, without holding the Red player, starts driving red backwards and over they go.

(Angels on pin heads time 15.3 doesn't tell us what the 'brought' of 'brought to ground' looks like only when it may be judged to have happened)

 

[Greg Collins]

I think I'm with Taff and Dickie on this (Greg already knows it's him and OB v ROW)

only in the case of a tackle in the red zone. See above. I'm arguing there was no tackle...

 

[Greg Collins]

(Greg already knows it's him and OB v ROW)

only in the case of a tackle in the red zone. See above. I'm arguing there was no tackle...:chin:

 

[Dixie]

Yes.

I would only add that it would be a good idea to make sure they both realise they are supposed to release. Neither is entitled to get up with the ball.

based on description I would probably penalise blue for not releasing red ball-carrier post-tackle.

Niether is going to let go!

Unless there is a legal player on their feet trying to win ball, Quick whistle attacking scrum!

This is an interesting area of law that frequently seems to get misapplied (unless I have myself disappeared up my own fundament, which is entirely possible). I respectfully suggest that the comments above may be inaccurate, with the inaccuracy ascribed to a common - perhaps almost universal - application of assumption rather than due process.

Greg, you are at pains to describe a situation in whicha maul is formed - Donal got that out of the way early, but then failed to build on it correctly, being diverted down the assumption route. You yourself note that the maul was short-lived, but this is also incorrect. It formed; a non-ballcarrier left it (the error that led Donal astray - he thought it was the ball carrier), AND SO THE MAUL PERSISTS, even though there are only two parties wrestling for it.

The maul then fell over without fault. At this point, you instructed (and other highly respected members have agreed with you) Hands Off. I put it to you that at this point, the maul persists, so there is no cause to take hands away. Against this, of course, is the general presumption that on the ground = out of the game. To avoid this dichotomy, I personally prefer the quick whistle, ball not immediately available per Law 17.6(g). Unsuccessful end to the maul, use it or lose it, attacking 5m scrum. This approach is consistent with the law's instructions to refs when the ball carrier is trying to go to ground but only successds in getting his knee or arse on the floor.

There was no tackle (it was a maul), and any deliberate bringing of the ball carrier to ground would have been a PK for collapsing the maul.

Shoot me down, gentlemen.

 

[OB..]

The maul then fell over without fault. At this point, you instructed (and other highly respected members have agreed with you) Hands Off. I put it to you that at this point, the maul persists, so there is no cause to take hands away.

I disagree. The players are on the ground and should release. If a maul collapses, players are not allowed to continue wrestling for the ball. See the other thread on this point.

Quick whistle. Attacking scrum. Be pragmatic as BFG says.