Can a maul become a ruck?

[JJ10]

See Law 17.6 (g) which deals with your specific scenario

Or, in other words .... a collapsed maul that becomes unplayable = turnover.

Agree... but is the ruck that results (in this case - I know its fairly rare) a totally seperate event?

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

So do ruck laws now take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws? If so, then 16.7 (a) is what I went with. I'm happy enough with either - just wondering which takes precedence. I note that there is disagreement on these boards! :deadhorse:

 

[Taff]

Agree... but is the ruck that results (in this case - I know its fairly rare) a totally seperate event? So do ruck laws now take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws?

Sorry, but ask yourself if you're now looking at a ruck ... why wouldn't ruck laws take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws?

There's nothing special about a maul that gives it preferential treatment over a ruck. Hell, a lot of ruck and maul laws are near identically worded.

... If so, then 16.7 (a) [ie Ruck law] is what I went with. I'm happy enough with either - just wondering which takes precedence.

I agree with you - I would have applied Ruck law as well.

... I note that there is disagreement on these boards!

What did your assessor say? I know Referees can't even agree amongst ourselves (and given that most of the assessors I know are former Refs, I assume not all assessors will agree either) in which case I reckon you need to be consistent, and as long as you can explain how you arrived at your decision (correctly in my opinion) and stick to it throughout a game, that's the best you can hope for.

 

[JJ10]

The assessor and had a chat and I was invited to check the lawbook...

We agreed all other ball unplayable after a maul decisions were correct. For me, this one occassion, and it is pretty rare, the requirements for a ruck were clearly met. Therefore, I applied law 16 after it became unplayable, bearing in mind that it had been clearly playable by the attacking team initially and then met the definition of a ruck. Attacking were the last moving forward - scrum, attacking ball. However, if you interpret that the maul cannot become a ruck, then the above is worthless.

I went away, checked the laws and arrived here. And as OB says, it really is:

as clear as mud.

 

[L'irlandais]

Law clarification concerning Jackler's rights.

 

[ChrisR]

This thread started as "Can a maul become a ruck?". It then took on the life of "Can a ruck become a maul?" until JJ10 did a course correction back to "maul to ruck".

L'irlandais, I think your reference applies to the hi-jacked section "ruck to maul". Yes? No?

Re. JJ10 post: If, in the scenario that you described, the ball was on the ground and playable with players bound over it then you had a ruck. If the ball then became unplayable without foul play then you were correct in awarding a scrum to the side going forward.