choke tackle near goal line

[irishref]

Does pushing the whatever-it-is back into the FoP turn it into a maul? That seems to be the only option, but who took the ball in? Over to 17.6 (c)[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. [/FONT][/LAWS] That would have to be the defending team.

The law does not really deal with the matter. I think the simple, common sense decision is to award the scrum to the defending side, just as if the action had all taken place in the field of play..

I disagree, respectfully. The law doesn't fully and clearly provide for the immediate aftermath but is clear in saying the maul is over the moment the ball crosses the goal line and goes into the in-goal. So then we simply have to apply the relevant in-goal law.

Grounding yes or no. Yes = try, No = attacking scrum on the 5m line.

And then reading this snippet in 20.10

"When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground
the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a
maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball."

 

[crossref]

The point of the second paragraph was to say that as a ref we should not let it get that far. As per this post:

indeed. and I agree.

...but if the referee does let it get that far .... what then ???


(you are being like that joke when a traveller asks for directions, and the local peasant says 'well you shouldn't start from here')

 

[Browner]

I disagree, respectfully. The law doesn't fully and clearly provide for the immediate aftermath but is clear in saying the maul is over the moment the ball crosses the goal line and goes into the in-goal. So then we simply have to apply the relevant in-goal law.

Grounding yes or no. Yes = try, No = attacking scrum on the 5m line.

And then reading this snippet in 20.10

"When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground
the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a
maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball."

But 20.10 is scrum law ????? ! ???

 

[Browner]

I would not let it get to the original scenario. As soon as I see it start to move back to the FoP I would whistle it and give the scrum to the attacking team.

However, in the OP's scenario, I would go defensive scrum. Realistically, the ball is going to be buried in the maul somewhere. That would make it difficult to sell accidental offside. If can't find the ball, how can I tell who may be in front of it?

The key to solving this problem is not to let it occur in the first place.

Sometimes, things happen fast especially 'above' the goal line, if you gave one decision one way and then gave a second decision the other way a few mins later in a similar set of circumstances ( assumes a repeat scenario) you'd look a right royal plonker.

 

[irishref]

sorry Browner, should have read 22.10

But pedantry aside, you get my drift!

 

[thepercy]

Sometimes, things happen fast especially 'above' the goal line, if you gave one decision one way and then gave a second decision the other way a few mins later in a similar set of circumstances ( assumes a repeat scenario) you'd look a right royal plonker.

I called, held up in-goal as soon as it was pushed out, red scrum. The "maul" was about a meter over the line, and only in-goal for a few seconds. After the match while discussing with one of my ARs and coach, one suggested it might be a turn-over maul, and the other to play-on and see what happens next. As for offside, I blew before that could be an issue, but the BC always had some possession of the ball, so not a part of this play, but could be an additional consideration in a similar scenario.

 

[OB..]

I disagree, respectfully. The law doesn't fully and clearly provide for the immediate aftermath but is clear in saying the maul is over the moment the ball crosses the goal line and goes into the in-goal. So then we simply have to apply the relevant in-goal law.

Grounding yes or no. Yes = try, No = attacking scrum on the 5m line.

You have to wait briefly to see if the ball can be grounded. What if during that time the play moves back across the goal line? Or suppose the "maul" actually formed in in-goal initially?

This is a rare situation that is not properly covered (which is probably just as well, or the law book would be massive). My approach to such situations is to try to be pragmatic and make what players would accept as a sensible outcome. I do not subscribe to the view that you can find THE answer by careful examination of the wording in the laws.

 

[Pegleg]

indeed. and I agree.

...but if the referee does let it get that far .... what then ???


(you are being like that joke when a traveller asks for directions, and the local peasant says 'well you shouldn't start from here')

Read my post completely!

PART ONE:
The maul's gone into in-goal so it's over. It can't come out again because it does not exist (in law). So we have law 20.4 (d).

PART TWO:

Although once the ball goes into in-goal, if the ball does not get grounded pretty sharpish, blow and avoid all the nonsense.

Then reconsider your comments!

 

[thepercy]

Does being held-up require the BC to go to ground?

 

[beckett50]

From what you have described, at no point did the maul (not that we can have one in-goal) go to ground until the ball carrier was pushed over the the try line.

Since there can be no maul in in-goal I believe the only logical call is scrum 5 attacking ball, since the ball is held up.

Going at a tangent, if the ball is taken into touch in goal then 22m drop out.

 

[The Fat]

Does pushing the whatever-it-is back into the FoP turn it into a maul? That seems to be the only option, but who took the ball in? Over to 17.6 (c)[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. [/FONT][/LAWS] That would have to be the defending team.

The law does not really deal with the matter. I think the simple, common sense decision is to award the scrum to the defending side, just as if the action had all taken place in the field of play..

The team moving forward "before the maul stopped" would have to be the attacking team. The maul was over before the defending team pushed everybody back into the field of play.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I disagree, respectfully. The law doesn't fully and clearly provide for the immediate aftermath but is clear in saying the maul is over the moment the ball crosses the goal line and goes into the in-goal. So then we simply have to apply the relevant in-goal law.

Grounding yes or no. Yes = try, No = attacking scrum on the 5m line.

And then reading this snippet in 22.10

"When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground
the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a
maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball."

That about wraps it up for me

 

[talbazar]

Maul ends when in-goal, obviously not getting a grounding so held up. Peep! Attacking scrum 5.
Keeps everything simple.

Agreed, but again, we are in the "what if" situation... After all, you still want to give a fair chance to the attacking team to ground the ball when they get in in-goal, right?

The accidental offside scrum ruling is specific to a non-contested "maul" at a line out. I don't think we should start using it for mauls created in general play.

The rulling is, I agree.
But put it that way: There is a maul, all Red players participating in the maul are "on-side". The maul disapear the moment the ball enters the in-goal. So technically, Red players are already off-side in general play. But we'll keep this out of the equation because it would become too pedantic.
In a second or so, Blue has pushed the bunch of red players back in the FoP.
Red players are offside. But I don't believe they really wanted to be. It seems accidental to me :biggrin:

Does pushing the whatever-it-is back into the FoP turn it into a maul? That seems to be the only option, but who took the ball in? Over to 17.6 (c)[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. [/FONT][/LAWS] That would have to be the defending team.

The law does not really deal with the matter. I think the simple, common sense decision is to award the scrum to the defending side, just as if the action had all taken place in the field of play..

That's very sensible.
I agree with you OB..

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[The Fat]

22.10 is quite specific as to what happens when the ball is in in-goal and cannot be grounded. I don't see why we shouldn't just stick with the applicable law instead of finding ways to reward the defending team for holding the ball carrier up and then pushing him back into the field of play. In any other case where the attacking player gets across the goal line and is unable to ground the ball, sometimes because of unbelievable skills from one or more defenders, the laws still default in favour of the attacking team by way of a 5m scrum.
To change that outcome will be difficult to sell to the attacking team with no law to back your decision.

 

[OB..]

22.10 is quite specific as to what happens when the ball is in in-goal and cannot be grounded.

No, it does not deal with the scenario here where the play moves back into the FoP.

I do not want to see referees blowing immediately the ball crosses the line - it would stop tries and good defence.

Once back in the FoP it fits the requirements for a maul even though it formed elsewhere.

 

[Browner]

sorry Browner, should have read 22.10

But pedantry aside, you get my drift!

Nice spot, I guess this comes down to timing.

"Held up in goal" suggests they remain there, whereas "held up & pushed back" is occurring, I can see all arguments have validity, so it would make a decent SARefs question or a WR clarification.

My hope would be that the game would continue and the hokeycokeymaul would be allowed to be shoved back from whence it came ( with bells now attached) , cos I'm picturing the crowd rise and cheering such great defensive effort.

 

[Dickie E]

No, it does not deal with the scenario here where the play moves back into the FoP.

I do not want to see referees blowing immediately the ball crosses the line - it would stop tries and good defence.

Once back in the FoP it fits the requirements for a maul even though it formed elsewhere.

Agree. While the "maul" remains dynamic and moving I would give it a moment or 2 to find its own course - either try, held up, over dead ball line or (rarely) pushed back into FoP.

 

[didds]

can players collapse a "maul" ingoal? ie its no longer a maul..

I appreciate that use of dangerous play laws would be the sensible approach here.

didds

 

[Taff]

can players collapse a "maul" ingoal? ie its no longer a maul.. I appreciate that use of dangerous play laws would be the sensible approach here.

For what it's worth, I agree.

If you remember, the IRB did introduce an ELV a couple of years ago effectively allowing mauls to be collapsed - but it was scrapped and never made it into the lawbook because it was deemed dangerous.

If collapsing a maul in the FoP is deemed to be dangerous, then surely it is just as "dangerous" once it's crossed the goal line. OK, it may not be a maul once it's crossed the goal line; fine - just call it "Dangerous Play" then.

 

[TheBFG]

but surely any ball carrier once over the try line is going to try and get to ground, do you currently call them for collapsing a maul?