Collapsed Maul - RFU U19 Variations

[kaypeegee]

Re-reading the RFU Age Grade Regulations prior to an U13 game tomorrow (!)

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/~/media/Files/2010/TheGame/Regulations/RFU Regulation 15 Appendix 2.ashx

APPENDIX 2 U19 VARIATIONS (RFU Experimental Law Variations and clarification of IRB U19 Laws of the Game).

Section 4 concerns: "Law 14 Ball on the ground: no tackle, and Law 15 Tackle: Ball carrier brought to the ground"

Para 4.2 states: "Should the correctly formed ruck or maul then collapse, the referee must immediately act to prevent a pile-up from developing."

Is there a definition of a "pile-up"? [Having been at the bottom of a few I believe I know what one probably looks like.]

Does "act" mean whistle and stop play?

So does 4.2 mean:

Maul accidently collapses and ball is _not_ immediately available: Whistle; Scrum, ball put-in to team who did not take ball into maul? [i.e. conventional ruling]

Maul accidently collapses and ball _is_ immediately available but "pile-up" potentially developing (e.g. no scrum half etc.): Whistle; Scrum, ball put-in to team in possession (i.e. the team that has made the ball available, most likely the team that took the ball into the maul) on the basis of safety?

If 4.2 doesn't mean this can someone tell me what is does mean and what a practical interpretation might mean.

 

[crossref]

I agree with you.
Your second example you have blown for safety . Blowing earlier than you would in an adult game per regulations. So side in possession gets the scrum

By the way, I think you have got hold of the 2010 regulations . Does your copy have page footer say effeffictive from 1 Aug 2011 ? It should. Mine does .

 

[kaypeegee]

CR - thanks.

Used the version on the RFU web site (link in OP). Footer states "Effective 1st August 2011".

Not being privy to any secret emails it is the only version to which I have access. :shrug:

 

[kaypeegee]

Has anyone every applied 4.2?

 

[Dixie]

Interesting viewpoint from Kaypeegee. I have never focused that deeply on it, and have always assumed that it means that when a legal ruck or maul legally goes down we blow immediately. I've always then used the normal "use it or lose it" approach, but I think that the option of a safety call, with put-in to side going forward, is very justifiable under the law - at least as much as, and perhaps more so than, "use it or lose it".

On balance, though, I don't think it is helpful to take that view. Junior rugby is slightly moderated to make it safer, but should be essentially the same game. Deviating from "use it or lose it" means that an important conceptual side of the game is lost. The law makers have determined that the interests of the game require Mauling to be a hazardous activity from a strategic point of view. You lose that if you apply the safety laws, and players develop without a feeling for a fundamental aspect of "real" rugby.

For that reason, I'd stick with "use it or lose it" even if it less justifiable in the law.

 

[crossref]

I agree with this - but I think 4.2 just allows for the unusual scenario of someone going to ground, ball immediately appears at the back of the maul, but as this happens there is a yelp of pain, and bearing in mind all the strictues of junior rugby you blow your whistle just to be on the safe side of caution...

You may then decide that the maul was actually won before your blew, and the team with it can keep possession. But it wouldn't be normal/usual.

 

[scrumpox2]

Is kaypeegee looking to apply laws 14 and 15 when clearly law 17 should apply?

A collapsed maul is potentially dangerous enough, to me preventing a pile up means blow immediately (act) to prevent any further players joining the melee.

As I understand it, if a maul is collapsed deliberately it's a penalty, if it's accidental it's covered by unsuccessful end to a maul (17.6) and there should be a scrum awarded - I'm not following where "if the ball is playable" comes into it, crucially 17.6.b contains the word OR.

A second aspect of this, and worth blowing early in Junior rugby to prevent maul collapsing, is if the ball carrier is held but goes to ground (one or two knees on the floor.) We all see this regularly but I can't remember hearing a whistle at that point. It's covered by unsuccessful end to a maul isn't it? (17.6.g)

 

[kaypeegee]

Is kaypeegee looking to apply laws 14 and 15 when clearly law 17 should apply?

No. I was simply quoting the RFU appendix nomenclature. Para 4.2 regarding the maul collapsing is in the section of Appendix 2 titled Law 14 and Law 15. See link in OP.

Law 17 is clear. My question was for U13-U19. Does Appendix 2 para 4.2 change who gets the scrum if a maul accidently collapses and ball _is_ immediately available but "pile-up" potentially developing (e.g. ball on ground but no scrum half) etc.

 

[scrumpox2]

The practical interpretation of 4.2 is blow the whistle and stop play, it's a safety call.
If the maul has collapsed then law 17 applies for who gets the put in. I don't see why 4.2 is grounds to change this to the team in possession, as they failed to end the maul successfully.