During a recent match the Blue team took the ball into a maul, which gradually swung around so that most players involved were now facing their opponents' side of the field. Blue was still moving the maul towards the Red team's goal line.
Blue's captain (also a referee) urged me to award a penalty for offsides against Red, implying that the defenders were required to break off and rejoin from their side of the field. I declined on the basis that none of the Red team's players had become unbound during the incident.
Later, in the quiet of my boudoir, I revisited Law 17 for clarification, but could not find any that directly applies to a wheeled maul. The law only refers to offside lines (17.4a) for players joining (17.4.b-d) or leaving the maul (17.4.e-g), but not to those that remain in a maul that has swung around.
Similarly, Law 16.5 does not say what should happen if a ruck should be wheeled. This may be harder to imagine happening, as players tend to break off from rucks and rejoin from their side of the field for obvious pragmatic reasons. Neither Laws 17 or 16 appear to require that this must happen, do they?
Should one apply Law 20.11 (scrum wheeled beyond 90°) to a maul or ruck that is wheeled?
Does the ball become the offside line, as can happen in a lineout (Law 19.4.c & 19.4.g), so that Red is forced to retire to their side of the ball?
Or is there another a law or interpretation that better covers these situations?
I guess that one could argue that the maul ended "unsuccessfully" as the ball had become unplayable (Law 17.6.b), and so Law 17.c applies. Despite moving forward, Blue could not easily get the ball back to their players. And so a scrum should have had to be awarded to Red as the team not in possession before the maul started.
Apologies in advance if I have missed a blaringly obvious solution!
TL,DR - when a maul (or ruck) is wheeled, should a referee apply Law 17.c in favour of the team not in possession, as the ball has become "unplayable"?
Blue's captain (also a referee) urged me to award a penalty for offsides against Red, implying that the defenders were required to break off and rejoin from their side of the field. I declined on the basis that none of the Red team's players had become unbound during the incident.
Later, in the quiet of my boudoir, I revisited Law 17 for clarification, but could not find any that directly applies to a wheeled maul. The law only refers to offside lines (17.4a) for players joining (17.4.b-d) or leaving the maul (17.4.e-g), but not to those that remain in a maul that has swung around.
Similarly, Law 16.5 does not say what should happen if a ruck should be wheeled. This may be harder to imagine happening, as players tend to break off from rucks and rejoin from their side of the field for obvious pragmatic reasons. Neither Laws 17 or 16 appear to require that this must happen, do they?
Should one apply Law 20.11 (scrum wheeled beyond 90°) to a maul or ruck that is wheeled?
Does the ball become the offside line, as can happen in a lineout (Law 19.4.c & 19.4.g), so that Red is forced to retire to their side of the ball?
Or is there another a law or interpretation that better covers these situations?
I guess that one could argue that the maul ended "unsuccessfully" as the ball had become unplayable (Law 17.6.b), and so Law 17.c applies. Despite moving forward, Blue could not easily get the ball back to their players. And so a scrum should have had to be awarded to Red as the team not in possession before the maul started.
Apologies in advance if I have missed a blaringly obvious solution!
TL,DR - when a maul (or ruck) is wheeled, should a referee apply Law 17.c in favour of the team not in possession, as the ball has become "unplayable"?
