Defender held up but is driven immediatly out of in-goal !

rugbyslave

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
134
Post Likes
6
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Blue defending , Blue have put-in at 5m scrum, blue win the ball and the scrum half fumbles backwards with the pass into the in goal which is picked up by blue defender who is caught by a white player in the in goal but blue is immediately helped and a sort of maul immediately begins moving(I know a maul cannot form inside the in-goal) and collapses back into the field of play over the goal line. The referee calls ball is not coming out and awards scrum to the team last moving forward. 1) A maul could not have formed as it was in the in-goal 2) so blue cannot be told "use it or lose it" (no Maul).
I cannot find anything in the law book for this situation. help.
 

rugbyslave

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
134
Post Likes
6
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
The blue defender is possibly 1m in in-goal when she is caught but continuously drives to get out of in-goal, the white players do not tackle but go for the ball and then blue comes to help and another white player joins in, this group of players now collapse with the ball outside the in-goal just over the goal-line in the field of play.
 

Rushforth


Referees in Holland
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,300
Post Likes
92
Interesting! I can't find anything specific either.

Since the defending team don't have the chance to "move or use" not "use or lose", the "sort-of-maul" has less options available for those defenders.

My decision would be that the attacking team (by which is meant the team playing in their opponents half, not the ball-carrier nor the side moving forwards) should get a 5m scrum. And since mauls which cross over the try-line are allowed to be collapsed once they are no longer a maul (despite potential safety issues) for a try, perhaps the "sort-of-maul" can similarly not be penalised for collapsing (since there is no maul in the first place).

Anyway, at first look I take a different decision to your referee, but still a scrum, not a penalty.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
Ok My 2p worth:

There's no maul (one can't form in goal) The ball leaves Blue's ingoal (so they {Blue} are moving forward).

The group of players go to ground.

Assuming I do not feel any collapse to be dangerous I would apply:-


Law 20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(a) After an infringement, the team that did not cause the infringement throws in the ball. - There's no infringement so not relevant.
(b) Scrum after ruck. Refer to Law 16.7. - There's no RUCK so not relevant.
(c) Scrum after maul. Refer to Law 17.6. - There's no MAUL so not relevant.
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball. - Blue were moving forward before the stoppage so a Blue Scrum is awarded. (the attacking side issue (White) is not relevant since that only applies if neither side was moving forward before the stoppage.
 
Last edited:

rugbyslave

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
134
Post Likes
6
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I am a bit nervous to cut the clip as the game was of a very weak nature and I am not sure the referee would be so keen, at first I really thought it should have been whites ball but after seeing the ball driven back over the goal line I am not sure anymore. I will request permission to cut clip.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,659
Post Likes
2,221
I like pegleg's answer
[LAWS]
d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Yep, I agree with pegleg too... scrum 5m, blue ball
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,458
Post Likes
1,754
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
The post title says it all.

Held up first.

Attacking Scrum.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
The post title says it all.

Held up first.

Attacking Scrum.

The title may hold the answer but only if blue was held up rather than held as they moved forward.
I would agree with attacking scrum if players were momentarily stationary so that they were effectively "held up".

If the blue defender had started moving forward before held by white and that forward momentum was continuous to the point where they were back into the FoP, I would be leaning towards Pegleg's answer.

It would be one of those "you had to be there" moments I think.

If there was a bit of a wrestle in in-goal before the pack started moving, held up would probably look right.

Now, how do I get down from this fence?
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
It's similar to a question from a week or so ago. The actual description does not suggest "held up" to me but the heading does. So where do we go?

With the actual description rather than the title of the thread for me.

If you feel it is held up blow quickly and deal with it. If play comes back out into the field you have less support to help you sell a "held up in goal" if the play was 5 metres into the FOP.

As i read the OP I stand by my call. However, IF I saw if "in the flesh" I may make a different call.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
It's similar to a question from a week or so ago. The actual description does not suggest "held up" to me but the heading does. So where do we go?

With the actual description rather than the title of the thread for me.

If you feel it is held up blow quickly and deal with it. If play comes back out into the field you have less support to help you sell a "held up in goal" if the play was 5 metres into the FOP.

As i read the OP I stand by my call. However, IF I saw if "in the flesh" I may make a different call.

Hence my post.
The title says held up but I too got a different picture as I read the description of events.
Need to know if there was any stationary pack or whether blue gathered the ball and started to move forward i.e. forward movement not momentarily stopped by white.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
The OP doesn't make it clear ...... Does a teammate/s of the BC 'join/bind onto her' Before or After the BC is shoved back across the Goal line?

If After, then you merely have a 'held hug ' until teammates arrive, & their late joining now signals a properly constructed/formed maul.

But if it was before then everyone agrees a maul can't be formed in goal - it is only formed within the FoP. But, Conceptually can the shoving of a BC (and his/her 'bound on' teammates) "begin"a maul the very instant they shove the 'hug' beyond the goal line back into the FoP, is the beginning merely dependant on the crossing of a line ??

[LAWS]. [FONT=fs_blakeregular] 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. [/FONT] [FONT=fs_blakeregular]All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line.[/FONT] [/LAWS]. All these conditions now exist at the line crossing.

As an aside,

1) Pegleg says that "dangerous collapse" is being considered by him, dangerous collapse of what exactly ???? Yes it certainly appears to be a maul but he's already said it isn't, so what dangerous collapse is he assessing ?

2) In the OP the 'zombiemaul' quickly ends, but what would happen if it didn't?? and it continuously rumbles/driven say 10/12/15/20! Metres upfield , would players be expected to observe 'maul' offside lines as it does? .... I'd say that everyone would expect this to be now considered as a maul, and that viewing is 'crystalised' where exactly ??? 10m,8,5,3,1m from goal line ????????
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
THe ref clearly makes the wrong call.

The Ref indicates "held up".

Well:

1; Blue is in possesion. So IF it's a maul it should be T/O ball.

2; If it is held up in goal (who ever is held up) it is Scrum with Attacking ball.

3; The only way it can be a Blue scrum is if it is a scrum as I describe in my earlier post.


As soon as she gives the "Held up" sign, the call fails.

IF that is the video I'd have blown up for "held up" much earlier. That ball aint coming out. Poor control . Also the blue hooke is probably being driven up in the scrum so the whistle should have come much earlier.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
this is the video of this incident right?


"Clear the tunnel, scrum" , then steps away unable to see the feed go along the middle line, or any hooking offences ..... Not exactly a benchmark or standard practice :confused:

In addition, Red look to have isolated BC and now crossed the goal line before blue teammate gets to bind onto blue BC.
 
Last edited:

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
1) Pegleg says that "dangerous collapse" is being considered by him, dangerous collapse of what exactly ???? Yes it certainly appears to be a maul but he's already said it isn't, so what dangerous collapse is he assessing ?

I said that it is a consideration. As in every incident of a player being taken to ground there is a possibility of it being done dangerously. And "maul type" structure that goes to ground requires considerstion on the part of the referee , however briefly, "was there anything wrong (dangerous) there?"

So I'm assessing the possibility of dangerous play. If you wish to play with words Browner, be my guest.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I said that it is a consideration. As in every incident of a player being taken to ground there is a possibility of it being done dangerously. And "maul type" structure that goes to ground requires considerstion on the part of the referee , however briefly, "was there anything wrong (dangerous) there?"

So I'm assessing the possibility of dangerous play. If you wish to play with words Browner, be my guest.

It goes without saying that you assess dangerous play at every rugby moment Pegleg. It was when you mentioned "collapse" that insinuated you were considering a 'collapse specific state of play'. You now say you weren't, that's fine, and has cleared up the query I raised.
Cheers
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
3,330
Post Likes
536
Current Referee grade:
Level 3
I was stating the collapse of the bodies described by the OP. Fairly straightforward really.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,637
Post Likes
1,702
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
After seeing the video, I still think she got it right.

I see she makes the "Unplayable ball in ruck or tackle" secondary signal, so she didn't think it was a maul..
 
Top