End of maul

[Shelflife]

Red V Blue,

Blue take the ball on and a maul is formed, I call maul, maul continues forward and then goes to ground.

I can see the ball and its available but a red player who was in the maul is going to make it awkward for blue to get the ball (given the position he has ended up in).

I foresee blue boots all over him so I whistle and award blue a scrum on the basis that the ball is available but unplayable.

not an ideal situation but felt that to let it continue could have led to boots on bodies and a flashpoint.

Thoughts?

 

[Pegleg]

Unsuccessful end to a maul = Turnover. Red does not have to roll away or release. Good play by Red. He won the turnover. For me you've got it wrong.


The ball can't be both unplayable and available. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Red V Blue,

Blue take the ball on and a maul is formed, I call maul, maul continues forward and then goes to ground.

I can see the ball and its available but a red player who was in the maul is going to make it awkward for blue to get the ball (given the position he has ended up in).

I foresee blue boots all over him so I whistle and award blue a scrum on the basis that the ball is available but unplayable.

not an ideal situation but felt that to let it continue could have led to boots on bodies and a flashpoint.

Thoughts?

Brought in by Blue...not used...scrum Red ball. The ball is not available if it is unplayable. It also must be playable immediately when the maul goes to ground so as to avoid the said boot fest and flashpoint. My rule of thumb would be when the 9 goes down to get the ball he can get hands on and get it out. If not turnover.

 

[Dickie E]

the ball is available but unplayable.

As others have suggested, I can't picture how this can be. Can you explain further?

 

[talbazar]

What about law:
[LAWS]17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

If the ball carrier goes to ground, the ball is on the deck and some players (at least 1 from each team) are on their feet...
Don't we have a ruck?
And as such, Blue shall not interfere with the ball...

Maybe a few more details could help in the OP's situation...

My 2 cents!
Pierre.

 

[FightOrFlight]

If the ball carrier goes to ground, the ball is on the deck and some players (at least 1 from each team) are on their feet...
Don't we have a ruck?
And as such, Blue shall not interfere with the ball...

Maybe a few more details could help in the OP's situation...

My 2 cents!
Pierre.

If Blue go down over the man or ball they do not have to roll away in this case and in 90% of occasions they will always find themselves on the man or ball stopping it coming back so they can earn the turnover.

 

[Dickie E]

If Blue go down over the man or ball they do not have to roll away in this case and in 90% of occasions they will always find themselves on the man or ball stopping it coming back so they can earn the turnover.

I like Talbazar's logic. If ball is on ground after a collapsed maul then a ruck has formed and Blue can't then grab the ball to stop it. If ball is wrapped up prior to going to ground then turnover scrum

 

[The Fat]

I like Talbazar's logic. If ball is on ground after a collapsed maul then a ruck has formed and Blue can't then grab the ball to stop it. If ball is wrapped up prior to going to ground then turnover scrum

This^^^

People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before posting

 

[Pegleg]

Nothing in the OP to suggest the ball was got to ground. so let's ignore the "maul into ruck" issue. It's a collapsed maul with an unavailable ball. No "post tackle" requirements! result = Turnover!

 

[Shelflife]

Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.

 

[crossref]

Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.

I don't see how it can be a scrum blue.

EITHER you are ruling collapsed maul, so means red don't have to roll away, it's a scrum red (blue took it in)
OR you are saying it's a maul that ended successfully and became a ruck, in which case red do have get clear and it's Red on th ground in a ruck, lying on the ball, and it's a PK to Blue

I don't think scrum blue is an option.

 

[Dixie]

Nothing in the OP to suggest the ball was got to ground. so let's ignore the "maul into ruck" issue. It's a collapsed maul with an unavailable ball. No "post tackle" requirements! result = Turnover!

Agreed. the issue here is what is meant by "available". Shelflife in the OP clearly feels that it he can see it through the tangle of body parts, it's available though unobtainable. To me (and apparently others), this is not the case. The wording of the law regarding Availability is:

[LAWS]17.2(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

In this case, play could not continue, and the reason is that the ball (though visible) was not available to be played immediately. Shelflife, you need to recalibrate on your understanding of available. If it's beneath a load of limbs, or if two players are wrestling for it, it's not available - turnover.

 

[talbazar]

This^^^

People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before posting

Just read it.
And it looks like IRB (without defining it clearly) states that there is a possibility for a Maul to become a Ruck...
So my initial logic seems backed-up here...
Again, I do agree that if the ball isn't on the ground, there is no obligation for whoever to make the ball available...
But, if the ball is on the deck and some players (one from each team at least) are still on their feet... Then it becomes a ruck to me...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Pegleg]

Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.

So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

Under no circumstances is it a Blue scrum.

 

[crossref]

So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

Under no circumstances is it a Blue scrum.

that's what I said in post #11

 

[Phil E]

Turnover.

Simples*


























* just said that to annoy Dickie who is allergic to Meercats!

 

[OB..]

People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before posting

It used to be nice and clear: the only way a maul could turn into a ruck was if the ball carrier released the ball to ground.

The Clarification says[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]So if there are no players on their feet we do not have a ruck? Curiouser and curiouser.

Players may well not know if the collapse has created a ruck; the referee must tell them so that they know how to react correctly.

For my money that sort of a mess is best dealt with as a maul turnover.

 

[Browner]

So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

.

Hi Pegleg,
if we agree that Law never really wanted to encourage a situation where mauling players dropped to the floor and had ruckers stood above rucking the ball ' for a protracted period' - hense " available immediately "

Then IYO,
is it the 'right' of the opponent (Red) to deny the BC the chance to make it playable (even when ball is on the ground) , or are opponents forced to release first ( aka same priority 'order' as at a tackle) to give the BC the opportunity to then avail the ball?

Can Red choose to be in the way, or does "available immediately" always follow the time it takes for 16.4(d) movement compliance to happen?

 

[Pegleg]

I'd say that:

1; if blue has got the ball to the ground and thus created a ruck then it is Red's obligation to roll away if at all possible. We have to judge if it was possible and if red is genuine in his attempt to do so.

2; if it is a maul then no. Red stops Blue making the ball available, as he would if the maul stayed on its feet. red then gets the reward of the turnover. So in a maul, for me, red had every right to "kill the ball" legally. Blue needs to protect its ball in a maul.

There are three way a maul can go to ground:

1; the ball carrier can go to ground and make the ball available (if he can).

2; the maul can collapse by accident.

3; the defenders take the maul down.

In the first two instances it is the ball carrying sides problem; "use or lose". In the third, the defenders have the problem due to their illegal activity.

 

[Browner]

I'd say that:

1; if blue has got the ball to the ground and thus created a ruck then it is Red's obligation to roll away if at all possible. We have to judge if it was possible and if red is genuine in his attempt to do so.

2; if it is a maul then no. Red stops Blue making the ball available, as he would if the maul stayed on its feet. red then gets the reward of the turnover. So in a maul, for me, red had every right to "kill the ball" legally. Blue needs to protect its ball in a maul.

There are three way a maul can go to ground:

1; the ball carrier can go to ground and make the ball available (if he can) or score a Try ( deliberately or accidentally)

2; the maul can collapse by accident.

3; the defenders (or attackers ) take the maul down deliberately

In the first two instances it is the ball carrying sides problem; "use or lose". In the third, the defenders have the problem due to their illegal activity.

Then we are back to .... Is a ruck actually ever created by the BC ( in the act of going to ground) , or is it merely an additional MAUL 'ending' permission.

I can see why 'not allowing it to end successfully' remains a desire , I'm only querying whether or not (ruck law) of rolling clear is legitimately obligated/demanded.

If you get my drift. Indeed, clarification point ( d ) of 2\2011 says

. d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

" Not been made available immediately" seems to give no roll away or "interference" timing adjustment/ allowance, and this was clearly part of the question