End of maul

[FightOrFlight]

Given the fact that Les Kiss engineered the so called "choke tackle" as part of Ireland's defensive tactics in RWC2011 you see failed mauls and turnovers in probably every game here that you referee at most levels. As such the IRFU have dealt with a lot of questions about it from Grassroots and Panel referees.

The way I have been told to handle it is..."Call Maul" to notify the players it is now a maul.....try and ascertain where the ball is(ie: if the oppo have it wrapped up it gives you a fair idea it may not be coming out again).....notify the 9 with relation to stop/restart of movement or "use it".....if it goes down and you can see the ball is not coming out blow it up as a turnover....but if you see the ball available and the 9 can get it out easy play on.

The issue here around a ruck forming after the maul is a fairly simple one. 2 scenarios:

1) Ball goes down as the maul does and is placed to ground by the the carrier. If the ball is available it is a ruck....the oppo may now drive through the middle as in any ruck to win possession but as the ruck is formed normal rules on hands apply. The team on possession may also ruck to retain etc.

2) Ball goes down with the maul and a defender goes down on the ball/carrier or with the ball wrapped up....he is under no obligation to move now so the ball is unavailable and the ruck cannot form...peep...turnover scrum.

 

[Dixie]

2) Ball goes down with the maul and a defender goes down on the ball/carrier or with the ball wrapped up....he is under no obligation to move now so the ball is unavailable and the ruck cannot form...peep...turnover scrum.

I don't have a problem with the outcome, but you've invented a new criterion for a ruck that the iRB has not set out ... to whit, there must be added to the two opposing players in contact over the ball on the ground the possibility that the ball might easily emerge. Not a bad idea, but sadly it lacks any authority at all ...

 

[Pegleg]

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


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

Whist there is still a maul then you can wrap around the ball to prevent it being released. When the ball hits the deck you can't if you are not already there and you must do nothing to prevent the ball coming out. It's all about that word immediately. I'd be looking to blow pretty much as soon as the player touches the ground unless it is clear the ball is available.

So if that makes sense:
If the defender is positioned, as the ball hits the ground, so as to prevent immediate release then it's no ruck but an unsuccessful end to a maul.

However, If the ball is available as it hits the ground the defender can do nothing to change that ( other than by actual rucking). So he must keep out of the way / move away.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I don't have a problem with the outcome, but you've invented a new criterion for a ruck that the iRB has not set out ... to whit, there must be added to the two opposing players in contact over the ball on the ground the possibility that the ball might easily emerge. Not a bad idea, but sadly it lacks any authority at all ...

I would say it is more of an idea than a law. A ruck would be a competition with at least 1 from each team over the ball contesting etc...however if in this case red goes down on the ball and is not obliged to roll away so it is not a competition as blue cannot legally contest to free the ball...the "play is dead" so to speak.

As far as rolling away applies in law the red guy on the ball is not a tackler so is not obliged to roll in that respect and he also did not end up off his feet in the course of rucking so is not obliged to roll away in that respect either.

 

[Blue Smartie]

Its just as well we love this game because these laws are a real pain. So to add some clarity / confusion / plain 'ballocks' (take your pick) here is a different line of thought which contradicts some of the posts above.

Situation 1: Maul collapses without foul play) - ball off the ground
No player is obliged to do anything positive (release/roll away). Scrum ordered, turnover ball. (Pretty uncontroversial so far?)

Situation 2: Ball carrier goes to ground - ball off the ground.
As per the law clarification if the ball carrier has not made it available by his actions (generally he's holding on to it while sitting on the floor while the maul carries him along) then PK 17.2(d). If the ball is unavailable because there is a big heap of bodies which prevents it being available with no fault of the ball carrier. Scrum turnover 17.6(g).

Situation 3: Ball goes to ground and is immediately available.
Hurrah, successful end to the maul and play on.

Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.

Situation 5: maul - ball on the ground - players bound over it
Ruck laws now apply (get your hands off) and 16.4(d) players on the ground must try to move away from the ball.

For what it is worth, if we were not asked to stop play immediately I would suggest that you could take some guidance from the definitions to law 14 (ball on the ground - no tackle). "The game is to be played by players who are on their feet ... A player [on the ground] who makes the ball unplayable is negating the purpose and the Spirit of the Game and must be penalised"

So, back to the OP, Shelflife is right to do what he did as Blue were going forward and got the ball to deck and all of you who insisted on a turnover are wrong (where are those ducking emoticons?).

 

[Browner]

Clarification 2\2011 asked ... (My bold )
d) When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?”

It was answered ( again my bold)
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.

So,
that's clear, interference on the ground can't happen because the maul will either already be deemed ended 'unsuccessfully'or it will have ended successfully

 

[FightOrFlight]

Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.



So, back to the OP, Shelflife is right to do what he did as Blue were going forward and got the ball to deck and all of you who insisted on a turnover are wrong (where are those ducking emoticons?).

The clarification states that this situation you outline cannot occur as criteria for Law 17 have been met and so it is a turnover scrum.

The law is saying that the maul is either successful or unsuccessful. Success means the ball can be played immediately(5 secs..ish). If this is not the case it's a turnover.....so those of use who insisted turnover were right...:hap:

The ball being available but unplayable is not possible in law

 

[Browner]

Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.

Situation 5: maul - ball on the ground - players bound over it
Ruck laws now apply (get your hands off) and 16.4(d) players on the ground must try to move away from the ball.

I'm seeing 4&5 slightly differently smartie

Situation 4. In the absence of a contradictory clarification, normal turnover ( by virtue of taken into maul , but not exited it succesfully) turnover of possession via scrum feed law must always apply.

Situation 5 .... Is a strange one.
The Maul supposedly hasnt 'ended' succesfully or unsuccesfully.
But we now have the combined state of Bodies on the floor and rucker's on their feet
A) bodies on the floor ( if they remain in the way) they dont have move ( see clarification 2\2011 (d) )
B) but they have to comply with ruck law ( which means they should move away) so this directly contradicts with ( a)

On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, im more minded to think that a ruck cant really ever exist within a maul ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet ) ....... To do otherwise the said maul must already have ended 'unsuccesfully'

?

 

[Pegleg]

On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, im more minded to think that a ruck cant really ever exist within a maul ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet ) ....... To do otherwise the said maul must already have ended 'unsuccesfully'

Or due to the small window of opportunity:

"On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, I'm more minded to think that a maul is highly unlikely, in reality, to convert into a ruck ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet) and that most occasions, even if the ball gets to the ground, the maul is ending unsuccessfully."

 

[Shelflife]

Ok, its good to get some views that dont agree with with i did.

Let me try and explain my tought process, Blue maul goes to ground legally, bodies everywhere all on the ground so no ruck,i can clearly see the ball on the blue side on the ground, as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I know have is that a red player is going to make it akward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player, he could lean over him but ive rarely seen a SH to do the sensible thing.

Red player is not actively interfering but is in the way by virtue of the way he has fallen in the maul. IMO he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in, so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

 

[Browner]

. as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I now have is that a red player is going to make it awkward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player,

And this is exactly why that maul ISNT available it has become unplayable. Red is entitled to be there ( clarification 2/2011)

. he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in

Exactly why ' unsuccessful ended maul' has to be whistled - quick

Remember,
if red deliberately collapsed the maul ....call it,
If ball is immediately available .....use it
If it needs excavating, or players to move then its unplayable. Simples.

The longer you wait to see what 'develops' the more ' foul play' will develop.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Ok, its good to get some views that dont agree with with i did.

Let me try and explain my tought process, Blue maul goes to ground legally, bodies everywhere all on the ground so no ruck,i can clearly see the ball on the blue side on the ground, as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I know have is that a red player is going to make it akward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player, he could lean over him but ive rarely seen a SH to do the sensible thing.

Red player is not actively interfering but is in the way by virtue of the way he has fallen in the maul. IMO he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in, so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

The law on unsuccessful end to a maul is there to help you in this situation. I can see where you are coming from however. If I called ball available to the 9 I would do so because the ball is readily there for him to play. If he only had to reach over a red player to do so then I would still deem it playable as long as he could pick it up easily. In this case with the ball available if I saw him use the boot on a player who clearly now in my estimation is not affecting the "playability" of the ball I would be looking at a possible RC for the 9 for stamping.

 

[Pegleg]

so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

NOthing wrong with managing it. Just the wrong outcome as I see the law. The ball was not coming out of the maul without "direct action" so it is an unsuccessful end and therefore a turnover.

 

[Browner]

We know how you Irish are still keen on using boots to agressively excavate genuinely unplayable Maul endings.... Cian Healey told me!

 

[Blue Smartie]

The clarification states that this situation you outline cannot occur as criteria for Law 17 have been met and so it is a turnover scrum.

I'm not looking to pick a fight here but the law clarification doesn't say anything of the sort. What is says is apply law 17 to a collapsed maul to determine whether it was not immediately available through misdeed or misfortune so that you don't have to worry about other players on the ground. What I was trying to suggest was that if the ball is on the ground there is no longer any maul; some other part of the laws applies...

The law is saying that the maul is either successful or unsuccessful. Success means the ball can be played immediately(5 secs..ish).

This is not entirely accurate. The law says that if the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available then it is an unsuccessful end to the maul. If the ball goes to ground it is a successful end to the maul. Immediately available does not apply to the latter statement.

The ball being available but unplayable is not possible in law

I never said that this was the case. I said that the ball can be on the ground and unplayable which is entirely different.

 

[Pegleg]

Ok A ball going to ground is a "successful end to a maul" but, in this scenario, it is unplayable. So what law do we apply? It seems, to me, wrong to say it have become ruck.

DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or
keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

Surely there is a clear inference here that there must be an attempt to win the ball - legally. Since the ball is "unplayable" neither side can attempt to win it legally. So it is equitable to say it has become a maul. Rather is it not in a mid point where it is neither a maul (that has ended) nor a ruck. There for surely it is right to go with the last definite state and call it a turnover.

 

[Taff]

Ok A ball going to ground is a "successful end to a maul" but, in this scenario, it is unplayable. So what law do we apply? It seems, to me, wrong to say it have become ruck.

Why not? If it satisfies the conditions for a ruck.

In fact I'm pretty sure there is a clarification that as good as says a maul can be turned into a ruck - despite a lot of people saying a maul can never become a ruck.

 

[Pegleg]

Why not? If it satisfies the conditions for a ruck.

In fact I'm pretty sure there is a clarification that as good as says a maul can be turned into a ruck - despite a lot of people saying a maul can never become a ruck.

My last paragraph in to post you partially quoted.

 

[ChrisR]

In the OP it would seem that all players are off their feet. Therefore, even tho the ball is on the deck, there is no ruck. If the ball is playable/available but the SH won't make a play for it I think turnover is a fair result.

However, if the ball goes to the ground before it collapses then it has become a ruck and, if it collapses then it has ended as a ruck and no turnover.

 

[The Fat]

In the OP it would seem that all players are off their feet. Therefore, even tho the ball is on the deck, there is no ruck. If the ball is playable/available but the SH won't make a play for it I think turnover is a fair result.

However, if the ball goes to the ground before it collapses then it has become a ruck and, if it collapses then it has ended as a ruck and no turnover.

Would depend which team was moving forward and if neither then ruck law goes with attacking team which may not necessarily be the team originally in possession