End of maul

[Pegleg]

I think this is where OB is right. We have to have some practicality in this. If a mass of 16 bodies are grappling for the ball and the BC and some others go to ground, where is the ball?

If it hits the deck under said BC and immediately several others of the "fatties" slum on top and the ball never became playable. I would treat it as a collapsed maul and T/O.

However, if there was a "window of opportunity" for the ball to be contested, by players on their feet, then a ruck now exists and if that becomes unplayable then we are refereeing an unsuccessful (dead) ruck.

I (we) have to decide if that window existed. In most cases, I am guessing, it does not.

 

[Pinky]

I think this is about rewarding dominance. If a maul forms, the BC team keep it if they can get it out and to help them with that th BC can go to ground, but ball must be available immediately. If oppos are more dominant by (legally) stopping the ball coming out, then t/o. If it all falls over, then folks off their feet need to not interfere with the ball, but I agree they don't have to roll away. If as above the ball was available for the s/h to reach in and pick up, I would expect him to, without standing on a defender, but I would also expect the defender to keep still and let that happen.

 

[OB..]

It used to be simple.

In 1992 the IRB brought in a turnover law for both ruck and maul. In 1994 they rescinded it for the ruck. Players immediately started to go to ground with the ball claiming they had converted the maul into a ruck. Almost as fast it was made clear that you could only turn a maul into a ruck if the ball alone went to the ground.

Now we have a ridiculous can of worms.