Failed maul

[Pinky]

PK for red going off feet in maul.

 

[Womble]

Even if there are two opposing players - on their feet - and in physical contact - over the ball, which by now is on the ground?

17.2d would imply that it is still a maul, not a ruck IMO

 

[The Fat]

No-one has touched on the fact that if the ball carrier does choose to go to ground (probably because he thinks he may lose possession to an opponent who has hands on the ball), and an opponent has his hands on the ball, once the ball carrier gets to ground, if the opponent still has hands on the ball, the BC must release the ball to the man on his feet whereas the opponent does not have to release the ball or the BC.
If the BC chooses to go to ground, he must make the ball available immediately.
There is a difference between the ball being available immediately and being played.
Red take the ball into a maul and white are contesting vigorously. Red BC goes to ground legally, and immediately moves the ball towards the last feet. The ball has been "made available". The red SH does not however, have to use/play the ball immediately. He can check out his options and if the ref, as he should, calls "Use it!", he now has another 5 seconds to do so and avoid a turn over.

Players in opposition to the ball carrier may continue to contest the ball if they have the ball/ball carrier wrapped up when the maul goes to ground. Opposition players cannot dive on the ball to kill it after the maul has gone down and the BC is attempting to make the ball available. We often see a maul go down legally and as the team in possession is trying to make it available, opposition players come from all angles and dive on the collapsed maul to win the turn over. That's a no-no.

 

[Womble]

No-one has touched on the fact that if the ball carrier does choose to go to ground (probably because he thinks he may lose possession to an opponent who has hands on the ball), and an opponent has his hands on the ball, once the ball carrier gets to ground, if the opponent still has hands on the ball, the BC must release the ball to the man on his feet whereas the opponent does not have to release the ball or the BC.
If the BC chooses to go to ground, he must make the ball available immediately.
There is a difference between the ball being available immediately and being played.
Red take the ball into a maul and white are contesting vigorously. Red BC goes to ground legally, and immediately moves the ball towards the last feet. The ball has been "made available". The red SH does not however, have to use/play the ball immediately. He can check out his options and if the ref, as he should, calls "Use it!", he now has another 5 seconds to do so and avoid a turn over.

Would you agree that you would still be refereeing a maul?

 

[crossref]

No-one has touched on the fact that if the ball carrier does choose to go to ground (probably because he thinks he may lose possession to an opponent who has hands on the ball), and an opponent has his hands on the ball, once the ball carrier gets to ground, if the opponent still has hands on the ball, the BC must release the ball to the man on his feet whereas the opponent does not have to release the ball or the BC

Is that really true?

I reckon I'd be giving a maul ended unsuccessfully, scrum, turnover ball.

 

[The Fat]

Perhaps everyone not familiar with Clarification 2 - 2011 should read below before discussing further.

Clarification 2 2011

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 2-2011
Union / HP Ref Manager: ARU
Law Reference: 17
Date: 14 November 2011

Request: Request for clarification from the ARU the correspondence is reproduced below.

“Law 17.6(g) says: “If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.”

Often situations arise in the game when a ball carrier in a maul (especially when the maul consists of only 3 or 4 players) goes to ground with an opponent remaining on his feet with his arms wrapped around the ball. ARU asks the following questions:

a) Does the opponent on his feet need to release the ball carrier given that this is a collapsed maul and not a tackle?

b) Does the ball carrier have to release the ball to the opponent on his feet? Law 17.6 (g) indicates a scrum unless the ball is immediately available but places no obligation on the ball carrier to make it available by releasing it.

c) When a maul collapses, is there any obligation on players to roll away from the ball in order to make the ball available?

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?”



Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Questions (a), (b) and (c) relate to questions of Law and (d) relates more to the application of Law.

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.

(a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

(b) The original ball carrier who goes to ground (knee or sitting) who can play the ball must do so immediately and the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.

(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.

 

[The Fat]

Would you agree that you would still be refereeing a maul?

Personally, I'm still treating the whole thing as a maul situation however, when such a situation arises, we basically manage the SH getting the ball moving the same as we would a ruck i.e. we manage players not in the heap on the ground to their offside line (last feet).
May be best if I can find some videos and post links.

If a maul forms and an opposition player causes the BC to fumble/drop the ball so that it is on the ground in the middle of the pack, we now have a ruck situation.

 

[crossref]

that clarification could really do with being written into the Law book.

So Fat - indeed, the situation is not so black and white as you suggested.

[LAWS]the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Is that really true?

I reckon I'd be giving a maul ended unsuccessfully, scrum, turnover ball.

If the BC goes to ground, he must make the ball immediately available. If as he was going to ground an opponent had hands on the ball/BC, but when the BC hits the deck he is able to break the opponent's grasp, turn and present the ball, he has complied with his obligation.
If however, he is unable to break free from the opponent to do the above, and the opponent still has hold of the ball, the BC must release the ball to the man who is on his feet.

 

[The Fat]

that clarification could really do with being written into the Law book.

So Fat - indeed, the situation is not so black and white as you suggested.

[LAWS]the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)[/LAWS]

17.2(d) is basically playing the ball whilst off your feet or something along those lines I think

 

[crossref]

If the BC goes to ground, he must make the ball immediately available. If as he was going to ground an opponent had hands on the ball/BC, but when the BC hits the deck he is able to break the opponent's grasp, turn and present the ball, he has complied with his obligation.
If however, he is unable to break free from the opponent to do the above, and the opponent still has hold of the ball, the BC must release the ball to the man who is on his feet.

but in real life the situation will be more complicated

- by definition the ball carrier will have at least one team mate and the team mater has also probably got some purchase on the ball and is not releasing and doesn't have to

- the ball carrier is probably wrapped up by the oppo, he's going to ground to try and break their wrap and doesn't succeed, he may not be able to release the ball very easily. If he could, he'd be making it available..

- indeed the whole aim of the oppo is to prevent the ball carrier from making the ball available -- they are looking to force that turnover.

The clarification says the referee is to make a judgment

[LAWS]the referee then has a judgement to make:
i. When the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is unplayable (i.e. the ball is not available immediately), through no fault of the ball carrier, then the referee awards a scrum as per 17.6(g).
ii. When the ball carrier goes to ground and that player fails to make the ball available the sanction is a penalty kick to the opposition as per 17.2(d)[/LAWS]

seems to me (i) is more often likely than (ii)

 

[ddjamo]

someone please define "failed maul."

 

[The Fat]

someone please define "failed maul."

I'll have a stab.
Based on the context of the OP, I'd say a "collapsed maul" ????

 

[Pinky]

Putting the ball on the ground does not form a ruck ! My exact point for starting this thread !!!

Womble, ball on the ground is a successful end to a maul, so now you are looking for the next phase and if there are folks on their feet closing round the ball, then there is indeed a ruck and it's hands off and get out of the way if you are off your feet.

 

[ddjamo]

Once declared, a maul must end either successfully or unsuccessfully before play can transition out of maul law.

 

[ddjamo]

I'll have a stab.
Based on the context of the OP, I'd say a "collapsed maul" ????

A legally collapsed maul - a maul on the deck without a penalize-able offense?

If that is what we are talking about - we are still in maul law until the maul has met the requirements to end.

 

[Dixie]

17.2(d) is basically playing the ball whilst off your feet or something along those lines I think

This is one of those clarifications that pose more questions than answers. 17.2(d) is a badly drafted law, ad the clarification adds to the problem.

[LAWS](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]

There are two components to this law. I suspect that the brief to the 12 year-old before the fellas went to a boozy lunch had this in mind:

[LAWS](d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. Sanction: Penalty kick

Exception: The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground legally. Providing the ball is available immediately, play continues.[/LAWS]

What we have got through the 12 year-old's unsupervised efforts is a poor wording that the Clarification has used to make it an offence to not make the ball available if you go to ground. So going to ground is legal, but failing to make the ball available is a PK offence. Bearing in mind that 17.2 is entitled Joining a Maul, I very much doubt that this newish offence while trying to end it was ever intended.:chin:

 

[Wedgie]

Unhelpfully, the WR law video for 17.2d shows what should happen to satisfy the Law unlike (almost?) every other video which exemplifies what should not happen.

I am pretty sure that until that clarification is, umm, clarified and written into Law, I can't envisage a situation where I would be brave enough to give a penalty under 17.2d and sell it successfully......

 

[ChrisR]

In the other thread on this I admit I was wrong to state that the maul had become a ruck as, although the ball may have been on the deck, the maul had collapsed and so there (probably) weren't players still bound over the ball.

However, I coach players (team in possession) to force the ball to ground if the forward drive is stalling. With ball on the deck and players bound over it this is now a ruck. Unequivocally. The maul has ended successfully and ruck law applies. If the ball now becomes unplayable then the team going forward gets the put. This prevents turnover ball. This is a far better tactic than the BC struggling to ground as per the next paragraph.

If the BC goes to ground, and dragging a knee qualifies, then the ball must be made available. If the ops are holding it up then it won't be and the referee should order the turnover scrum.

If the BC goes to ground and immediately puts the ball on the ground then the maul has ended successfully and ball has been made available to be played, albeit in a ruck.