From ARU online referee course

[Dickie E]

My answer in magenta. Their "correct" answer in blue. I don't think their "correct" answer is correct:



Thoughts?

 

[crossref]

I am confused by the structure of the question, if it's incorrect that it's wrong , then it's right etc.

For me if B gain possession in the maul but subsequently ignore my call of use it, I would give the scrum to Team A , and I don't think anyone would complain.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward
before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the
attacking team throws in the ball[/LAWS]

Team A took the ball in, so regardless of what happens after that, if the maul end unsuccessfully, team B throw the ball into the subsequent scrum

The ARU answer is correct

 

[Rich_NL]

From the 2018 rules:

A maul ends unsuccessfully when the ball's available, the ref says "use it" and it's then not played.

Scrum sanction, unsuccessful maul: feeding team is the team not in possession at the start of the maul.


Seems a bit... counterintuitive, and I suspect many more would complain if you gave it to team B than team A, but by the letter of the law team B gets the scrum.

 

[Balones]

I am pedantic enough to get annoyed wnen I see questions that mention taking a ball into a maul. Nobody does this. Rather we have a side in possession when a maul is formed. How can you take a ball into something that doesn’t exist?

In practice I would have thought that it is the defending side that creates a maul and not the side in possession. Without the defence we don’t have anything except a team in possession of the ball.

 

[Camquin]

So if you turn over the ball in the maul, you can ignore the referee's call to use it with impunity.
As ever the law writers has failed to think through what they have written.
They cover the standard case - the ball carrier's team retain the ball - but fail to even cover the turn over.

Sanction needs to be rewritten

Sdie in possession fails to respond to call of "use it"
Scrum, side not in possession to put in.

 

[Balones]

So if you turn over the ball in the maul, you can ignore the referee's call to use it with impunity.
As ever the law writers has failed to think through what they have written.
They cover the standard case - the ball carrier's team retain the ball - but fail to even cover the turn over.

Sanction needs to be rewritten

Sdie in possession fails to respond to call of "use it"
Scrum, side not in possession to put in.

I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

 

[Christy]

I have had following in a match .
Maul , with ball at team A .
Team B have gained possession of ball .
Maul gone to ground legally & ball not available .

I then awarded scrum to team B .
As they were not initial team to have the ball at maul creation .

However .
Had maul gone to ground , again with team B now in possession .
With ball clearly playable ,,i would still say use it & expect same to be gone .

I couldnt see me offering a scrum to team B , for now not using a clearly playable ball .
I also couldnt see any team deliberately not using same .
Regardless of score or pitch position or even if 1 team had a dominant scrum

 

[Dickie E]

I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

The scenario is that the ball is quite clearly at the back on one team's side. No ambiguity who has possession otherwise the ref would never say "use it"

 

[Pegleg]

The matrix in 2018 Law Book (Pg 91)


Infringement / stoppage:

Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul.

Location of scrum:

In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the scrum, ruck or maul took place.

Who throws in:

The team not in possession.

Note it does not refer to "when the maul formed". It refers to "Failure to use" and "the team not in possession". For me that implies the side "Failing" to use us is "punished by the loss pof the ball.

the 2017 Law books which we have (apparently) to carry as well says:

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(g) 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.
When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must
be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will
award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.


Note it does not say "the team not in possession when the maul formed".


For me 17.6 (g) Trumps (c) in this special case.
Why was the "use it" law brought in? To prevent sides wasting time holding the ball in to run the clock down and then get a new scrum to waste more time. Therefore it is illogical to reward a side for oing just that.

 

[Pegleg]

I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

But the "use it" is applicable when the ball is avaiulable to one or other side. So you do know who is now in possession, You are not unsighted, if you were you would not be calling "use it".

 

[ChrisR]

Referencing only the 2018 Laws because these should be the base for moving forward.

From maul law page 74.

17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when: (I've deleted items not relevant to OP)
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).

d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.

e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been played within five seconds of the call.

Sanction: Scrum.

. . . and we also have:

18. If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.

From the scrum law table page 91.

Infringement/stoppage Who throws in

A maul that ends unsuccessfully. The team not in possession at the start of the maul. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team.

An unplayable maul after kick in open play. The team in possession at the start of the maul.

Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul. The team not in possession.


Mauls can be incredibly messy. Was it caught from a kick and was the maul immediate? Was the ball stripped before or after the maul formed? Was it stalled or moving? etc. etc.

The one thing that is C & O: The ball was available, they were told to use it, they didn't. Therefore the scrum feed goes to the team not in possession.

 

[Balones]

So that there is no element for doubt (until someone gets it changed by WR) for inexperienced referee and those not so aware of the nature of the RR forum, the expectation in practice is that you will award the scrum to the side not in possession at the start of the maul. To not do this would result in you risking a law error comment in your report. Whether you like it or not. You would most likely receive some adverse comments from some knowledgeable directors of rugby/coaches as well.

 

[ChrisR]

Well, Mr. Reportwriter Sir, the ball was caught by Red from a Blue kick in open play, the catcher took two steps before Blue wrapped him up and drove him backwards as Red support joined. At some point the ball was stripped from Red but Red was driving forward when the whole mess collapsed. Blue placed the ball on the ground and it was immediately available to the Blue SH. I called "Use it!" but he was too busy picking his nose so after 5 secs I said (to myself) "**** this, if you don't want it you don't get it" and awarded a scrum to Red.

 

[Balones]

Well, Mr. Reportwriter Sir, the ball was caught by Red from a Blue kick in open play, the catcher took two steps before Blue wrapped him up and drove him backwards as Red support joined. At some point the ball was stripped from Red but Red was driving forward when the whole mess collapsed. Blue placed the ball on the ground and it was immediately available to the Blue SH. I called "Use it!" but he was too busy picking his nose so after 5 secs I said (to myself) "**** this, if you don't want it you don't get it" and awarded a scrum to Red.

With my coach’s hat on - “You shouldn’t let emotion or frustration get in the way of making the right decision”.��

 

[Balones]

Strictly speaking at the level I am observing I am not allowed to ‘coach’ in my reports (the coaches get upset because that is their job!) but simply report on what I observe/see.) However when I am coaching I would tell the referee that if the ball does come out the ‘other side’ I would advise not calling a ‘use it’ so that the side not in possession at the start gets the benefit and rewarded for their efforts. Making a safe and expected decision isn’t a bad thing for overall management.

 

[crossref]

Lets be fair, the scenario is a very unusual one , which you would rarely see
Blue successfully steal the ball, and make it available .. but then refuse to use it, because they prefer a scrum (which they are very confident the ref will give them , despite the refusal to use it
)
Blimey .. if blue wanted a scrum they are going about it the hard way..just wrap them up and wait for the turnover !

Silly scenario, silly structure for the question as well .. choose the sentence which is wrong .. is it a law exam or a logic puzzle

 

[didds]

I'm with CR with this - unless the question is being asked to test a ref's thought processes rather than get a "right answer" it does seem somewhat of a clever-cloggs-gotcha question.

TBH IF it ever happened in a game I reckon you can sell it either way. Lets face it - whichever way you call it one side will think you are wrong anyway.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Where in law does FAILING gain a reward? To reward the failure to use the ball with a scrum is absurd.

 

[Balones]

Where in law does FAILING gain a reward? To reward the failure to use the ball with a scrum is absurd.

Wouldn't be a reward if you were being stuffed in the scrums!