Held Up In Goal - How Long?

[OB..]

But why a time limit, please?

In the FoP you let them get on with it. Why should a ref think he should call a halt in goal with all those players around to sort it out?:sad:

In the FoP you don't let them get on with it when they are on the ground. There is a slight relaxation of that in in-goal.

Anyway, why do you want a pile of bodies on the ground struggling with the ball?

This often happens in the NFL when there is a fumble, and everybody knows there is a lot of cheating going on at the bottom of the pile while the officials peel players away to find out who has the ball.

 

[Phil E]

.............with all those players around to sort it out?:sad:

For exactly that reason. We don't want them "sorting it out" themselves!

That's how tempers get flared and punch ups start.

Do something positive (score or make dead), or i'll call a halt and re-start the game somehow.

 

[Davet]

I thought we were discussing PLAYERS held up, not a hand under the BALL and few if any players on their feet.

I thought the discussion was "held up in goal", this only ever concerns the ball, the player may be held up in the process, but all that matters is that the ball is not grounded.

99 times out of a 100 the ball carrier is not on his feet when the ball is held off the floor.

If the ball is held up off the floor it generally requires more than a hand under it.

 

[Drift]

You can't have a maul in goal.

I know, but if a maul started in the field of play and then moved into in-goal and collapsed how long would you allow to see the ball being grounded

 

[Rit Hinners]

I guess I'll requote the OP.

How long do you wait to blow up play after a player was initially held up in goal.

I've known referees who interpret it as the player with the ball has an instant (the same instant in the field of play they would have to play the ball), while others would allow the player with the ball 10-15 seconds to try and wrestle the ball to the ground.

Law 22.10 says


But how long do you wait to consider the player cannot ground the ball?

Even if you can't have a maul in goal you could still have a maul like "thingy" in goal.

Sure, if it has collapsed, blow the thing up quickly.

Read the first line.

The OP asked about a PLAYER, at least that's how I read it. There is no mention of the ball though I assume that the intended that the PLAYER be in possession of it.

If you have a "maul" in goal that is moving and in no immediate danger of going down, why would you blow that up quickly?

 

[PaulDG]

If you have a "maul" in goal that is moving and in no immediate danger of going down, why would you blow that up quickly?

Because you can bet anything you like, someone's offside in there.

 

[Taff]

Because you can bet anything you like, someone's offside in there.

But once the "maul" goes into in-goal, the maul ceases to exist and all the offside lines disappear. Players can go where they like surely. :chin:

 

[Skids]

Hmm, be interesting to get a definitive answer on this as it's not something I've ever considered let alone witnessed.

If players are still on their feet, in goal, then why should there be a time limit to anything? As long as no laws are being broken/intent is good and there is a fair competition for the ball, why not let them get on with it as you would in the FoP. It'll either end up with a 22-drop, held up scrum 5 attack or try.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

It'll either end up with a 22-drop, held up scrum 5 attack or try.

Mauls that end up in in goal and are held up/inconclusive are always 5m scrum - n'est pas?

 

[Taff]

Mauls that end up in in goal and are held up/inconclusive are always 5m scrum - n'est pas?

I think Skids meant where the "maul" went through in-goal and went over the DBL or the TiG lines.

 

[PaulDG]

But once the "maul" goes into in-goal, the maul ceases to exist and all the offside lines disappear. Players can go where they like surely. :chin:

The maul ceases to exist.

So we have the open play offside lines, not the maul ones.

If anyone in the ball carrier's team is in front of the ball, they're offside. (Normally "accidentally offside").

 

[Skids]

Mauls that end up in in goal and are held up/inconclusive are always 5m scrum - n'est pas?

I wasn't trying to limit this to mauls. The OP only said player held up in goal...that could mean only the ball carrier and an opponent.

However, if I missed off an outcome, I apologise profusely.

 

[OB..]

Hmm, be interesting to get a definitive answer on this as it's not something I've ever considered let alone witnessed.

If players are still on their feet, in goal, then why should there be a time limit to anything? As long as no laws are being broken/intent is good and there is a fair competition for the ball, why not let them get on with it as you would in the FoP. It'll either end up with a 22-drop, held up scrum 5 attack or try.

There are many possible situations, which is why it makes no sense to try to set a time limit.

Since Law 17 does not apply in goal you can collapse the "maul" as long as you do not do so dangerously. You cannot be offside at the "maul", but you are offside under Law 11 if you are in front of a team mate who last played the ball and are interfering with play. And so on.

It can get very messy in law, and also physically. If either side has a realistic chance of achieving something, play on for a while, but if you have a stalemate, you are surely better off saying the ball was held up.

 

[chopper15]

. . . . if you have a stalemate, you are surely better off saying the ball was held up.

. . . and the attacking side always gets the put in.

 

[Taff]

. . . and the attacking side always gets the put in.

Correct. Somebody has to put the ball in and it may as well be the attacking side.

I suppose that's their reward for getting into their opponents in-goal.

 

[Davet]

22.10
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Maul moves in goal and the ball cannot be grounded then award a 5m scrum

You should not allow a prolonged struggle - the Law suggests quite clearly that maul-like play in in-goal equates to held up.

 

[Rit Hinners]

If however, the defenders manage to hustle the idiot that went into goal standing up with defenders near, they should be awarded the drop-out.

 

[Davet]

Why?

Not particularly arguing, but just curious as to why? And would it be different if there were two or more defenders attached to stupid ball carrier, or just the one - ie maul-like or less than maul-like.