Held up - no try

[Glyndwr]

Could I ask for your enlightenment again, please.

If the ball is held up in goal, scrum 5 attack ball is the call.

But if it is held up short of the line, why is it still given as attack ball?

Doesn't the same law apply as in general play, that if the ball doesn't go to ground, it is turned over?

 

[andyscott]

Could I ask for your enlightenment again, please.

If the ball is held up in goal, scrum 5 attack ball is the call.

But if it is held up short of the line, why is it still given as attack ball?

Doesn't the same law apply as in general play, that if the ball doesn't go to ground, it is turned over?

Because there is doubt on the grounding. However the law as I read it, only refers to doubt on who grounded it, so if short, ref has stopped the game (for any reason) therefore team in possession at stoppage gets the ball. So scrum 5 attacking team.

i think

 

[Simon Thomas]

you could also apply uncompleted ruck / maul, side going forward put in.

But if it is a maul, and stopped short of line, I would expect majority might be turn over ball to defending team.

Use your judgement in each case.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

But if it is held up short of the line, why is it still given as attack ball?

I'd bet your are referring to the first held up sent to TMO in Scot v Italy. Scrum awarded to attacking Scots after a maul. I was confused on this one also and was going to ask the very same question.

There was second similar incident later that went to TMO, but I couldn't decide if it was more of a ruck (the ball never made it to ground) there was a tackle by definition but the ball never made it in ingoal.


I thought if they were held up short it should be in FoP in should be "not releasing", but I understand that is not a TMO decision.

 

[Dickie E]

y

But if it is a maul, and stopped short of line, I would expect majority might be turn over ball to defending team.

By that do you mean turn over ball to team that didn't have possesion when maul commenced?

 

[OB..]

Doesn't the same law apply as in general play, that if the ball doesn't go to ground, it is turned over?

But that is not the law. If there was a maul,you could have a maul turnover. Otherwise, team going forward etc.

 

[Glyndwr]

It was , I think, a maul, or was it merely a maul-like entity?

Am I right in thinking then that if the maul is held up short then it's turnover ball, but that in open play held up short put in remains with the team in possession?

 

[Taff]

Am I right in thinking then that if the maul is held up short then it's turnover ball, but that in open play held up short put in remains with the team in possession?

This one always gets me thinking. The way I understand it is this, but I stand to be corrected by someone who knows better:

• if the players are on their feet, and the ball becomes unplayable its a turnover ball
• if the players are off their feet and the ball becomes unplayable (ie a pile up) but you can see who has possession, its a turnover ball as it was a maul before it became a pile-up
• if the players are off their feet and the ball becomes unplayable (ie a pile up) but you can't see who has possession, its a scrum with the put in to the team going forward.

 

[OB..]

As far as I am concerned, if a maul collapses into a pile-up, it is just a collapsed maul, and therefore the maul turnover law applies. Simples.

 

[Dixie]

Taff, I agree with OB. There was a classic maul, moving forward, all hunky dory. However, you as ref you are already thinking use it or lose it, so you can remember who took it into the maul. If it then goes down AND THE BALL IS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE to be played: unsatisfactory end to the maul, scrum down with a put-in to the side that did not take it in.

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or [the maul] collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

Possession etc at the time it went down is an irrelevance.

(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.