[Maul] Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

Finally, it has happened. I got a team trying to use the "Italy no competing" tactics at ruck and maul this weekend.
Generally I was happy that I got the calls right. ( a couple of lineout non-mauls were formed and ended up in the accidental offside decision as the 9 decided to ignore my "use it" call long enough )

A problem arose at a couple of mauls ( which were contested mauls from open-play ).
The maul went to ground, the ball was immediately available at the back and the ball was on the ground.
There was only 1 defender in the original, maul and he was now on the ground. The 9 has the ball at his feet and was looking around to see where he should pass to.
The other defending backs then came around the side of the maul ( now ruck ) to block the 9's pass.
I called it offside because I thought that when a maul collapses (legally) like this, a ruck is automatically formed. Hence offside line established. The defenders view was that there was no ruck as they chose not to compete in any ruck and hence they were perfectly entitled to walk around the collapsed maul and stand wherever they wanted. Something like "The maul has ended , Sir. ! Hence no more offside line !"

Any advice please ?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

No it's not a ruck (by definition) I'd say and I think from your post you're in the realms of a collapsed maul (not illegally) and the ball is available to be played.

That being the case the maul hasn't ended (although law suggests if the ball's on the floor the maul has ended). Anyway on the premise the maul hasn't ended (my view) then the off side lines still exist and as such the hind most foot applies even if those feet are prone and/or heads and arms.

I would keep them on-side behind their respective off side lines. I think 17.6(g) applies:-

[LAWS]
17.6 (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.
[/LAWS]

That's my view and on the occasions it happens in my games I'll call the "ball's available - use it". No one has had the brass neck to do as your team(s) did but in my view that just smacks of smartarseness. I'd PK them if they persisted and point at the above law reference if they asked - in the club house later.

We'll see what transpires from the great and the good and Phil E.

 

[Phil E]

It's not a ruck because there are not players on their feet over the ball. This would only happen if the ball carrier drops or places the ball on the floor (not forward) and the maul participants remain on their feet.
So it's a collapsed maul and the maul is not over. Back foot stil applies.

 

[ChuckieB]

I would have thought it becomes just a "collapsed" maul in that moment. The offside line surely remains until such time as he blows his whistle to call it dead for ending unsuccessully?

He can allow play to develop into something else, use it. but until it does they cannot come around!

i guess we see often refs calling ruck if they see it to clarify the situation for all?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Thanks Phil E ! Glad to know that I got the right result in the end ( even though applying a different interpretation ). At the time, I was thinking that the Maul had definitely ended due to one of the conditions of law 17.5 begin satisfied:

Law 17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.

The players has clearly been coached to try to run around a collapsed mail, hence it makes you think they must have studied the law-book. Interesting nonetheless.

 

[OB..]

It's not a ruck because there are not players on their feet over the ball. This would only happen if the ball carrier drops or places the ball on the floor (not forward) and the maul participants remain on their feet.
So it's a collapsed maul and the maul is not over. Back foot stil applies.

I agree.

By convention (at least) we allow a referee to call "use it" if the ball is immediately available at a collapsed maul. It makes nonsense of the convention if the maul is deemed to be over and offside lines disappear.

 

[ChuckieB]

I would have thought it becomes just a "collapsed" maul in that moment. The offside line surely remains until such time as he blows his whistle to call it dead for ending unsuccessully?

He can allow play to develop into something else, use it. but until it does they cannot come around!

i guess we see often refs calling ruck if they see it to clarify the situation for all?

......when they see the situation as having developed into something else, that is.

 

[winchesterref]

I had an slightly unusual maul situation at the weekend.

A maul formed, and attacking team were moving forwards. Ball carrier at the back then had a teammate bind on to him, and they broke away in a peeling motion, just as a defender managed to latch on to him. End result was all 3 going to ground, ball unplayable, scrum to attacking team.

Defending team felt the maul was unsuccessful and this was a turnover; I deemed that the maul completed just before defender engaged the ball carrier, with a tackle and subsequent ruck. Certainly caused a few raised eyebrows anyway.

 

[Hillbob]

A collapsed maul can´t become a ruck. So either the ball is playable immediately, with offside lines, or a scrum is in order.

Does it have any effect, that another player latched on to ballcarrier braking away from the maul? Or is it just like a teammate pushing the ballcarrier into contact?

btw Winchesterref, are you at the Winchester Easter 7´s?

 

[Christy]

A collapsed maul can´t become a ruck. So either the ball is playable immediately, with offside lines, or a scrum is in order.

Does it have any effect, that another player latched on to ballcarrier braking away from the maul? Or is it just like a teammate pushing the ballcarrier into contact?

i often here a maul cant become a ruck .
there was a law question asked in 2002 & answered
with a top up answer pasted below in red .
{ it might not be exact same scenario as original poster , but worth having in your Armour }


Ruling2-2011
Union / HP Ref ManagerARU
Law Reference17
Date14 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 s

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Ruling[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]2-2011[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Union / HP Ref Manager[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]ARU[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law Reference[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]17[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Date[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]14 November 2011[/FONT]

 

[beckett50]

I had an slightly unusual maul situation at the weekend.

A maul formed, and attacking team were moving forwards. Ball carrier at the back then had a teammate bind on to him, and they broke away in a peeling motion, just as a defender managed to latch on to him. End result was all 3 going to ground, ball unplayable, scrum to attacking team.

Defending team felt the maul was unsuccessful and this was a turnover; I deemed that the maul completed just before defender engaged the ball carrier, with a tackle and subsequent ruck. Certainly caused a few raised eyebrows anyway.

One presumes that the ball was at the front, and so a tackle then ensued.

Was the ball unavailable because
a. the tackler hadn't released and made a positive effort to clear the area
b. the attacking players were holding the tackler into the tackle to prevent the above, or
c. the ball was genuinely unavailable because it was a mass of legs and arms and no way was the ball coming out safely or legally?


As to the OP, the ball is available at the back of the Maul, off-side lines are still in place and the half-back has to "Use it".

 

[VM75]

Finally, it has happened. I got a team trying to use the "Italy no competing" tactics at ruck and maul this weekend.
Generally I was happy that I got the calls right. ( a couple of lineout non-mauls were formed and ended up in the accidental offside decision as the 9 decided to ignore my "use it" call long enough )

A problem arose at a couple of mauls ( which were contested mauls from open-play ).
The maul went to ground, the ball was immediately available at the back and the ball was on the ground.
There was only 1 defender in the original, maul and he was now on the ground. The 9 has the ball at his feet and was looking around to see where he should pass to.
The other defending backs then came around the side of the maul ( now ruck ) to block the 9's pass.
I called it offside because I thought that when a maul collapses (legally) like this, a ruck is automatically formed. Hence offside line established. The defenders view was that there was no ruck as they chose not to compete in any ruck and hence they were perfectly entitled to walk around the collapsed maul and stand wherever they wanted. Something like "The maul has ended , Sir. ! Hence no more offside line !"

Any advice please ?

Easy rule of thumb for considering 'the Italians Job'

Ruck/Maul created = New Offside line established.
BC tackled to ground (without a teammate bound onto the BC ) = No Maul/Ruck = Tackle only & No offside line established.

They seemed to think that their mere 'absence' at the possession contest was sufficient to deem it Tackle Only, they were wrong.

 

[ChuckieB]

I do not see that a ruck forming from a collapsed maul can ever be allowed.

On the formation of a maul, open play is deemed to have ended. A ruck also ends open play. 2 wrongs can't make a right.

As such, if a maul collapses, there are only provisions to get the ball back into play if the ball is immediately available. The laws do not accommodate turning the situation into a ruck as the whistle should have been blown before that could happen.

They deem it to be a potentially dangerous situation I thought?

Although the clarification mentions ruck laws apply for certain conditions existing as a result of the collapse I do not see they are seeing this as meaning a ruck has formed.

Unfortunatley for the committee they then shoot themselves in the foot:

[FONT=fs_blakeregular](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.

Hardly helps us with our understanding and application?


[/FONT]

 

[Pinky]

I do not see that a ruck forming from a collapsed maul can ever be allowed.

On the formation of a maul, open play is deemed to have ended. A ruck also ends open play. 2 wrongs can't make a right.

As such, if a maul collapses, there are only provisions to get the ball back into play if the ball is immediately available. The laws do not accommodate turning the situation into a ruck as the whistle should have been blown before that could happen.

They deem it to be a potentially dangerous situation I thought?

Although the clarification mentions ruck laws apply for certain conditions existing as a result of the collapse I do not see they are seeing this as meaning a ruck has formed.

Unfortunatley for the committee they then shoot themselves in the foot:

[FONT=fs_blakeregular](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.

Hardly helps us with our understanding and application?


[/FONT]

ChuckieB, A ruck can form from a collapsed maul assuming the requirements for a ruck are met, and this is in the law above. So ball must be on the ground and despite there being players off their feet, if there are players on their feet closing round the ball, then there is a ruck.

Interesting to note that it is only players who stay on their feet in the maul that are allowed to hold on. Presumably once you are off your feet you are out of the game and have to let go.

 

[Dickie E]

ChuckieB, A ruck can form from a collapsed maul assuming the requirements for a ruck are met, and this is in the law above. So ball must be on the ground and despite there being players off their feet, if there are players on their feet closing round the ball, then there is a ruck.

I can't imagine ever allowing a ruck after a collapsed maul

Interesting to note that it is only players who stay on their feet in the maul that are allowed to hold on. Presumably once you are off your feet you are out of the game and have to let go.

I don't think so:

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

 

[ChuckieB]

Language is important here.

Players going to ground in a permitted way is not a "maul collapsing" or "a collapsed maul". We should be careful not to suggest it as such.

And that is directed at the lawmakers and those clarifying the laws specifically!

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


So, in this case, when read on its own, the language in the OP might have just served to confuse slightly.

"......I thought that when a maul collapses (legally) like this, a ruck is automatically formed." (I have highlighted the bold).

but to clarify, even it is players going to ground in a maul situation, there is certainly nothing automatic about what happens next.

In my eyes, a collapsed maul is that pile of bodies on the ground with dynamics that dictate the ref has to act in a certain way. I agree that it will it not likely end up in him being in a position to call a ruck.

 

[Rich_NL]

Open broken play, ball goes out wide to red 14, blue 11 attempts to tackle high and red 13 piles in to form the maul as people are still running over and getting onside. The maul collapses, red 13 rolls off to the side as red 14 places and the first support approaches. It doesn't seem too out of the ordinary, or dangerous, does it?

 

[ChuckieB]

Theseare the only clauses within the laws that adopt the terminology containing “collapse/(s)”:

“Law 17: Maul
17.2 Joining amaul
A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerousplay.
Law 17: Maul
17.6Unsuccessful end to a maul
A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomesunplayable or collapses (not as a result of foulplay) and a scrum is ordered.
Law 16: Ruck
16.3 Rucking
A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerousplay.
Law 10: FoulPlay
10.4 Dangerousplay and misconduct
Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.”

As such they are clear in what is not allowed and direct what must happen if it does. There is no option available that should allow play to continue.

Separately,

17.6 (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.”

In this situation, the ballcarrier is referred to as having “gone to ground” and there is no reference to a collapsing of the maul. However, under these circumstances, the laws specifically allow the possibility of play developing into a new phase which, yes, could be a ruck.

Like marmite, my recommendation is that reference to the word "collapse/(s)" is something to be used sparingly and, even then, only used in the context of the situation the laws are describing.

 

[ChuckieB]

Open broken play, ball goes out wide to red 14, blue 11 attempts to tackle high and red 13 piles in to form the maul as people are still running over and getting onside. The maul collapses, red 13 rolls off to the side as red 14 places and the first support approaches. It doesn't seem too out of the ordinary, or dangerous, does it?

So under my argument and advice, perfectly allowable in the context of a player being deemed to have gone to ground rather than as a result of the maul having been described, incorrectly in my view, as having collapsed.

 

[DocY]

You missed:
[LAWS]
17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.
[/LAWS]

(my emphasis)

If a maul successfully ends it's play on, and if one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact close around the ball that's now on the ground, a ruck is formed.

There was even a clarification about this.

I'm quite puzzled how this thread has gone on for so long.