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

[Phil E]

So under my argument and advice, .....

You will forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who hasn't done a refereeing course and hasn't refereed yet.

Maybe you should achieve those two things before telling experienced and qualified referees that we are wrong?

Just a thought.

 

[ChuckieB]

You will forgive me if I don't take advice from someone who hasn't done a refereeing course and hasn't refereed yet.

Maybe you should achieve those two things before telling experienced and qualified referees that we are wrong?

Just a thought.

Who did I say was wrong?

I would hope nobody is telling anybody they are wrong.

 

[ChuckieB]

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.

Perhaps loose reference to terminology and incorporating the word collapse when a player going to ground might be the right description? Using certain terms interchangeably when they reasonably describe different situations opened up the can of worms.

But as a result of the discussion I am at least clearer in my understanding.

 

[OB..]

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.

The logic is false. Maul and ruck are both ways of exiting open play. However it does not follow that when one of them ends, it must mean a return to open play. There is no double negative here.

 

[Hillbob]

OB, your logic is right. But as i understand, the players in a collapsed maul need to stay on their feet for it to become a maul. In my experience that is very unlikely especially if it collapses which suggests an unorderly fashion meaning players lying all over the ball. therefore i would say nearly everytime a collapsed maul means "use it" or scrum.

 

[ChuckieB]

The logic is false. Maul and ruck are both ways of exiting open play. However it does not follow that when one of them ends, it must mean a return to open play. There is no double negative here.

Perhaps not the best wording.

It's not a big deal as it doesn't hugely alter the ultimate interpretation for our circumstances.

Might there be agreement that, for a ruck to form from a maul, the maul must have successfully ended? Perhaps we are momentarily back in open play between the two phases? Or is there as suggestion a maul into a ruck is a single phase outside of open play?

It's just a pertinent question. Whatever the answer, it doesn't essentially bring anything new to the party?

 

[Dickie E]

Might there be agreement that, for a ruck to form from a maul, the maul must have successfully ended?

I don't think that is necessarily the case. The ball carrier in a maul can go to ground and place the ball or stay on his feet & just place the ball on the ground. This is then a ruck.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't think that is necessarily the case. The ball carrier in a maul can go to ground and place the ball or stay on his feet & just place the ball on the ground. This is then a ruck.

I can visualise that. In this instance the two possible actions do not act like a switch but can be seen more as a seamless transition from maul to ruck.

In the one case it is the bc going to ground in a permitted way with at least some other players on their feet around the ball on the ground, with the ball then potentially playable in that instant. Play on..... for the time being at least.

 

[Hillbob]

Perhaps we are momentarily back in open play between the two phases? Or is there as suggestion a maul into a ruck is a single phase outside of open play?

If there was open play between a ruck becoming a maul, even just a second. It would be open play with loads of grabbing and holding of players. Therefore wouldn´t this constitute as playing a man without the ball?
Maul -> splitsecond of open play, players of the maul still bound and pushing -> beep, PK for playing the opponent without the ball. Or at least advantage. You would never get to the ruck part.

 

[ChuckieB]

If there was open play between a ruck becoming a maul, even just a second. It would be open play with loads of grabbing and holding of players. Therefore wouldn´t this constitute as playing a man without the ball?
Maul -> splitsecond of open play, players of the maul still bound and pushing -> beep, PK for playing the opponent without the ball. Or at least advantage. You would never get to the ruck part.

as I redecribed it, a seamless transition.