Leinster v Bath - final decision

[OB..]

If neither of them had possession.......is it a maul?

Surely the point is that both had possession? Neither had sole possession, but it is clear that the ball was being held by someone.

We could get ourselves tied up in trying to decide if it fits the technical requirements for a maul at some stage before going to ground, but IMHO the most sensible approach is to treat it as a maul once others join in.

 

[Dickie E]

If neither team had possession[LAWS]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]

or if both teams had possession as per the discussion.

 

[The umpire]

or if both teams had possession as per the discussion.

Then I guess you can't "decide which team had possession" and proceed as in c above.

 

[Browner]

I agree. That was my reaction in real time. Garces goes with in the side - I can see *why* but I think he gets it wrong - he is at the side of the gate, but still comes through it for me! Only just.

Later Discussed on BT sport .....
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/bod-defends-controversial-ref-decision.html

 

[Dickie E]

Then I guess you can't "decide which team had possession" and proceed as in c above.

indeedy