Maul - BC Knees Go to Ground

[Phil E]

If he ball carrier or maul goes to ground legally you don't have to roll away.
However you can't grab or jump on the ball carrier as a secondary move to prevent the ball being played.
If I read your description correctly that's what Red did, so correct decision.

 

[didds]

If he ball carrier or maul goes to ground legally you don't have to roll away.
However you can't grab or jump on the ball carrier as a secondary move to prevent the ball being played.
If I read your description correctly that's what Red did, so correct decision.

not picking holes, just for personal information ... law reference please Phil (to better edjamacate myself etc)

 

[number11]

However you can't grab or jump on the ball carrier as a secondary move to prevent the ball being played.

So this includes grabbing the BC while on your feet?

Could red have played the ball? If so, would green have to release?

Thanks for the reply!

 

[DocP]

The way I see it
If Green goes to ground and is held and wrapped up by Red then it would be a Red scrum

If Green go to ground and Red dive/roll over to then envelope/hold the ball after it has gone to ground, i.e. not as part of the maul going to ground but a secondary movement with the sole purpose of trapping the ball then that is killing the ball so PK to Green as it was available until Red jumped on it and killed it.

I think your decision was correct

Edit:
Oh and @number11 I have had the exact same thing in games I have done and I have given the same decision as you did. Had to explain to the players why but I never felt in doubt of my decision

 

[Phil E]

So this includes grabbing the BC while on your feet?

Could red have played the ball? If so, would green have to release?

Thanks for the reply!

If you are on your feet and the ball carrier goes to ground you can play the ball.

 

[ianh5979]

I had this situation arise on Sunday:

Maul, with green attacking red. Green BC goes to ground. Red player falls on him and wraps his arms around the green player and the ball to prevent releasing.

My call was a penalty to green, red player killing the ball.

Red asked me to clarify my decision, and it was obvious that he had been coached to do this in a maul (he's in a regional academy).

Having looked at the clarification from 2011, I'm not sure if my decision was correct.

If both had gone down together, there would be no law requiring red to release; therefore scrum to red.

If red had stayed on his feet and prevented green from making the ball available, I also think a scrum to red?

What would be the correct call?

I would agree with you, if he flopped on the player penalty against him, if he had already wrapped the ball carrier up and went to ground with him unsuccessful maul, scrum turnover

 

[Locke]

If you are on your feet and the ball carrier goes to ground you can play the ball.

Agreed. The maul ended when the green ball carrier and ball went to ground. Red could have then taken the ball from green and would either have come away with it or won a penalty for ball carrier not releasing the ball. But diving on the ball carrier on the ground is a penalty.

 

[didds]

Agreed. The maul ended when the green ball carrier and ball went to ground. Red could have then taken the ball from green and would either have come away with it or won a penalty for ball carrier not releasing the ball.

but its not a tackle? BC doesnt have to release the ball?

 

[DocP]

but its not a tackle? BC doesnt have to release the ball?

It's not a tackle, it becomes a ruck when green goes to ground and the ball is available to play. Red can go for it but needs to stay on his feet which in this case he didn't. If he did and green didn't release, like under normal ruck laws, then pen Red for not releasing.

Edit:
Hang on, I can see my mistake there, no hands in a ruck, hmmm Maybe Red can't go for it at all then

 

[Decorily]

but its not a tackle? BC doesnt have to release the ball?

Tackle or not a player on the ground cannot just lie there holding the ball if an opposition player is on their feet and entitled to lift the ball.
The opposition players entitlements may vary depending on how the ball carrier ended up on the ground but the player on the ground must release/pass etc the ball and not hold it to deny the player on their feet getting it.

Edit for spelling

 

[didds]

Tackle or not a player on the ground cannot just lie there holding the ball if an opposition player is on their feet and entitled to lift the ball.

can a oppo player IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)
can a team mate IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)

??
my take on both those questions is "no" (but i couldnt give you a law refenece for that - just what seems right/obvious after all these decades etc ;-) )
So if there is no entitlement then whats to stop the BC taking ball to gound IN A MAUL just holding the ball? usual caveats here about the ball being available and the acting scrumhalf not taking an age to play it away etc etc

 

[Decorily]

can a oppo player IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)
can a team mate IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)

??
my take on both those questions is "no" (but i couldnt give you a law refenece for that - just what seems right/obvious after all these decades etc ;-) )
So if there is no entitlement then whats to stop the BC taking ball to gound IN A MAUL just holding the ball? usual caveats here about the ball being available and the acting scrumhalf not taking an age to play it away etc etc

Yes.

 

[didds]

Yes.

Bugger. 30 years I could have caused (more) havoc had I known! ;-)

Im sure id have got slapped for trying! Or slapped soemone trying it against us!

 

[Decorily]

Bugger. 30 years I could have caused (more) havoc had I known! ;-)

Im sure id have got slapped for trying! Or slapped soemone trying it against us!

I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm wrong! !

 

[crossref]

I reckon all the players, both teams, would normally expect a turnover.

 

[Stu10]

I had this situation arise on Sunday:

Maul, with green attacking red. Green BC goes to ground. Red player falls on him and wraps his arms around the green player and the ball to prevent releasing.

My call was a penalty to green, red player killing the ball.

Red asked me to clarify my decision, and it was obvious that he had been coached to do this in a maul (he's in a regional academy).

Having looked at the clarification from 2011, I'm not sure if my decision was correct.

If both had gone down together, there would be no law requiring red to release; therefore scrum to red.

If red had stayed on his feet and prevented green from making the ball available, I also think a scrum to red?

What would be the correct call?

As others have said, scrum to red if they went to ground together, penalty against red if a separate action.

BC is the only person allowed to go to ground.

If the ball remains off the ground then no obligation for defenders to release. If the ball becomes unplayable then it's a scrum to the defending team.

If the BC gets the ball to the ground then it becomes a ruck; though I would only call a ruck if it looks likely the ball can be played, otherwise blow quickly for unsuccessful maul, ball unplayable (ie gets ball to ground amongst other bodies).

I have a question... if the BC goes to ground and the defender contesting the ball is on his feet, is the BC is obliged to release the ball?
If BC does not release the ball, is it a scrum because the ball is unplayable, or a penalty for not releasing on the floor?

 

[Balones]

not picking holes, just for personal information ... law reference please Phil (to better edjamacate myself etc)

Law 16.9?

 

[Stu10]

can a oppo player IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)
can a team mate IN A MAUL lift the ball when the ball is subsequently taken to ground (and thus maul over etc)

??
my take on both those questions is "no" (but i couldnt give you a law refenece for that - just what seems right/obvious after all these decades etc ;-) )
So if there is no entitlement then whats to stop the BC taking ball to gound IN A MAUL just holding the ball? usual caveats here about the ball being available and the acting scrumhalf not taking an age to play it away etc etc

I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I'm wrong! !

In my opinion, if the ball goes to ground in a maul then it becomes a ruck, therefore neither a oppo player nor a teammate can then lift the ball (hands in ruck).

 

[Balones]

“If the BC gets the ball to the ground then it becomes a ruck; though I would only call a ruck if it looks likely the ball can be played, otherwise blow quickly for collapsed maul.”

It only becomes a ruck if after the ball carrier goes to ground the remainder of the players stay on their feet.

 

[crossref]

As others have said, scrum to red if they went to ground together, penalty against red if a separate action.

BC is the only person allowed to go to ground.

If the ball remains off the ground then no obligation for defenders to release. If the ball becomes unplayable then it's a scrum to the defending team.

If the BC gets the ball to the ground then it becomes a ruck; though I would only call a ruck if it looks likely the ball can be played, otherwise blow quickly for unsuccessful maul, ball unplayable (ie gets ball to ground amongst other bodies).

I have a question... if the BC goes to ground and the defender contesting the ball is on his feet, is the BC is obliged to release the ball?
If BC does not release the ball, is it a scrum because the ball is unplayable, or a penalty for not releasing on the floor?

the bold bit - isn't that what first happened in the OP