Maul from restart

C

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
497
Post Likes
57
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
OB.. said:
[LAWS]Definitions
Restart kick: The method of restarting play with a drop-kick after a score or a touch-down.[/LAWS]
Click to expand...

Not sure why there is any relevance to a "Restart Kick", Law 16.18 , in the 2018 Law Book, mentions only "directly caught an opponent's kick from open play".
Would it not be a hard to sell that decision to a law-knowledgeable coach who asks for an explanation ?
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
CrouchTPEngage said:
Not sure why there is any relevance to a "Restart Kick", Law 16.18 , in the 2018 Law Book, mentions only "directly caught an opponent's kick from open play".
Would it not be a hard to sell that decision to a law-knowledgeable coach who asks for an explanation ?
Click to expand...
[LAWS]Open play: The period after a kick-off, restart kick, free-kick, penalty or set piece and before the next phase, or the period between phases of play, excluding when the ball is dead.[/LAWS]
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,148
OB.. said:
[LAWS]Open play: The period after a kick-off, restart kick, free-kick, penalty or set piece and before the next phase, or the period between phases of play, excluding when the ball is dead.[/LAWS]
Click to expand...

So clearly, and with no room for wiggle, a catch from a restart is the same as catch from a FK or a PK ..
 
C

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
OB - Blue kick a penalty.
Red catch it just before it goes into touch.
A maul forms and it is unplayable.

Who get the put in and why?

Illustrate your answer with law quotes from both 2017 and 2018 law books?

then explain how there have been no changes?
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,148
I don't think there is a 'bang on' answer
The 2017 Law Book says scrum Quins
The 2018 Law Book says scrum Sarries
There is this persistent mantra that claims nothing has changed.

I wouldn't fault any referee for giving either decision, neither can be said to be definitely wrong

I am interested to see what proportion go with which option.

The 2019 Law Book will provide a definitive answer .. either they will amend it to go back to the 2017 Law , or they will leave the text unchanged at which point , I think , everyone would accept the new version

i wonder which it will be !
 
Last edited:
thepercy

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Flish said:
Learnt this one on Saturday, luckily it was just the half time score that I got the wrong way round, and we had a joke about it. That said not sure what the alternative would have been as the team names were not friendly to be being abbreviated
Click to expand...
One team might have a secondary color you could use?
 
P

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
crossref said:
I don't think there is a 'bang on' answer
The 2017 Law Book says scrum Quins
The 2018 Law Book says scrum Sarries
There is this persistent mantra that claims nothing has changed.

I wouldn't fault any referee for giving either decision, neither can be said to be definitely wrong

I am interested to see what proportion go with which option.

The 2019 Law Book will provide a definitive answer .. either they will amend it to go back to the 2017 Law , or they will leave the text unchanged at which point , I think , everyone would accept the new version

i wonder which it will be !
Click to expand...

The OP scenario is still the same - as described above the exception to the exception means that a maul from a restart kick (caught by the opposition) is the kicker's ball at the scrum. The interesting bit is whether there was any change to a PK, which in 2017 would have been catchers ball and in some reading of 2018 (as it is not a kick in open play) be the "normal" maul rule of kickers ball, team not taking the ball into the maul.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,148
Well, that's the way you read the 2018 Law , I read it as no change for a PK , change for a restart.

But your point is good, in that in 2017 a PK and Restart are treated differently, in 2018 they are treated the same . So one or other has to change
 
C

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
497
Post Likes
57
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
crossref said:
I don't think there is a 'bang on' answer
The 2017 Law Book says scrum Quins
The 2018 Law Book says scrum Sarries
There is this persistent mantra that claims nothing has changed.

I wouldn't fault any referee for giving either decision, neither can be said to be definitely wrong

I am interested to see what proportion go with which option.

The 2019 Law Book will provide a definitive answer .. either they will amend it to go back to the 2017 Law , or they will leave the text unchanged at which point , I think , everyone would accept the new version

i wonder which it will be !
Click to expand...


Until such time as there is a further law clarification I am going to continue to ref it as what I infer was the spirit of the law in regards "open play".
My belief is that the law-makers intended for some jeopardy in cases where as team "chooses" to kick the ball as opposed to when a team is "required" to kick ( Yes - I know a scrum option ! ). So, if you kicked it away in open play, then you dont the scrum. IF you were required to restart, then you had no choice thus , you can have the scrum.

So I agree with Luke Pearce's decision in that example.
Hope this counts as 1 vote to help answer your "what proportion go with which option" point .

Cheers. !
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,148
Fair enough , but how would treat a catch from a PK then ? same as a restart ?
 
P

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
crossref said:
Well, that's the way you read the 2018 Law , I read it as no change for a PK , change for a restart.

But your point is good, in that in 2017 a PK and Restart are treated differently, in 2018 they are treated the same . So one or other has to change
Click to expand...

i don't follow why you think the law has changed for a restart kick.
 
P

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
crossref said:
Fair enough , but how would treat a catch from a PK then ? same as a restart ?
Click to expand...

I think I would probably treat is the same as a kick from open play (in other words no change from 2017) and if I was challenged eg by a law specialist 9, I would give him my opinion that a PK is open play as soon as the boot hits the ball.

(A restart is not open play as soon as the boot hits the ball because there are circumstances where options may have to be offered that don't happen with at PK)

I know it may be a weak distinction, but it keeps the no change (at least in this part of law from 2017) and it would be bound to win any on-pitch argument!
 
Last edited:
Z

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
717
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I’m sure I’ve read somewhere (!) that WR state there are no law changes from 2017. Until they change this guidance I’m refereeing this as per the 2017 lawbook and an unsuccessful maul direct from the KO is not a turnover.
 
Rich_NL

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
Pinky said:
I think I would probably treat is the same as a kick from open play (in other words no change from 2017) and if I was challenged eg by a law specialist 9, I would give him my opinion that a PK is open play as soon as the boot hits the ball.
Click to expand...

Ah, he says, so you can't have the lineout if you kick to touch after time has expired? ;)
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,148
So, OB.. asked the RFU about this --

OB.. said:
My second knotty point concerned the possibility of a maul turnover if the maul followed immediately after a restart kick.
I pointed out that the law could be parsed in two contradictory ways:-

There is ambiguity in the wording of 16.18 .
(caught an opponent's kick) (in open play) [open play follows a restart kick]
or
(caught) (an opponent's kick in open play)[does not apply to a restart kick]
Click to expand...

This is resolved in favour of the latter.
Click to expand...

Here's the Law again

[LAWS]
16.18 If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.[/LAWS]

Well, even though I have this a hundred times, I always read it as

"a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play"

it never occured to me that it could be read as

"a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play"

Which is how RFU answered OB..

So, let's go with that.

So from a restart kick, maul forms, uplayable, scrum goes to the kicking team (as it did in 2017)

But now of course, we have the problem of catching a kick from a Penalty Kick -- because following the RFU's interpretation - this also leads to a scrum to the kicking team ... which is a change from 2017 Law Book when it would have been the catching team
 
C

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
Is there any reason not to simplify the law and get rid of the exception for mauls from kicks.
We can then get rid of the exception to the exception and the exception to the exception to the exception.
We have a simple law, maul uplayable - turnover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top