[In-goal] Maul in and out of in goal

[Pinky]

Play approaches goal line and ball carrier is held up by defenders and is pushed over the goal line by his team mates. Unable to touch down and additional defenders then push the maul back over the goal line into the field of play. Ref allowed play to continue and an attacker picked up the ball and dived over for a score. All correct?

 

[Dickie E]

if it all continued as a dynamic situation, I would be fine with that.

 

[Decorily]

if it all continued as a dynamic situation, I would be fine with that.

I wouldn't. ....maul goes in goal use it or lose it applies.
Ground it for try or lose it!

 

[menace]

I wouldn't. ....maul goes in goal use it or lose it applies.
Ground it for try or lose it!

Maul ceases to exist in-goal. So use it or lose it can't apply. You create a problem for yourself if you apply that!

Lots of variables to consider so no cookie cutter answer for this one IMO.
If ball over line for nanosecond and then back into field of play then im with Dickie
If ball well into ingoal then I'm leaning to a "held up" decision being called sooner if "mauly thing" starts to move back to in field. Scrum attacking team.

 

[Decorily]

Maul ceases to exist in-goal. So use it or lose it can't apply. You create a problem for yourself if you apply that!

Lots of variables to consider so no cookie cutter answer for this one IMO.
If ball over line for nanosecond and then back into field of play then im with Dickie
If ball well into ingoal then I'm leaning to a "held up" decision being called sooner if "mauly thing" starts to move back to in field. Scrum attacking team.

I agree entirely with this and this is in fact what I meant in my previous post.
By "use it or lose it" I meant ground it or be held up. Poor choice of words on my behalf.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Let it breathe!

 

[Christy]

Maul ceases to exist in-goal. So use it or lose it can't apply. You create a problem for yourself if you apply that!

Lots of variables to consider so no cookie cutter answer for this one IMO.
If ball over line for nanosecond and then back into field of play then im with Dickie
If ball well into ingoal then I'm leaning to a "held up" decision being called sooner if "mauly thing" starts to move back to in field. Scrum attacking team.

For me , if a maul has entered in goal legally , i would play on & see what happens ..
If it gets pushed back out ,,i would play on .. ( shout loudly ,,thats once to attacking team )

I dont beleive the laws are saying you cant have a maul in goal , to mean in that context .
So i would allow a maul to be collapsed in goal , by deffenders ,,as the laws dont apply in goal .
I would also allow entry from side , once ball over line
The very same as it says you cant have a tackle in goal .
Its not that you cant tackle a player in goal ,,its the laws around tackle that no longer exist .
Such as no gate entry required ,, tackler would not need to get off floor , to legally handle ball ..

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For me , if a maul has entered in goal legally , i would play on & see what happens ..
If it gets pushed back out ,,i would play on .. ( shout loudly ,,thats once to attacking team )

I dont beleive the laws are saying you cant have a maul in goal , to mean in that context .
So i would allow a maul to be collapsed in goal , by deffenders ,,as the laws dont apply in goal .
I would also allow entry from side , once ball over line
The very same as it says you cant have a tackle in goal .
Its not that you cant tackle a player in goal ,,its the laws around tackle that no longer exist .
Such as no gate entry required ,, tackler would not need to get off floor , to legally handle ball ..

What a mixed up post!

A maul does not legally exist in goal .That is exactly what the laws say!

You can grasp a player etc but that does not make a tackle or a mau or indeed a ruck. So the laws surroundign those phases do not apply (BECAUSE they, themselves, are not occuring!)

I'm not sure how aa maul could possibly enter in-goal "illegally".

However, I agree (as psoted above) don't blow, let it breathe. If the body of players c0omes back out it is a maul again. Treat it as "once" that is reasonable.

 

[Christy]

what a mixed up post!
(
a maul does not legally exist in goal .that is exactly what the laws say!
Read my post again ,,


you can grasp a player etc but that does not make a tackle or a mau or indeed a ruck. So the laws surroundign those phases do not apply (because they, themselves, are not occuring!)
i think youve answered your own question here in same post

i'm not sure how aa maul could possibly enter in-goal "illegally".
Quite easily ,,attacking team join from side & push over goal line .
Penalty to deffenders

however, i agree (as psoted above) don't blow, let it breathe. If the body of players c0omes back out it is a maul again. Treat it as "once" that is reasonable.

we agree on this


My reply above in bold

 

[Marc Wakeham]

THe maul had not entered illegally the illegality is the joining offence. I read your post and sorry it makes no sense.

 

[DocY]

Play approaches goal line and ball carrier is held up by defenders and is pushed over the goal line by his team mates. Unable to touch down and additional defenders then push the maul back over the goal line into the field of play. Ref allowed play to continue and an attacker picked up the ball and dived over for a score. All correct?

It sounds correct to me. You've not said anything in this post that would make me think he should have blown up before the try was scored.

Had the ball got stuck in the maul-that-was-pushed-out-of-in-goal then that'd be an interesting question.

 

[Rich_NL]

Team that was going forward, surely? Defensive scrum 5, most likely.

 

[DocY]

Team that was going forward, surely? Defensive scrum 5, most likely.

If that was a reply to the second bit of my post, then that's what I'd give (and have given, with no objections.)

But I'm sure someone will argue for an attacking scrum!

 

[Dickie E]

If that was a reply to the second bit of my post, then that's what I'd give (and have given, with no objections.)

But I'm sure someone will argue for an attacking scrum!

Let me see if I have this straight. Attacking maul goes into in-goal and is then pushed back into FoP. The maul then becomes unplayable. What is the restart? Is that the question?

If so, I'd also give the defending team the scrum feed.

 

[DocY]

Let me see if I have this straight. Attacking maul goes into in-goal and is then pushed back into FoP. The maul then becomes unplayable. What is the restart? Is that the question?

Yep, that's right.

 

[beckett50]

THe maul had not entered illegally the illegality is the joining offence. I read your post and sorry it makes no sense.

and yet because the Maul has ceased to exist it means that the defenders are able to join from any direction.

However, I am with you that if it is dynamic then I am letting it breathe. As soon as it moves backward - toward the ball carrier's (BC) goal line - then I am telling the #9 "That's once backwards" to encourage movement of the ball to the back.

You can't award an attacking 5m for "Held Up" since the BC has not attempted to ground the ball - from the description in the OP - because he is prevented from going to ground by the (legal) actions of the defender(s).

 

[Decorily]

You can't award an attacking 5m for "Held Up" since the BC has not attempted to ground the ball - from the description in the OP - because he is prevented from going to ground by the (legal) actions of the defender(s).

This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever!
The ball carrier is obviously attempting to ground the ball....what else might he be doing!!!!
He is "prevented from doing so" by the defenders and yet he is not 'held up' in your opinion.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

and yet because the Maul has ceased to exist it means that the defenders are able to join from any direction.

It ceases to be once in the in goal NOT before so they are not free to join from any direction BEFORE that. If player join in front of the back BEFORE it"it"gets there they are committing an offence by joining illegally not by pushing the ball into in goal "illegally".

You can't award an attacking 5m for "Held Up" since the BC has not attempted to ground the ball - from the description in the OP - because he is prevented from going to ground by the (legal) actions of the defender(s).

Can't agree with this bit. We can safelyassume that all attacking players entering the defenders in goal do so hoping to score. if a defender prevents this it is "held up".

 

[Christy]

Oh dear , some of us here are in a fine muddle .

The team that had possession , which created a maul .
Will not be the team to put in at turn over scrum .

 

[Dickie E]

As soon as it moves backward - toward the ball carrier's (BC) goal line - then I am telling the #9 "That's once backwards" to encourage movement of the ball to the back.

If the maul is moving towards either goal line I'll stay stum.