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

[Rich_NL]

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 .

Unless they caught the ball in open play

 

[beckett50]

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".

which is what I said.

As for the rest, if you apply Law 21 Para 17 literally then as soon as the ball over the goal line then you should blow and award the 5m scrum. However, as you said earlier "Let it breathe" :smile:

 

[Dickie E]

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 .

but once the maul goes from FoP into in-goal it ceases to be a maul. So if it then moves back into FoP, who creates this new maul? ... or is it the same maul?

I give you ... Schrodinger's Maul

 

[crossref]

Unless they caught the ball in open play

No, unless they caught the ball from a kick which was made in open play ...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

which is what I said.

Well it is not You are refering to once in the in-goal area. My point was about before it gets there.

However, the point was:

I asked in response the comment about the maul illegally moving into in-goal: " How could a maul illegally move into in-goal?”

Christy responded “Quite easily ,,attacking team join from side & push over goal line .
Penalty to deffenders (sic)”

To which I said: “The maul had not entered illegally the illegality is the joining offence. “

So, your comment “and yet because the Maul has ceased to exist it means that the defenders are able to join from any direction.”

is not relevant to how it got into in-goal. That is about AFTER it gets there.


My point is the maul does not get into the maul illegally because of the offence of a player joining it. Whilst That offence is about joining a maul.

 

[VM75]

but once the maul goes from FoP into in-goal it ceases to be a maul. So if it then moves back into FoP, who creates this new maul? ... or is it the same maul?

I give you ... Schrodinger's Maul

I agree.

16.c says "Maul ends AND play continues when the ball is over the goal line ......

so, let it continue ....

If its grounded by attackers = try
Grounded by defenders = 22
Unplayable = Scrum 5 Attack feed
If it re-enters the field of play why not call "New Maul", & then referee it accordingly , which if it becomes unplayable means Scrum with defending feed.

If my defenders could shove an attacking ball out back out of in-goal then that great defensive effort should be rewarded IMO.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

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

You might need to be careful there. We're only allowed to consider "team going forward" when there is doubt as to who took the ball into the maul. In this example, we know that it was the attacking team. Same outcome none-the-less. Just be careful how you sell that decision

 

[Rich_NL]

You might need to be careful there. We're only allowed to consider "team going forward" when there is doubt as to who took the ball into the maul. In this example, we know that it was the attacking team. Same outcome none-the-less. Just be careful how you sell that decision

No-one took the ball into the maul: in OP, the attacking team took the ball into the first maul, but that maul was over once the ball went into in-goal. *This* maul appeared as a group of players contesting the ball, moving from in-goal into the FoP.

If the referee cannot determine who has possession, the team going forward at the whistle gets the scrum.

Of course, that defensive 5m scrum assumes the maul just moves out and stalls. If the maul moves 5m into the FoP and then 4m straight back before stalling, it will be an attacking 5m scrum.