[In-goal] Maul in goal

[FatherFlipper]

Evening,

Question here relating to a game I watched about a month back.

London play-off final. Visitors have a line-out from a penalty, on the five metre line. Catch, drive. Trundle forward, over the try line. However, maul is completely upright the entire time, and never even vaguely comes close to being dotted down. After a few moments of 15 players hugging on the spot in-goal, he blows, and awards a defensive scrum on the five.

Is this correct? The visiting fans around me were a little bit perplexed and thought it should have been scrum five as held up in goal. Yay or nay? I'll be honest and say I would have gone scrum five attacking as well on the same basis the visiting fans perceived. Any help would be gratefully received.

(as it was, the visiting scrum was so dominant, they won the scrum against the head and scored from the next phase in play anyway...)

 

[Staffs_Ref]

Evening,

Question here relating to a game I watched about a month back.

London play-off final. Visitors have a line-out from a penalty, on the five metre line. Catch, drive. Trundle forward, over the try line. However, maul is completely upright the entire time, and never even vaguely comes close to being dotted down. After a few moments of 15 players hugging on the spot in-goal, he blows, and awards a defensive scrum on the five.

Is this correct? The visiting fans around me were a little bit perplexed and thought it should have been scrum five as held up in goal. Yay or nay? I'll be honest and say I would have gone scrum five attacking as well on the same basis the visiting fans perceived. Any help would be gratefully received.

(as it was, the visiting scrum was so dominant, they won the scrum against the head and scored from the next phase in play anyway...)

Had the ball crossed the goal line? If so, then the maul would be deemed to be over and I would say that it should have been called as held up and 5 metre attacking scrum awarded.

However, if the referee deemed that the ball had not crossed the goal line (and it seems this may well have been what he decided) then it sounds as if the awarded turnover of possession as a result of the attacking team taking the ball into the maul and failing to use it within the time the referee allowed.

 

[OB..]

I had hoped this was a historical query!
[LAWS]13. — Maul in Goal. When a player holding the ball is mauled by one or more of the opposite side outside goal, and carried inside goal by the scrummage, then only those who are touching the ball with their hands may continue in the maul inside goal, and when a player has once released his hold of the ball, he may not again join in the maul, and if he attempt to do so, may be dragged out by the opposite side. (The object of such maul being, of course, to touch the ball down.)
But if a player running in is tackled inside goal-line, then only the player who first tackles him, or if two or three tackle him simultaneously may join in the maul. [/LAWS](1866)

However, as has been said.modern law has a different concept, and there is no such thing as a maul in goal nowadays.

 

[crossref]

Had the ball crossed the goal line? If so, then the maul would be deemed to be over and I would say that it should have been called as held up and 5 metre attacking scrum awarded.

However, if the referee deemed that the ball had not crossed the goal line (and it seems this may well have been what he decided) then it sounds as if the awarded turnover of possession as a result of the attacking team taking the ball into the maul and failing to use it within the time the referee allowed.

good answer.
I wonder if the referee made a secondary signal

 

[Pegleg]

Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" and woudl not help as to where it was held up. As suggested the crux is where he deamed the ball to be held up.

 

[colesy]

Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" and woudl not help as to where it was held up. As suggested the crux is where he deamed the ball to be held up.

I don't think so. Held up in goal would be a different signal to an unsuccessful end to a maul in the FOP.

 

[crossref]

Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" .

what signal is that then ??? :wink:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?signal_category=2

 

[L'irlandais]

Almost right. Scrum 5 is the way to go.[laws]22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/laws]

 

[Dickie E]

if the maul moved into in goal then continued on its merry way over DBL I would go with 22 drop out. The thing similar to a maul would need to become stationery (or very close to it) to be a 5 M scrum IMO

 

[FatherFlipper]

Thanks gents - to confirm: the whole maul shuffled aimlessly towards the middle of in-goal before just, sort of, stopping. No doubt where the ball was. Not sure if there was a secondary signal, as the action took place over the opposite side and the ref was slightly obscured by 15 blokes huddled together. The attacking players were, shall we say, slightly bemused (so add a few beers into the mix and you can imagine their fans befuddlement).

 

[Pinky]

if the maul moved into in goal then continued on its merry way over DBL I would go with 22 drop out. The thing similar to a maul would need to become stationery (or very close to it) to be a 5 M scrum IMO

I think this is wrong on the basis that a maul cannot take place in the in-goal. I think Staffs_Ref got it bang on. FF, think it should have been attacking scrum if it got right into the in-goal.

 

[irishref]

My tuppenceworth: we're all agreed that no maul can take place in-goal.

Ergo there has been a successful end to the maul. Now we have to allow the attacker a bit of time to ground the ball.

If this doesn't happen it's held up and thus 5m scrum to the attacking team.

I think the ref forgot the maul ended successfully.

 

[Dickie E]

I think this is wrong on the basis that a maul cannot take place in the in-goal. I think Staffs_Ref got it bang on. FF, think it should have been attacking scrum if it got right into the in-goal.

I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

A question for you. Maul moves into in-goal so you've already decided its either a try or held up. As you bring whistle to lips a defender wrests the ball out of the maul and runs 100m to score under posts. Bring it back for a 5 metre scrum?

 

[DocY]

I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

Playing Devil's advocate (I agree that you shouldn't blow if the former maul is still moving), but what about 10.1 b-e? There's all sorts of obstruction going on.

 

[ChrisR]

I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

A question for you. Maul moves into in-goal so you've already decided its either a try or held up. As you bring whistle to lips a defender wrests the ball out of the maul and runs 100m to score under posts. Bring it back for a 5 metre scrum?

..... and the referee must determine whether the situation is still developing or has it reached stagnation.

However 22.10 seems to allow only a try or an attacking 5m:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.

 

[DocY]

..... and the referee must determine whether the situation is still developing or has it reached stagnation.

However 22.10 seems to allow only a try or an attacking 5m:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.

I think it's just poorly worded again so it only covers the usual case of the (former) maul falling over. I struggle to believe the intent was that driving the maul into TiG or a defender stealing the ball would result in an attacking 5m scrum. But the law is also supposed to cover Carling-esque drivings over the DBL without a maul - I refuse to believe that should be an attacking scrum!

I struggle a bit more with the maul being driven back into the FoP, but would give a defending scrum. Mainly because if I didn't there'd be 30+ guys saying "WTF?" and I don't think the law would be on my side (at least not clearly enough).

If pressed to justify it in law I'd say something like: maul formed, ball goes over goal line, maul successfully ended, BC driven back into the FoP and held by an opponent and a team mate = new maul (attacking team took it in), new maul ends unsuccessfully.

 

[OB..]

.This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.

If a defender gains the ball, then it has not (necessarily) been held up. Play on. Similarly if the ex-maul is driven out of play.

 

[Phil E]

If a defender gains the ball, then it has not (necessarily) been held up. Play on. Similarly if the ex-maul is driven out of play.

The law doesn't state that "held up" has to be by an attacker.

[LAWS]22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the
ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul
takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

 

[DocY]

The law doesn't state that "held up" has to be by an attacker.

[LAWS]22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the
ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul
takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

Isn't this to cover something like a defender trying to run from behind his own goal line and an attacker holding him and stopping him grounding the ball? I don't really see how it [edit: the holding up being by a defender] applies to an attacking maul.

 

[Phil E]

Isn't this to cover something like a defender trying to run from behind his own goal line and an attacker holding him and stopping him grounding the ball? I don't really see how it [edit: the holding up being by a defender] applies to an attacking maul.

Because OB said if a defender gained the ball (i.e. ripped it in the notamaul), then it wasn't held up.