Maul Interpretation

[peperami]

Evening gents,

I had a school U18 game yesterday after which the two coaches wanted to discuss the same point of law which I had consistently applied.

On one occasion each, I had a maul which was going forward went to ground and was buried at the bottom of the maul. I blew the whistle and awarded the scrum to the side that didnt take the ball into the maul.

Both coaches wanted to know why I hadnt awarded the scrum to the side going forward. I explained that if the ball doesnt come out of the maul it is a scrum turnover ball.

Am I wrong, interestingly one of the coaches believed you could turn a maul into a ruck. Something I am sure I have been told you cant do.

Ben

 

[OB..]

You were right. Refer them to Law 17.6 (g).

If the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available, it is an unsuccessful end to a MAUL, not to a ruck.

You can only legally turn a maul into a ruck if the ball carrier lets the ball go to to ground (but not forward).

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

You can only legally turn a maul into a ruck if the ball carrier lets the ball go to to ground (but not forward).

Who would get the scrum following in this? I'm guessing the team that originally took it into the maul, which ended successfully. Or is it the team moving forward immed. before the ball becomes unplayable. opps brainlock just hit


Peper- I would say 17.6(c) also applies

 

[ddjamo]

you're right pep...good call.

 

[beckett50]

That's quite worrying that the coaches didn't know that basic princple of Law! Especially at that age group. One presumes that they are not from schools known for their rugby prowess?

 

[Dixie]

NKW - unplayable after a ruck: scrum to side moving forward before the ball became unplayable. If no-one moving forward, attacking side ball.

 

[Taff]

... You can only legally turn a maul into a ruck if the ball carrier lets the ball go to to ground (but not forward).

Who would get the scrum following in this (situation)?

Good question. So if a maul got turned into a ruck, and the ball got stuck would it be turnover ball? :chin:

What happened to the "Delete Post" option? Dixie answered while I was typing, but now I can't get rid of it.

 

[Simonsky]

I've had players challenging me on this turnover thing with maul unplayables -quite often vets who you might think would know

 

[Dixie]

Good question. So if a maul got turned into a ruck, and the ball got stuck would it be turnover ball? :chin:

What happened to the "Delete Post" option? Dixie answered while I was typing, but now I can't get rid of it.

Never ignore the possibility that Dixie might have been wrong! It has been known.

 

[Davet]

The problem of players coaches thinking scrum after unplayable maul goes to side moving forward has two roots.
1) many vets learned their rugby prior to somewhere around 1993? ish, which is when the Law was changed. Prior that sort of period the put in was indeed given to the side going forward.
2) Many players believe that if they get the ball to the ground they have formed a ruck, and that therefore ruck law applies - however they need to be aware that a collapsed maul is not a ruck - just because the ball is on the floor that doesn't make a ruck, especially when there are 5 or 6 bodies lying all over it; a collapsed maul is stil a maul, so maul law applies.

IF a ruck does form then ruck law applies from that point.

 

[Phil E]

You seem to get this quite often at U19 level for some reason.

If a maul goes to ground (legally) I always shout "use it" if the ball is available at the back of the maul. Otherwise scrum to the team who didn't take it in.

If they query this the simple explanation is "you took it in, you didn't use it, so you lose it".

I usually pre-empt this (at U19) as a maul forms with "maul", "keep it moving" and a reminder to "use it or lose it".

 

[Taff]

NKW - unplayable after a ruck: scrum to side moving forward before the ball became unplayable. If no-one moving forward, attacking side ball.

... Many players believe that if they get the ball to the ground they have formed a ruck, and that therefore ruck law applies - however they need to be aware that a collapsed maul is not a ruck - just because the ball is on the floor that doesn't make a ruck, especially when there are 5 or 6 bodies lying all over it; a collapsed maul is stil a maul, so maul law applies.

Surely these two posts contradict each other. My gut feeling is that a ruck created from a collapsed maul is still a maul - but I know nothing.

 

[Greg Collins]

If a maul goes to ground (legally) I always shout "use it" if the ball is available at the back of the maul. Otherwise scrum to the team who didn't take it in.

This is one that bothers my head, and seems to bother others, so here goes...

How does a maul (nb the maul not the ball) go to ground legally?

 

[Phil E]

How does a maul (nb the maul not the ball) go to ground legally?

Basically, no one pulled it down.

Players tread on each others feet, then can't move their feet as a result, then they all fall over.

Ball carrier goes to ground (as he is entitled to do) and they all fall over his prone body.

You can't give a penalty for an illegal pull down if you don't see someone do it.

 

[Davet]

Taff, you don't get (or at least I have never seen it) a ruck from a collapsed maul. A ruck requires players on their feet, min one from each side, bound together with the ball on the floor and them over it.

What you get at a collapsed maul is a pile of bodies on the floor, maybe one or two on each side at the base on their feet, but not bound to opposition on their feet, and not over the top of the ball on the floor. If the ball is immediately available at the back of the collapsed maul then play it, if not then blow it up and scrum down, put in to side that did NOT take it in.

Phil E - why only call maul at U19? I would recommend calling it at all levels, and calling "stopped once" followed by "Stopped twice - use it or lose it" then check if its coming. If visible and could come out rapidly then call again use it or lose, then if nothing, or it was not visible ...<peep>.

Calling isn't only an aid to the players, it helps you keep track of what you are doing.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I would recommend calling it at all levels, and calling "stopped once" followed by "Stopped twice - use it or lose it" then check if its coming. If visible and could come out rapidly then call again use it or lose, then if nothing, or it was not visible ...<peep>.

Calling isn't only an aid to the players, it helps you keep track of what you are doing.

That's basically what I do:-

"That's a maul" (when it is)
"Don't pull it down" reminders to defenders plus "back foot" where appropriate
"Keep it moving forward if you want to keep it"
"That's one" when it first stops with a "Geddit movin or Use it"
Trundle Trundle
"That's two - lets have it out/Use it or Lose it etc etc" Spots ball, counts in head 5-4-3-2-1 - PEEP.

All the above accompanied by sheep dog impression round maul, looking at fringe players and defensive backs etc - reference Phil Drabble - come bye Shep!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheBFG]

maul going to ground in goal:chin:

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

maul going to ground in goal:chin:

Try if you can definately see it grounded by attackers

If not held up/doubt in grounding = 5m scrum attacking side put in.

There may be a "who took it in" discussion to have but I don't think it's valid.

 

[OB..]

maul going to ground in goal:chin:

You cannot have a maul in in-goal.

 

[Phil E]

Phil E - why only call maul at U19?

I don't?

The original questions was regarding an U19 game, so that's what I was specifically talking about.

I don't believe I said "I don't do this at >19".