Maul to ruck

[Jz558]

You'd give what you normally do for a player who dives on a ball emerging from a ruck.

 

[Jz558]

I've absolutely loved reading OB's post on pre1992 law. I remember training drills on Tuesday and Thursday evenings duringthe late 80s where we used to spend hours practicing carrying the ball intocontact, dropping a shoulder and driving into the opposition. Turn around andpresent, at which point the first two members of your team arrived, linked armsbehind your body and drove because if you got the forward momentum then you gotthe put in at the subsequent scrum when the mob collapsed. Absolutely standardpractice.

Returning to the point however I also remember being told byan instructor on my Referee's course that a maul could never become a ruck. Outof deference for his experience I didn't argue the point. But he was wrong(and, as was mentioned on another thread recently, there's a law clarificationfrom 2011 to prove it).

 

[crossref]

But nobody questions it. Every team I know accepts that if there's a maul and ball gets to ground (and all the other conditions for a ruck exist) then we have a ruck. The only thing that can catch us out is if a BC goes to ground but can't get the ball to the ground, then we have a collapsed maul and not a ruck; and the restart is different.

They will question it if it ends up being unplayable and you award a scrum .. see the OP

I think that if you announce a maul has become a ruck its a confusing call

 

[Jz558]

Surely you cant be suggesting that, even if all the criteria for a ruck are met in accordance with the laws, that you should ignore that and call what you believe the average player can understand because he's not bright enough to realise anything different?

 

[crossref]

Surely you cant be suggesting that, even if all the criteria for a ruck are met in accordance with the laws, that you should ignore that and call what you believe the average player can understand because he's not bright enough to realise anything different?

Give me a more specific scenario and I will tell you what I will do

But generally speaking a referee can certainly come a cropped by by being too focused on arcane law situations, yes.

I remember WB saying at a meeting something along the lines that if there is a decision that is plausible, that all 30 players would broadly speaking expect you to give ... It's most likely best to give it .

Even if you know of an obscure law that suggests the opposite

(That's a rule of thumb not a commandment )

 

[Jz558]

I chose the phrase 'all the criteria for a ruck are met in accordance with the laws' because it was specific.

Otherwise I absolutely agree, do what is expected.

Which arcane/obscure law are you referring to? I assumed we werediscussing law 16.16b

 

[crossref]

If we are discussing the scenario in the OP to me that sounds like a maul ending unsuccessfully.
Or do you have a different scenario in mind ?

 

[Jz558]

To me it sounds like a ruck ending unsuccessfully but I guess that’s why we love the game. We can see what’s written but don’t interpretate it the same way

 

[Taff]

To me it sounds like a ruck ending unsuccessfully ...

Same for me.

... Red catch and drive from line out 10m out. I call maul. Black eventually get defence sorted and stop forward momentum at 5m line. Before I say anything red realise the momentum has stopped and ball carrier goes to ground and places ball on floor, where I can see it clearly. Red scrum half about to pick it up but bodies from both sides collapse , not deliberately and ball is now unplayable.

If Black want the throw in, then they have to stop that ball getting to ground and forming a ruck. It came from a maul, so even if they failed to keep the BC from going to ground, there was was no requirement for them to release either the BC or the ball. It then becomes a collapsed maul and they get the turnover.

 

[crossref]

To me it sounds like a ruck ending unsuccessfully but I guess that’s why we love the game. We can see what’s written but don’t interpretate it the same way

Fair enough.
It doesn't happen very often I think, but on those infrequent
occasions when you decide a maul has become a ruck I would advise a loud shout so that everyone realises what has happened and can play accordingly.

For instance would you now allow body rolls and similar techniques to clear out (which are allowed in a ruck but in a maul would be collapsing)?

(I just think a maul becoming a ruck is rife with complications, confusion and potential gotchas)

 

[crossref]

Same for me.


If Black want the throw in, then they have to stop that ball getting to ground and forming a ruck. It came from a maul, so even if they failed to keep the BC from going to ground, there was was no requirement for them to release either the BC or the ball. It then becomes a collapsed maul and they get the turnover.

Now that sounds really confusing. It's become a ruck but if it collapses you will ref it as a maul again ?

 

[ChrisR]

Dickie E got it right in his posts #4 and #7.

If player with the ball goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available the it's an unsuccessful end to the maul (see the OP) and a turnover.

If the ball is forced to the ground and all players stay on their feet then the maul has ended successfully. It is now a ruck.

That it rarely happens (but not never) is more of a coaching issue. I can make a case for it.

 

[Taff]

Now that sounds really confusing. It's become a ruck but if it collapses you will ref it as a maul again ?

No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.

 

[crossref]

No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.

For me, wait a second or so, if the ball disappears play on, if it doesn't , maul ended unsuccessfully

 

[Dickie E]

That view now seems to have been eroded to the point of non-existence.

I was with you until this bit. Is this opinion based on your observation? I don't think I have ever seen a quality referee do this.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

No, I reckon we have to decide if we are looking at a collapsed maul (and referee it as a maul, with turnover ball if it ends unsuccessfully) or a perfectly good ruck. It can't be both.

Stop using common sense!

 

[thepercy]

Fair enough.
It doesn't happen very often I think, but on those infrequent
occasions when you decide a maul has become a ruck I would advise a loud shout so that everyone realises what has happened and can play accordingly.

For instance would you now allow body rolls and similar techniques to clear out (which are allowed in a ruck but in a maul would be collapsing)?

(I just think a maul becoming a ruck is rife with complications, confusion and potential gotchas)

Body rolls are only allowed on players that are poaching. The ruck forms when the ball his the ground and the players are bound over it, so there wouldn't be and poachers to roll.

 

[Dickie E]

For me, wait a second or so, if the ball disappears play on, if it doesn't , maul ended unsuccessfully

disappears???

 

[crossref]

Played away

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Good debate guys.
I believe I got it right.
Red got the ball to the floor and the ball was clearly available to play.
Before the scrum half exercised his options the ruck collapsed accidentally.