[Maul] Not sure what to call this to be honest

[Pegleg]

Was the Ref indicating advantage or a scrum to White?

I think he was indicating advantage for Red leaving the LO.

Had it been advantage the arm would have come out before the whistle and much earlier. Also had it been an advantage situation it would have been clear that whote had no intention of moving. The ref is without doubt blowing the whistle and them indicating a white scrum.

 

[didds]

Why do you think the ref gave scrum to white? They were not going forward, but were perhaps the attacking team. I think the ref should have called "use it" to get the ball back into play. It looked really silly for white just to stand there, with their plan for a maul totally thwarted.

Under which law? Somebody suggested a clarification, and something about training slides (which I won't have seen s I'm not a ref). And somebody else said don't appear to exist?

Didds

 

[didds]

OK, very silly question: before the ref blows the whistle, there is no maul. If a red player decides to go for the ball carrier, he is prevented from doing so by other white players (non bcs). Isn't that obstruction?

It would have been if the ball was transferred away from the front payer. It doesn't look as is our had been.

Didds

 

[TigerCraig]

I love this tactic. Anything that can get rid of the rolling maul from the line-out has my vote. Crooked throws followed by dodgily formed mauls that keep changing direction drive me nuts. Get rid of this first then I can continue my campaign to abolish place kicks.

 

[winchesterref]

Under which law? Somebody suggested a clarification, and something about training slides (which I won't have seen s I'm not a ref). And somebody else said don't appear to exist?

Didds

They might exist, but I can't find them and don't recall seeing them. Hopeful I haven't missed a whole bunch of stuff I'm supposed to be applying this year :chin:

 

[The Fat]

They might exist, but I can't find them and don't recall seeing them. Hopeful I haven't missed a whole bunch of stuff I'm supposed to be applying this year :chin:

I think you've been sold a Furphy about the training slides.
There are no Guidelines/Slides/Videos from WR regarding the situation in the OP.

The videos and guidelines re the ref calling for a team to "Use it" is when the opposition choose not to engage the "maul" at a lineout and the team in possession move the ball to a player further back in the group. In that situation the ref will call "Use it" and failure to do so results in a turn-over scrum. I think the poster who thought there were slides etc, may be getting it confused with the scenario I have just described.

As for how the ref handled it in the OP, I believe he was correct and is backed by the term, "for any other infringement/situation??? not covered in law, a scrum will be awarded to the team in possession or the team going forward or the attacking team" (my wording. I'll go look for a Law reference)

 

[winchesterref]

I think you've been sold a Furphy about the training slides.
There are no Guidelines/Slides/Videos from WR regarding the situation in the OP.

The videos and guidelines re the ref calling for a team to "Use it" is when the opposition choose not to engage the "maul" at a lineout and the team in possession move the ball to a player further back in the group. In that situation the ref will call "Use it" and failure to do so results in a turn-over scrum. I think the poster who thought there were slides etc, may be getting it confused with the scenario I have just described.

Agreed, that's what I thought - thanks.

 

[Taff]

OK, very silly question: before the ref blows the whistle, there is no maul. If a red player decides to go for the ball carrier, he is prevented from doing so by other white players (non bcs). Isn't that obstruction?

Only if the players doing the obstructing are in front of the BC.

Had it been advantage the arm would have come out before the whistle and much earlier.

That's what I would have thought, but in the other clip I've seen it then shows White taking a PK.

Come to think of it, he may be indicating a scrum because he blows the whistle first - which he wouldn't do if he was indicating advantage.

 

[The Fat]

Only if the players doing the obstructing are in front of the BC.


That's what I would have thought, but in the other clip I've seen it then shows White taking a PK.

Come to think of it, he may be indicating a scrum because he blows the whistle first - which he wouldn't do if he was indicating advantage.

The Mexican Stand-off is at 45 minutes on the game clock. The PK you then see is at 50 minutes so not related

 

[The Fat]

I think you've been sold a Furphy about the training slides.
There are no Guidelines/Slides/Videos from WR regarding the situation in the OP.

The videos and guidelines re the ref calling for a team to "Use it" is when the opposition choose not to engage the "maul" at a lineout and the team in possession move the ball to a player further back in the group. In that situation the ref will call "Use it" and failure to do so results in a turn-over scrum. I think the poster who thought there were slides etc, may be getting it confused with the scenario I have just described.

As for how the ref handled it in the OP, I believe he was correct and is backed by the term, "for any other infringement/situation??? not covered in law, a scrum will be awarded to the team in possession or the team going forward or the attacking team" (my wording. I'll go look for a Law reference)

Here it is.
20.4
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

 

[Taff]

The Mexican Stand-off is at 45 minutes on the game clock. The PK you then see is at 50 minutes so not related

Then it's a total mystery. :biggrin:

Just a thought but perhaps the Ref gave a scrum under 20.4(d). :clap:

20.4 The team throwing the ball into the scrum
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

I thought previous discussions along these lines had profferred the fact that a l/o player has 9.9999999999999m in which to roam around before he has left the lineout?

I thought that was for peeling players, but even then they have to keep moving.

 

[Cross]

Only if the players doing the obstructing are in front of the BC.

I thought that was the case, my bad.

 

[Pegleg]

The applying of the "5 second rule" may not be in law but if you extrapolate from the maul, ruck and scrum scenarios it makes perfect sense. Surely it is our job to use logic to deal with such rareities.

I don't see it as being the "end to the rolling / driving maul". Either side could have changed the dynamic. The defenders by tackling the ball carrier or the attackers moving forward with the ball at the front (no obstruction).

The stand off seems to be caused by a similar problem to the England Vs Italy. The player don't know the laws well enough.

 

[winchesterref]

The applying of the "5 second rule" may not be in law but if you extrapolate from the maul, ruck and scrum scenarios it makes perfect sense. Surely it is our job to use logic to deal with such rareities.

100% disagree.

It's one thing to have an interpretation difference week to week, for example on what constitutes an accidental high tackle, or a reckless high tackle. It's another thing entirely to have someone make up law because it suits them and they think it makes sense.

 

[L'irlandais]

Well, some French refs (online) felt it was clearly a Penalty against red for leaving the line out.
Restarting with a scrum to White was fair, surely, given it was one of those "never seen this before" moments à la Taff's suggestion of 20.4(d)

:shrug: Gallic shrug moment. white won the ball in the lineout, why reward Red for not contesting the subsequent "maul".

 

[Taff]

Well, some French refs (online) felt it was clearly a Penalty against red for leaving the line out.

I'm inclined to agree with them. I thought there had been a "clarification" or directive regarding uncontested LOs. At first it boiled down to just 3 options:

• Opposing players illegally stepping out of LO - PK (which is what I reckon we have here)
• Opposition legally creating a gap with ball at the front - "Play on"
• Opposition legally creating a gap with ball at the back - "Use it" with a possible scrum for accidental offside if they don't.

After this, perhaps we should now at least consider a potential but rare 4th option.

• Both sides acting legally but a Mexican Standoff - Scrum to the side in possession after a reasonable time.

 

[Balones]

Personally I did see enough for there to be a decision of stepping out. That aside, why should the referee do anything in this situation?
The players are not doing anything (neither right or wrong) so why should the ref? What's wrong with waiting until the players actually do something and then the ref can make a decision based on action. If players don't want to play you can't make them.
(Always assuming that the clock was not being deliberately run down.) Just a thought. What if he had simply waited and waited until somebody did something? Acceptable? For how long?

 

[Taff]

Personally I did see enough for there to be a decision of stepping out. That aside, why should the referee do anything in this situation? The players are not doing anything (neither right or wrong) so why should the ref? What's wrong with waiting until the players actually do something and then the ref can make a decision based on action. If players don't want to play you can't make them. ... Just a thought. What if he had simply waited and waited until somebody did something? Acceptable? For how long?

It was interesting to see how many players just looked at the Ref for guidance - the players clearly didn't know what to do next. As has been said, it reminded me a bit of the England v Italy game.

If the players were looking at the Ref, almost certainly the crowd were looking at him too. Someone had to take control and do something, and the more I think of it, the more I think the Ref handled this quite well - complete with a Gallic shrug. :biggrin:

 

[Pegleg]

100% disagree.

It's one thing to have an interpretation difference week to week, for example on what constitutes an accidental high tackle, or a reckless high tackle. It's another thing entirely to have someone make up law because it suits them and they think it makes sense.

We have to make sense of badly written and ill thought laws all the time. A while ago there were different intepretations of the rolling ball situation bepending on which line you were standing on. Common sense told us what should be done yet we needed a ruling to state the obvious. If we reach a stalemate somebody (and that is going to be the ref) needs to sort it out.

Come on guys: What we are there for? Surely to make the call.

 

[L'irlandais]

Earlier in the match, a similar stand off occurred. ( At 45 seconds into these short highlights (in French)). The 8 versus 1 maul got off to a flying start and drove over for a try. Which explains their reluctance the second time of asking, perhaps.