Question 2 MAUL

[Taff]

Only pointing out that all references so far have been to Law 17 and if it's a ruck (and if the ball is on the ground with players bound over it then it is a ruck) then Law 16 applies.

Fair point, but from memory the wording is near identical for both.

To me the general principle is clear (regardless of whether the 12yr old proof reader could have worded the exact law better) if a ball is available and you don't use it within 5 seconds of being asked to, then it's a turnover ball.

 

[RobLev]

...

Why? You are arguing that team B should simply have stopped Team A from playing it rather than try to contest for the ball, i.e. you are encouraging negative play. You are effectively asking them them to go against a core principle of the game,. the contest for possession at all phases of the game

...

Sorry, missed this.

No, I'm arguing that the Law requires Team B, having successfully contested for the ball, to use it. 17.6(g) precisely mirrors 16.7(c), which has exactly the same effect if the team which wins the ruck doesn't get the ball out of there.

[LAWS]When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

 

[menace]

Only pointing out that all references so far have been to Law 17 and if it's a ruck (and if the ball is on the ground with players bound over it then it is a ruck) then Law 16 applies.

It's just saying it's available - but even if you assume it's now a ruck the same applies ....don't use it after being told then 5 seconds later oppo will get the put in.....same same.

I suspect WR did mean every bit of 17.6 g when they bought in the 'use it' bits. I see it as an acceptable 'exception'....(just like the lineout exception).

Ian - do you ever admit you could be wrong :shrug:

Edit: I see Marauders answered someone else already....dang dial up!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sorry, missed this.

No, I'm arguing that the Law requires Team B, having successfully contested for the ball, to use it. 17.6(g) precisely mirrors 16.7(c), which has exactly the same effect if the team which wins the ruck doesn't get the ball out of there.

[LAWS]When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

Arguing that this is parallel to ruck law is a fallacy (False Analogy).

There is no example in ruck law of the team who took the ball into a ruck losing it because they took the ball into contact.

We will just have to agree to differ.

 

[RobLev]

Arguing that this is parallel to ruck law is a fallacy (False Analogy).

There is no example in ruck law of the team who took the ball into a ruck losing it because they took the ball into contact.

We will just have to agree to differ.

It's not parallel to ruck law generally; it's parallel to the way that the batch of law changes introduced in May 2014 all said "Use it or lose it"; irrespective of how the team got possession of the ball.

 

[Dickie E]

That is not what I am arguing at all. If the ball is ripped, then the ripping team has to keep the maul moving forward as per normal. If they don't or if it is available and they don't use it, they get the feed since they were not the team who took the ball into the maul in the first place.

Now that is something I totally disagree and is clearly contrary to wording & intent of the Law. A less cultured person that me would call it Bull. Shit.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Now that is something I totally disagree and is clearly contrary to wording & intent of the Law. A less cultured person that me would call it Bull. Shit.

Well, I disagree.

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.

Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - do you ever admit you could be wrong :shrug:

Yep, when I believe I am wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong in this case.

Edit: I see Marauders answered someone else already....dang dial up!

And you have the cheek to criticise our slow postal services!!

 

[Dickie E]

Well, I disagree.

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.

Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.

[LAWS]Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

(c) follows on from (b) and is the sanction if (b) occurs. (b) requires the ball be "unplayable"

 

[menace]

Yep, when I believe I am wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong in this case.



And you have the cheek to criticise our slow postal services!!

Except the law clearly and unequivocally states exactly what is to apply in the situation being described but you want to argue they were wrong and 'didn't mean it, those stupid 12 year olds'

I can see how you would think it was 17.6 c....but only because you didn't know 17.6g was there and trumped it.
Why not just say. 'Didn't realise that law was there...I would have got that decision wrong . Thanks for letting me know. BTW I think it's a stupid law and flies in the face of 17.6c..and this is why."


We have this awesome thing called National Broadband Network. Paid a shite load for it. One day it will work!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can see how you would think it was 17.6 c....but only because you didn't know 17.6g was there and trumped it.
Why not just say. 'Didn't realise that law was there...I would have got that decision wrong . Thanks for letting me know. BTW I think it's a stupid law and flies in the face of 17.6c..and this is why."

Because I DID realise the law was there. I PMed The Fat yesterday about it straight after my post #4 BEFORE any of the discussion started about this! OK!!

Also, I reject the notion that 17.6 (g) trumps 17.6 (c).

I have seen referees apply 17.6 (c) to that exact situation at grass roots and elite level in this year's ITM Cup and Super Rugby. Its quite rare that a ball is ripped away inside a maul after the maul is formed (as in, after the referee has called "maul") end even more rare for the ball then not to be cleared. This is really only a ½ - 1% scenario at the outside, so frankly, it is not worth arguing about anyway.

 

[menace]

Good...unfortunately I can't tell anything on conversations I've not seen. Ok!? So really no need to yell.

As per the <1% - we are in total agreement as per my post #19, therefore it seems odd that you're at such pains to prove you are right and the laws supposedly wrong...when it doesn't matter. :shrug:

Over and out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

(c) follows on from (b)

I agree, it certainly does

and is the sanction if (b) occurs. (b) requires the ball be "unplayable"

No it doesn't
"A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered,

There is no requirement for the ball to be unplayable. A collapsed maul also meets the requirement for an unsuccessful end to a maul... this is what is meant by OR

In the case in the OP THE MAUL COLLAPSES!!!

A referee is quite within his rights to stop a maul, even if the ball is playable,for example, if he believes the collapse presents danger to the players.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Good...unfortunately I can't tell anything on conversations I've not seen. Ok!? So really no need to yell.

As per the <1% - we are in total agreement as per my post #19, therefore it seems odd that you're at such pains to prove you are right and the laws supposedly wrong...when it doesn't matter. :shrug:

Over and out.

I'm not trying to prove anything, and its not about who's right and who is wrong. I freely acknowledged earlier that both C) and D) could be taken to be right or wrong (posts #4 and #12)

All I am saying what I would do given the circumstances in the OP. (it was your post #9 that prompted my response actually)

I see a conflict in the Laws and make the best and most equitable decision I can, and one that I can sell to the players and back up in Law to my assessor. You lot are the ones whining on about my decision being right or wrong. not me.

 

[menace]

Yes I acknowledge that you did say C or D.

Perhaps it's that you've not convinced quite a few of us why B should get the feed when it's clear as writ that says A get the put in - but you're not convinced with that argument. I agree that if you can sell it to the players and you're assessor then a good job has been done....that of course doesn't make it correct. I think we've all managed to sell an incorrect decision to players at some stage (easy when they don't know the laws :grin

You think it's equitable to give feed to B, I think it's equitable to give feed to A....and we both think that is backed by law...clearly the laws are a problem. Argument is clearly going in circles now.

Next question!

 

[Dickie E]

I
In the case in the OP THE MAUL COLLAPSES!!!

A referee is quite within his rights to stop a maul, even if the ball is playable,for example, if he believes the collapse presents danger to the players.

Well, the OP actually says:

The maul then goes to ground legally, and the ball is available to be played at the back of the maul, but does not look likely to be played immediately by Team B.

In the case of a dangerous collapse, it could be argued that the referee, by blowing his whistle, has deemed the situation unplayable. But either way, the scrum feed will go to team B.

 

[Phil E]

A very interesting discussion.
Got me thinking a lot.
Thanks Menace and all contributors.

.......now let's all count to 10 before the next Menace conundrum!

 

[Rich_NL]

I can't see for the life of me why team B would get the feed. The argument seems to rest on team A bringing the ball into a maul that ended with an unplayable ball, which is clearly not the case.

Team B had a playable ball, they didn't play it; this goes against the principle of continuity, so team A get the feed.

 

[Taff]

I can't see for the life of me why team B would get the feed. The argument seems to rest on team A bringing the ball into a maul that ended with an unplayable ball, which is clearly not the case. Team B had a playable ball, they didn't play it; this goes against the principle of continuity, so team A get the feed.

Exactly my logic too. Luckily it's an academic discussion only, because in reality as soon as Team B hear "use it " ... they will.

 

[menace]

A very interesting discussion.
Got me thinking a lot.
Thanks Menace and all contributors.

.......now let's all count to 10 before the next Menace conundrum!

I can't take credit for the question....that goes to Fat. (He's the one that throws the grenade and runs!:biggrin