Question 2 MAUL

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
TBH I am not sure that's a very good question for a Law exam. It's a bit tricksy, I wonder how much that really helps the ARU sort the good refs from the not so good.

I mean in practice : has anyone EVER had a team fail to obey a command to USE IT, within 5 seconds? It just doesn't happen. This whole discussion is about something that is never going to happen on the field.

I suspect it was set by the kind of ref who enjoys delivering the occasional 'gotcha' to the players....
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Personally, I believe that the way the law is written could lead some/many to consider 17.6(g) a contradiction of the norm and 17.6(c).

This could have been avoided by making and listing 17.6(g) as an "Exception" to 17.6(c).
However, close scrutiny of 17.6(g) shows that the wording is quite specific as to who MUST act following the referee's direction to "Use it".

THIS! If 83% of referees get it "wrong" then that is a clear indication that the two Laws are contradictory and badly worded

Listing it the way you suggest or even with its own subheading (as I have below) would be an indication to everyone reading it that the drafter understood its implications for 17.6 (c). The fact that they didn't list it that way tells me that they did not check the rest of the Law first to see what impact it would have.

If it had been listed like this....

17.6 (g) Scrum after a maul where the ball is available. If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available. When 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, notwithstanding Law 17.6 (c), the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.


... then C) would be the obvious and only correct choice.

That they didn't do something like this is just bloody typical of the WR law drafters.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
TBH I am not sure that's a very good question for a Law exam. It's a bit tricksy, I wonder how much that really helps the ARU sort the good refs from the not so good.

I mean in practice : has anyone EVER had a team fail to obey a command to USE IT, within 5 seconds? It just doesn't happen. This whole discussion is about something that is never going to happen on the field.

I suspect it was set by the kind of ref who enjoys delivering the occasional 'gotcha' to the players....

I do agree with you and especially the bit I have made bold.
The whole approach of the "wrong statement" being the correct answer messes with my brain when you have a 90% pass mark.
You want to be tested on your knowledge of the laws in relatively quick situations. You don't get 5 minutes to read/assess a situation on the field. Why word questions in tricky ways in an exam situation?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,159
The whole approach of the "wrong statement" being the correct answer messes with my brain when you have a 90% pass mark.

I agree with that as as well, wholeheartedly -- it's a referee Law exam not a bloody IQ test.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
THIS! If 83% of referees get it "wrong" then that is a clear indication that the two Laws are contradictory and badly worded
.
To a degree...but probably more likely a great proportion couldn't be arsed reading the laws (and it's an open book exam!). :wink:

If it had been listed like this....

17.6 (g) Scrum after a maul where the ball is available. .


... then C) would be the obvious and only correct choice.

That they didn't do something like this is just bloody typical of the WR law drafters.

I get your point about a sub heading and agree...just not this because a scrum after a maul that appears to be successfully ended cause it's available sounds.....odd.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
To a degree...but probably more likely a great proportion couldn't be arsed reading the laws (and it's an open book exam!). :wink:

Correct.
I also suspect that many of them didn't read past 17.6(c)
 
Top