Question 2 MAUL

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
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.

But Ian, that bit of law applies to an unsuccessful end to a maul. A b/c going off his feet is not a collapse, nor an unsuccessful end if the ball is available to be played immediately. Also the second para of 17.6 (g) is also applied to a maul that is on its feet and stops in the "reasonable amount of time" the ref allows for the ball to come out. In both these circumstances, if the ball is available to be played and is not played, I would award the scrum to the team not in possession regardless of whoever took the ball into the maul in the first place.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
... Law 17.6 (c) .... 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.
When you bear in mind other laws, I just reckon that what the 12 yr old said - isn't what he meant. The law reads as though they had not considered the possibility of possession being lost in the maul. Or they assumed that if possession was lost, the ball would be chucked out asap and therefore we would have a successful end to the maul.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Also, I reject the notion that 17.6 (g) trumps 17.6 (c).
[LAWS]17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
[LAWS]17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?

I must confess I haven't read the whole of the 7 pages... But:
If the ball is on the ground and available, it's not a maul anymore but a ruck and 16.7.(c) may apply.
So I guess 17.6.(g) may apply in the same way: when the ball is clearly won but not used by the team in possession.

[LAWS]16.7.(c) 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]

Doesn't that make sense?

Pierre.
 

Womble

Facebook Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,277
Post Likes
47
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
" if the ball is available to be played and is not played, I would award the scrum to the team not in possession regardless of whoever took the ball into the maul in the first place"

Agree with pinky
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds
So you are happy that Team B can with impunity ignore the call to "use it"?
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds

"Laws that aren't written"? What's 17.6(g) then:

[LAWS]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 the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]

If the intention was as you suggest, that final section need not have been written; but it was, so why not apply it?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
So you are happy that Team B can with impunity ignore the call to "use it"?

rather I am saying that the call of "use it" has no basis.

Its bascially a situation that isn;t adequately covered in law. At best it requires shoe horning other laws to make "something" work. It doesn;t happen that very often, and in reality I reckon any ref coud sell the decsion on the FoP. As for an assessment, as there is no actual law in place covering it I would hope an asessor's position would be looking for an ability to sell the decision. I fully appreciate that you have a far better vision of whether that is true or correct or not of course OB.

Of course, I see that the obvious counter to my first response would be "so you'd let the team not using it just sit there all day". My suggestion to that would be to just blow for unplayable (no one wants to pl;ay it) and eitrher award a turnover ball scrum, or a scrum to team going forward.


All this based on my ujderstandiong of stuff debated here befopre and laws

- UIOLI maul
- ball on floor with body from maul doesnt; equal a ruck, but an (almost unsuccessful) end to a maul.
- there is no "use it" call for mauls.

the basic caveat I'd place on that is the ball on floor but no bodies from a mul now becomes a ruck (AIUI from these forums) and then ruck law with "use it" could be applied.

Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds

exactly - so I can't quite understand why it's raised so much passion.

and when it does happen I am sure that every single one of us would have completely forgotten what this thread said, and would no doubt make a sensible call on the field, that the players would go along with.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
rather I am saying that the call of "use it" has no basis.

Its bascially a situation that isn;t adequately covered in law.
At best it requires shoe horning other laws to make "something" work. It doesn;t happen that very often, and in reality I reckon any ref coud sell the decsion on the FoP. As for an assessment, as there is no actual law in place covering it I would hope an asessor's position would be looking for an ability to sell the decision. I fully appreciate that you have a far better vision of whether that is true or correct or not of course OB.

Of course, I see that the obvious counter to my first response would be "so you'd let the team not using it just sit there all day". My suggestion to that would be to just blow for unplayable (no one wants to pl;ay it) and eitrher award a turnover ball scrum, or a scrum to team going forward.


All this based on my ujderstandiong of stuff debated here befopre and laws

- UIOLI maul
- ball on floor with body from maul doesnt; equal a ruck, but an (almost unsuccessful) end to a maul.
- there is no "use it" call for mauls.

the basic caveat I'd place on that is the ball on floor but no bodies from a mul now becomes a ruck (AIUI from these forums) and then ruck law with "use it" could be applied.

Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds

Didds: 17.6(g)very clearly provides a legal basis for the call of "Use it". Why do you say otherwise?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But Ian, that bit of law [17.6 (c)] applies to an unsuccessful end to a maul.

Everything under 17.6, from (a) to (h) relates to what happens when a maul ends unsuccessfully - that's what the title of the clause is....

"LAW 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL"

There are three, and only three criteria for when a maul ends successfully.

[LAWS]17.5 SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
• the ball is on the ground
• the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

A call of "use it" is not one of them! The 'use it" call only results in a successful end to the maul if the ball actually comes out, not just when it becomes available. If the "use it" scenario was considered a successful end to a maul, it would be part of 17.5 and there would not be a scrum awarded after it unless some other infringement had occurred (e.g. knock-on by the SH)

I consider the failure of a team to use the available ball no different than their failure to make the ball available in the first place. The end result should be the same - the ball is turned over to the team that did not take the ball into the maul, otherwise, the team that lost the ball benefits by their incompetence/lack of skill.

[LAWS]17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.[/LAWS]
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?

When possession of the ball had not changed once the maul had formed, because I don't believe the Law drafter considered 17.6 (c), or the possibility that the team in possession might not be the team that took that ball into the maul, when they drafted this Law.

When you bear in mind other laws, I just reckon that what the 12 yr old said - isn't what he meant. The law reads as though they had not considered the possibility of possession being lost in the maul. Or they assumed that if possession was lost, the ball would be chucked out asap and therefore we would have a successful end to the maul.

THIS!

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds

100% agree. That is where I am coming from, reward excellence not mediocrity!
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Ian - on the one hand you argue that we must follow what the law says in 17.6 (c), and then you argue we shoud not follow what it says in 17.6 (g) because you don't think that is what was meant.

As I have said many times, I think the laws need to be interpreted sensibly in terms of the overall benefit to the game. In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.

Didds - selling your decision to the players is indeed one of the skills a referee needs, but selling the wrong decision (if it is indeed wrong) rather spoils that. If a referee has to think on his feet at an unusual situation, I would give him credit for a sensible approach, even if we agreed in the debrief that it was wrong. It would be a learning point, but not a significant criticism.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.

Totally agree. If the referee never gets to the point of saying "use it" because the ball is unplayable or there is a safety issue then scrum feed to team not taking ball into maul applies.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
I can't take credit for the question....that goes to Fat. (He's the one that throws the grenade and runs!:biggrin:)

Haha. That made me chuckle.
Have been sitting back watching proceedings with interest.
I was confident that it would create some discussion, but I didn't think it would get to 8 pages!!! But then I thought, "Leggings", and suddenly 8 pages transforms into a quick chat.
Will post my thoughts re the OP tonight along with the correct answer and a very interesting stat on the number of ref's who get the answer wrong under exam conditions.
Thanks to everyone for participating.
My next thread should get to a conclusion a bit quicker than this one.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian - on the one hand you argue that we must follow what the law says in 17.6 (c), and then you argue we shoud not follow what it says in 17.6 (g) because you don't think that is what was meant.

I argue that the Law as it stood previously applied to all cases where a Maul ended unsuccessfully, except 17.6 (h) where a particular set of circumstances regarding how the maul was formed lead to a different result.

The only essential difference between 17.6 (c) and 17.6 (g) with regards to who gets the ball is who had the ball in their possession at the time the maul was formed. If there was no change of possession then the outcome of the two Laws would be the same.

I believe the failure of the drafter of 17-6 (g) to recognise the provision for who took the ball in, is an oversight,. Its not as if this sort of thing hasn't happened before (the PK/FK mark in goal & 5m cock-up. the SH offside Law cock-up after the ELVs were formalised, and of course the famous conflict between Law20.2 (j) "stationary and parallel" and Law 20.5 "no delay".. the latter of which we (guess what) completely ignore because (guess what) its wrong!!

As I have said many times, I think the laws need to be interpreted sensibly in terms of the overall benefit to the game. In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.

And to me, it makes no sense for a team whose contact skills are so lacking that they are unable to retain their own ball in the maul, to then be given the ball back - once you lose it, you don't get to use it. The whole point of 17.6 (c) is to make the team taking the ball in the maul responsible for retaining the ball or making it available; I do not believe the Law drafters would intentionally subvert the intent of this existing Law.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just saying what I would do in that situation and how I would justify it to the players and the assessor.
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
Everything under 17.6, from (a) to (h) relates to what happens when a maul ends unsuccessfully - that's what the title of the clause is....

"LAW 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL"

Ian there are plenty of places in the law book where the clause titles are not the full story. 17.6 d, e and g need not relate to unsuccessful ends. For me, the unlabelled paragraph after 17 g relates to all circumstances where the referee thinks the ball is available, but the opportunity to continue to maul is no longer available. It is clear in that para that the consequence of not using the ball is determined not by who took the ball into the maul, but by who has possession to use it.
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
OK.
The good news is that during the exam, I got this question correct.
The bad news is that because of a f@#% up in putting the exam together, the system recognises a different answer as being correct (the irony of which will become apparent later on) and therefore my recorded score shows that I am dumber than I actually am:wink:

According to the brains trust at the ARU, the correct answer is C (which is the statement that is wrong).

QUESTION 2 MAUL

Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul. 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. Which of the following statements is wrong?

A) The referee should call for Team B to "Use it!"

B) Team B has 5 seconds to use the ball after being told to use it by the referee.

C) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team B, because Team B did not take the ball into the maul initially.

D) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team A, because the ball was not used in time by Team B.


Take note any Aussie refs doing your L2 accreditation, it's in the exam.

An interesting statistic is that 83% of the referees who have completed the exam answered (D).
"Ahhhaaaa!" I hear the supporters of answer (D) exclaim, but don't get too excited, what the stats don't reveal is how many of that 83% didn't cotton onto the "Use it" call and the associated 5 seconds having been added to the LoTG and they just went for the team that didn't originally take the ball into the maul.

Basically, the referee has given Team B a directive that they have chosen to ignore. The turn over scrum against the team that fails to use the ball is consistent with the "Use it" call and time frame in other phases of the game.

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".
 
Top