succesful end to a maul

wrighty


ELRA/Club Referee
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
81
Post Likes
0
law 17.5,states maul has ended when the ball is on the ground.So why was an England player penalised for picking it up after the ball was dropped in the maul,unless he was infront of player who dropped it,so technically off side?Ref said that it was now a ruck.I was under the impression that a maul cannot be converted int o a ruck?Was his decision correct or should it have been play on?
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,939
Post Likes
378
There is a ruling somewhere that confirms a maul can become a ruck - provided all the requirements of a ruck exist.

Since "Jackling" or "poaching" has been allowed, a ruck can become a maul too - again, provided all the requirements are met.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
law 17.5,states maul has ended when the ball is on the ground.

So why was an England player penalised for picking it up after the ball was dropped in the maul?

Yep, maul ended at the dropping of the ball, thereafter it was a ruck. so....
[LAWS]16.4 [FONT=fs_blakeregular](b)
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players must not handle the ball in a ruck [/FONT][/LAWS]. ...applied.
 

FlipFlop


Referees in Switzerland
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,227
Post Likes
226
Take your pick from "handling in ruck", or "obstruction" for all the players in front of him. Really dumb thing to do, as so obvious.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
There is a ruling somewhere that confirms a maul can become a ruck - provided all the requirements of a ruck exist.
That clarification is #2 of 2011. The question asked did not raise the point, but the iRB themselves brought it into the mix:

There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

...

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.


So you can't assume that a maul cannot become a ruck - it clearly can. In the England lineout scenario, the maul was formed. The ball was then dropped and hit the deck. This represented the end of the maul under Law 17.5:

[LAWS]Law17.5 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]

The next question is: what phase of play subsequently exists? The answer is that all the conditions for a ruck are in place. Players, on their feet, are in physical contact above the ball on the ground. So it is clearly a ruck. The offside lines from the maul are retained by the immediate application of the ruck laws.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
That clarification is #2 of 2011. The question asked did not raise the point, but the iRB themselves brought it into the mix:

There is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 – Ruck becomes applicable.

...

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.


So you can't assume that a maul cannot become a ruck - it clearly can. In the England lineout scenario, the maul was formed. The ball was then dropped and hit the deck. This represented the end of the maul under Law 17.5:

[LAWS]Law17.5 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]

The next question is: what phase of play subsequently exists? The answer is that all the conditions for a ruck are in place. Players, on their feet, are in physical contact above the ball on the ground. So it is clearly a ruck. The offside lines from the maul are retained by the immediate application of the ruck laws.

I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

[LAWS](b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable[/LAWS]

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,939
Post Likes
378
I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

[LAWS](b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable[/LAWS]

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.
Sorry, I disagree.

Once it's become a ruck ... IMO we should treat it like a ruck. Ie if the ball becomes unplayable, then IMO it's a scrum to the side moving forward, or last moving forward.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
I think there is a difference between the ball being placed on the floor and the ruck going to ground.

If the ball carrier stays up but the ball goes to ground, we now have a ruck.
If the ball carrier goes to ground the ball has to be immediately playable - or we have an unsuccessful maul -> turnover.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Sorry, I disagree.

Once it's become a ruck ... IMO we should treat it like a ruck. Ie if the ball becomes unplayable, then IMO it's a scrum to the side moving forward, or last moving forward.

I have emphasised what I see as crucial.

IMHO - if the ball gets to ground, but is unplayable at that point, it never becomes a ruck. If it gets to ground and is there immediately playable, then it's a ruck and any subsequent unplayability is handled under the ruck Laws.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,817
Post Likes
2,275
if the maul collapses and we have players and the ball all on the ground then I don't see how you can referee it as ruck, it's a maul that ended, and either the ball is away or - if the ball isn't available- it's ended unsuccessfully.

I think a maul becomes a ruck only if the ball falls to the ground on its own, with players still on their feet. This happens once in a blue moon, and if you are reffing it as a ruck I thnk you need a loud yell of 'ruck' so that it's clear to everyone.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

[LAWS](b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable[/LAWS]

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.

17.6(b) is a 'bluff raise' Roblev.

17.5 says when ball drops to the ground its ends, so when it did , it did just that - ended.

The conditions of a ruck now exist, so therefore it is one.

Whether it could, in time, be deemed an 'unsuccessful ruck' see 16.7, .....well it didn't, because the handling offence curtailed us finding out.
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,958
Post Likes
1,822
If the ball goes to ground is a maul and is not playable, as far as I am concerned it is an unsuccessful end to a maul.
If you do not rule that way, then every time the ball goes to ground, including being held by a player, the claim will be that it became a ruck so no turnover.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
If the ball goes to ground in a maul and is not playable, as far as I am concerned it is an unsuccessful end to a maul.
If you do not rule that way, then every time the ball goes to ground, including being held by a player, the claim will be that it became a ruck so no turnover.

But ball going to ground ends the maul succesfully, so how can it then become unplayable maul? We must be in a different phase of play OB.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,958
Post Likes
1,822
But ball going to ground ends the maul succesfully, so how can it then become unplayable maul? We must be in a different phase of play OB.
I'm afraid that makes a nonsense of a maul turnover, so it is not a sensible reading of the law.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
I fail to see how you can read 17.5 in any other way:

A maul ends successfully:
- when the ball is on the ground

As crossref says this happens once in a blue moon.
If I ever see it I will endeavour to call "ruck" as loudly as possible.
The ball is playable as it can be legally rucked.
It may be one of the very few times we see a classic ruck with players on their feet - as oppossed to the usual muck after a tackle with everyone off their feet.

It is different to 17.6 (g) The ball carrier goes to ground, which we see much more often. Ball usually unplayable so turnover.

Camquin
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
I'm afraid that makes a nonsense of a maul turnover, so it is not a sensible reading of the law.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]17.5 Successful end to a maul

A
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]maul ends successfully when :[/FONT]

  • 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.[Law]
OB, you seem to be arguing that if the ball in a maul is dropped to the ground, then that maul hasn't ended instead it just becomes a unplayable maul.

I say a ruck now commences, and it either then becomes a playable or unplayable ruck.

The BC exception of 17.6(g) never occurs because there is no longer a C of the B
 
Last edited:

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,958
Post Likes
1,822
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]17.5 Successful end to a maul

A
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]maul ends successfully when :[/FONT]

  • 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.[Law]
OB, you seem to be arguing that if the ball in a maul is dropped to the ground, then that maul hasn't ended instead it just becomes a unplayable maul.

I say a ruck now commences, and it either then becomes a playable or unplayable ruck.

The BC exception of 17.6(g) never occurs because there is no longer a C of the B
It has always been the case that if the ball is dropped to the ground, the maul becomes a ruck. However the problem is if a player takes the ball to the ground, the mere fact that the ball may touch the ground should not be deemed to turn the maul into a ruck. That was my point - one I have been making since 1994 when they rescinded the turnover law for a ruck..

It is essential to interpret the phrase "the ball is on the ground" as referring to the ball alone when not in the grasp of the ball carrier.
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,870
Post Likes
114
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum).

If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

If the ball does not come out of the ruck within a reasonable time then you could reasonably blow for unsuccessful end to a ruck(scrum to team going forward/attacking)
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,958
Post Likes
1,822
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum).

If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

If the ball does not come out of the ruck within a reasonable time then you could reasonably blow for unsuccessful end to a ruck(scrum to team going forward/attacking)
Precisely.
 
Top