succesful end to a maul

[RobLev]

When the ball is dropped onto the ground in a Maul it becomes a ruck, so you cannot apply 17.6 (b) or any other Maul Law; you should apply 16.7 (a)

[LAWS]16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.[/LAWS]

Question - if the ball is unplayable as it hits the ground, does the maul end successfully such that it then becomes a ruck before it becomes unplayable - or has it become unplayable while still in the maul such that the maul has ended unsuccessfully?

This might seem like just a nitpicking technicality, but its more important than that because it can change who feeds the scrum.

Accepted.

 

[Browner]

eg why does any player have to "Roll away" at a ruck? I've just checked the ruck section of the laws, and the word "Roll" doesn't appear in there once.

Your observation is correct
[LAWS]16.4 [FONT=fs_blakeregular](d)
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. [/FONT][/LAWS]

But 'roll away' is recognised as the easy speak of this law.

 

[Taff]

which is rather worrying, isn't it ? Taff and I referee to the same Laws but our interpretations differ so much that 2 or 3 times a game he declares that a maul has become a ruck - and in two seasons with the Society I don't think I have ever done. Without saying who is right and who is wrong - that's a quite a big difference.

TBH I've always done it like that and have never ever been told that it's wrong. In fact, I don't remember anyone ever querying it - players, coaches and spectators just expect it to be treated as a ruck. Mind you, I've never refereed outside Wales.

I do get questioned by some players when I don't consider it a ruck - eg if the ball doesn't get to the ground and I give a turnover for an unsuccessful end to a maul. A lot seem to think that a player alone going to ground gets them the put in if it becomes unplayable. As soon as you say "That wasn't a ruck. The ball was never on the ground" they just accept it.

.... In the precise same situation Taff might be PK players for use of hands ..

When it happens, I do say "That's now a ruck. Hands off". The vast majority do.

... a poorly coached team will hang on for dear life and concede the turnover. A better coached team will break the ops hold by forcing the ball downward and convert the maul into a ruck. Perhaps this is Taff's scenario.

That's almost exactly my scenario - except I don't think I have ever seen a BC place the ball on the ground to create a ruck. 99% of the time they will go to ground (legally) with the ball. If a team thinks I'm going to blow for an unsuccessful maul, if they can't get the ball out rather than lose the turnover at the scrum, they will try to at least get the throw in at the scrum for an unsuccessful ruck.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Question - if the ball is unplayable as it hits the ground, does the maul end successfully such that it then becomes a ruck before it becomes unplayable - or has it become unplayable while still in the maul such that the maul has ended unsuccessfully?

We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully.

There is no scenario where the ball going to ground is an unsuccessful end to the maul unless one or more players (other than the BC) also go to ground, in which case, we have a collapsed maul which, in Law application, trumps the rest of the maul & ruck Laws on safety grounds. That's why we blow it up quickly after a collapse.

I cannot imagine a realistic scenario (i.e. not some chopperesque, "angels on pinheads" one) where the ball dropped on the ground (with or without the BC) becomes unplayable unless there is also a collapse.

 

[RobLev]

We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully.

There is no scenario where the ball going to ground is an unsuccessful end to the maul unless one or more players (other than the BC) also go to ground, in which case, we have a collapsed maul which, in Law application, trumps the rest of the maul & ruck Laws on safety grounds. That's why we blow it up quickly after a collapse.

I cannot imagine a realistic scenario (i.e. not some chopperesque, "angels on pinheads" one) where the ball dropped on the ground (with or without the BC) becomes unplayable unless there is also a collapse.

I was thinking, I hope not too chopperesquely (is that a word? - it is now), of a situation where the maul is crossing ground covered in whole or part with bodies, and the ball lands amongst them.

 

[OB..]

We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully.

That is where I disagree. For that to be the case the very clear rulings to the contrary in 1994 must have at some stage have been reversed. In fact what has happened is that various changes in the wording of law and clarification have muddied the waters so a different interpretation is feasible.

I will not change my view until I get something authoritative on this particular point.

I do not like the situation where the referee has to decide if the ball actually touched the ground when a ball carrier goes to ground in the middle of a maul. We know that others do not have to release the ball, so his struggles to ground it increase the likelihood of a collapse. Much better simply to say it is still a maul.

 

[didds]

Its not a ruck if a player in the maul takes the ball to ground in a maul without the ball touching the ground.

so how does he take the ball to ground without the ball touching the ground?

my head hurts!!

didds

 

[OB..]

so how does he take the ball to ground without the ball touching the ground?

my head hurts!!

didds

He goes to ground with the ball, but may be sitting or kneeling. 17.6 (g) I suppose he might also be lying down but unable to ground the ball.

 

[didds]

ah right... i took "took the ball to ground" too literally!

cheers

didds

 

[ChrisR]

When a BC in a maul goes to ground with the ball there are really only two scenarios:

1. He has sole possession. If he places the ball on the ground we now have a ruck and he must release it. The ball is now playable, albeit still in the ruck.
If he fails to place the ball on the ground then we still have a maul, it is not playable immediately and we have a turn-over.

2. He has joint possession with an opponent who has no obligation to release. The BC is on the deck, the ball isn't and won't be playable immediately. Quick whistle, turnover.

The referee decision making isn't hard. just seeing what the heck's happening may be.

 

[Ian_Cook]

That is where I disagree. For that to be the case the very clear rulings to the contrary in 1994 must have at some stage have been reversed. In fact what has happened is that various changes in the wording of law and clarification have muddied the waters so a different interpretation is feasible.

I will not change my view until I get something authoritative on this particular point.

I do not like the situation where the referee has to decide if the ball actually touched the ground when a ball carrier goes to ground in the middle of a maul. We know that others do not have to release the ball, so his struggles to ground it increase the likelihood of a collapse. Much better simply to say it is still a maul.

As with anything else in the Law OB, the referee should call what he sees. If the referee didn't see the ball touch the ground, then it didn't. This is no different IMO from "didn't see the grounding", "didn;t see the knock forward", didn't see the offside player", "didn't see the high tackle".

 

[menace]

As with anything else in the Law OB, the referee should call what he sees. If the referee didn't see the ball touch the ground, then it didn't. This is no different IMO from [I]"didn't see the grounding", "didn;t see the knock forward", didn't see the offside player", "didn't see the high tackle".
[/I]

Gee you didn't see much when you were refereeing Ian....you must have been a popular ref. Ever get called a "blind c@nt" epper:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Gee you didn't see much when you were refereeing Ian....you must have been a popular ref. Ever get called a "blind c@nt" epper:

Only by one side menace :biggrin:

 

[Taff]

In all seriousness guys, make it simple for yourselves and the players. 1 in a million mauls actually turn in to rucks under law so referee it as such !

... Honestly Womble, I'm amazed. I must get 2 or 3 of these every game. ... If I remember, I will make a note of the game time for a few from this weekends 6 Nation games. If we don't get at least a couple per game, I'll buy you a pint.

I was just having a tidy up on my phone which jogged my memory. If you still have the Ireland v France game recorded, have a look at game clock

• 7 mins 20 secs
• 52 mins 15 secs
• 62 mins 40 secs.

I was watching in the pub, so couldn't rewind etc but from memory all were mauls where the BC tried to get to ground to create a ruck.