Because, under the Law addressing an Unsuccessful End to a Maul, if the ball carrier goes to ground [whether the ball is on the ground or not] then the referee, under the Maul Law, orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available (17.6(g)). By definition, an unsuccessful end to the maul cannot change a maul into a ruck.
But which comes first? If the BC has gone to ground
and all the other requirements of a Ruck exist (ie 2 opposing players - in physical contact - on their feet - over the ball
on the ground) then we're immediately in a new phase of play; ie the maul phase has finished and the ruck phase has started. If the new phase ends unsuccessfully, it makes no sense to me to apply the laws applicable to the previous phase.
... 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. Sometimes they succeed - sometimes they don't. The team who took it in realise that there is a danger of a turnover .. and will do their damnedest to either get it out .. or at the very least create a ruck. We see these on televised matches every game surely. 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.
In all this "the ball is on the ground - it is a ruck" argument, people seem to have forgotten that a requirement for a ruck is only part met by the ball. IT also requires 1 player from either side, being on their feet, in contact blah blah blah. So 99% of the time that bodies go to ground in a maul, all the bodies come crashing down. We don't have the requirement for a ruck, even though the ball is on the ground.
In fairness FlipFlop, I did say "
provided all the requirements of a ruck exist". I accept it's not an automatic ruck; if the conditions for a ruck haven't been met, it gets treated for what it is - a collapsed maul.
I think Clarification 2/2011 is a complete mess, and not very helpful. .. it reads like a committee-compromise answer to me.
I agree it could be worded better; 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.
Even with the dodgy wording, the clarification does make it clear that a maul
can become a ruck, and if I'm looking at a ruck .... then I apply ruck laws ...not maul laws.