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.