Trouble at maul

[Pinky]

Odd situation today where I was repeatedly asked by one side how long they had to hold up the ball in a maul for me to stop play. On third asking, I spoke to Capt and explained that if the maul was moving then it could be the rest of the day!

But still they asked!

 

[beckett50]

"Captain, we have spoken this, FK for unsportsmanlike behaviour and the next time it will be a PK. Are we understanding each other?"

 

[Stuartg]

Odd situation today where I was repeatedly asked by one side how long they had to hold up the ball in a maul for me to stop play. On third asking, I spoke to Capt and explained that if the maul was moving then it could be the rest of the day!

But still they asked!

Were they taking the mickey?

No need to penalise, just tell them it's the same answer as before so no need to ask anymore. It's the same as at a penalty when I'm repeatedly asked if they are 10. After the first couple of times I tell them 'Yes, now you know what 10m looks like, remember it. If unsure, take two steps back."

FK and PK I think is an over-reaction.

 

[Adam]

Were they taking the mickey?

No need to penalise, just tell them it's the same answer as before so no need to ask anymore. It's the same as at a penalty when I'm repeatedly asked if they are 10. After the first couple of times I tell them 'Yes, now you know what 10m looks like, remember it. If unsure, take two steps back."

FK and PK I think is an over-reaction.

My favourite ever call similar to this is when a team asks at a scrum, "how far do we have to push them back to get the penalty?"

 

[wolfie]

A maul can also end if the ball becomes unplayable due to being wrapped up and is still moving. I regularly use this as the next thing that will happen is the maul collapses. Easier
to deal with maul before it happens.

 

[Pegleg]

If there is persistant "asking" (really they are telling you that they deserve the T/O) then go through the FK / PK route. Was it too early on the third time? Well that depends on the general nature of the game. was theree a lot of appealing generally: "Not straight ref!" , "Watch the hooker's foot ref!", "Can you watch the Offsides ref!?". If it was just the maul I guess I'd hold back on the FK. If they were "moaners" then the FK would be earlier.

Only you can tell if it was right to escalate so soon. - You were there!

Good point made in one of the replies. If that ball is not going to emerge blow early. Why waste time?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Cross beam's gone outa skew ont' treddle!

 

[Browner]

If there is persistant "asking" (really they are telling you that they deserve the T/O) then go through the FK / PK route. Was it too early on the third time? Well that depends on the general nature of the game. was theree a lot of appealing generally: "Not straight ref!" , "Watch the hooker's foot ref!", "Can you watch the Offsides ref!?". If it was just the maul I guess I'd hold back on the FK. If they were "moaners" then the FK would be earlier.

Only you can tell if it was right to escalate so soon. - You were there!

Good point made in one of the replies. If that ball is not going to emerge blow early. Why waste time?

I disagree.

[LAWS]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](a). [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](d)

[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]When a maul remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for more than 5 seconds, but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered.[/FONT][/LAWS]

You're not wasting time, mauls aren't over if they are continuing to move, Law is precise on this if it stops moving then you allow 5 secs and even longer if you can see the ball emerging

If you blow earlier than this you're operating a foreshortening interpretation.

 

[Taff]

I sort of agree with Browner, but surely there comes a point where - even if the maul is moving, it's a good idea to knock it on the head.

I love that word "reasonable" - it means different things to different people. :sad:

 

[Dickie E]

I sort of agree with Browner, but surely there comes a point where - even if the maul is moving, it's a good idea to knock it on the head.

I love that word "reasonable" - it means different things to different people. :sad:

I had this on Saturday. Maul about 5 metres out from goal line and no way the ball was ever going to come out. However it was still moving. Maul eventually collapsed in-goal. In this case it was important not to blow as attacking won the scum feed.

 

[Browner]

I had this on Saturday. Maul about 5 metres out from goal line and no way the ball was ever going to come out. However it was still moving. Maul eventually collapsed in-goal. In this case it was important not to blow as attacking won the scum feed.

If a defending side can choke the oppo BC and then continuously walk the Maul 60 meters I'm letting them. You won't convince me that such a feat isn't exciting for spectators either, they love it. This code delightfully has many contrasting playing styles, those that don't like it should watch a simpler code.

 

[Taff]

If a defending side can choke the oppo BC and then continuously walk the Maul 60 meters I'm letting them. You won't convince me that such a feat isn't exciting for spectators either, they love it.

If a maul is moving 60m upfield fair enough - but say it's moved just 6" in the last 20 seconds, that changes things surely. The spectators would be howling for you to put it out of its misery. :biggrin:

 

[Pegleg]

I disagree.

[LAWS]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](a). [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](d)

[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]When a maul remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for more than 5 seconds, but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered.[/FONT][/LAWS]

You're not wasting time, mauls aren't over if they are continuing to move, Law is precise on this if it stops moving then you allow 5 secs and even longer if you can see the ball emerging

If you blow earlier than this you're operating a foreshortening interpretation.

Best not to be selective when telling people. "...the law is precise on this" I've highlighted the critical part of 17.6 (b) which, for some reason (I can't think why), you forgot to include in you "precise" piece of law.

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for
longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

 

[Dickie E]

If a maul is moving 60m upfield fair enough - but say it's moved just 6" in the last 20 seconds, that changes things surely. The spectators would be howling for you to put it out of its misery. :biggrin:

yes, blow it up

 

[Browner]

Best not to be selective when telling people. "...the law is precise on this" I've highlighted the critical part of 17.6 (b) which, for some reason (I can't think why), you forgot to include in you "precise" piece of law.

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for
longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

Pegleg,
If you can find me a single video clip of that ( I'd say it is redundant ) 17.6b highlighted Law ever being used then I'll concede your point. In practice however Mauls invariably stop moving forward or they collapse as their ending. Certainly the ones I've ever seen do.

I'm happy to hear how you'd judge a unplayable maul if neither of those two conditions exist ??

 

[Browner]

If a maul is moving 60m upfield fair enough - but say it's moved just 6" in the last 20 seconds, that changes things surely. The spectators would be howling for you to put it out of its misery. :biggrin:

If its moved 6" in 20 seconds then somewhere within that its already exceeded the 5 secs to my eye !!!:biggrin:

 

[Pegleg]

Pegleg,
If you can find me a single video clip of that ( I'd say it is redundant ) 17.6b highlighted Law ever being used then I'll concede your point. In practice however Mauls invariably stop moving forward or they collapse as their ending. Certainly the ones I've ever seen do.

I'm happy to hear how you'd judge a unplayable maul if neither of those two conditions exist ??

I see it at the lower levels a lot. Ball carrier and opponent both get their hands on the ball and are unable to protect the ball. The fact that a law is not used at the top does not mean that it is redundant in the real world.

You don't have to concede my point. It is there in law, whether you chose to to accept it is your choice.

 

[ChrisR]

I accept that the ball can be 'unplayable' without the maul collapsing but as long as it is moving then, in effect, it is being played.

 

[Taff]

I accept that the ball can be 'unplayable' without the maul collapsing but as long as it is moving then, in effect, it is being played.

But there's moving, and there's moving.

 

[crossref]

if you looked hard enough EVERY maul would be moving just a little bit, and you'd never blow...
a bit of common sense is required.