[Maul] Two catchers

[crossref]

Green kick in open play

Green and white players simultaneously jump to catch and both players get hold of the ball

A maul immediately forms , which ends unsuccessfully

Who puts in to the scrum ?

 

[Dickie E]

Nice one, CR.

I won't spoil the fun.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Who puts in to the scrum ?

Usually the #9, but any one player make take up that position

 

[Christy]

Yes it was correct decision ..
To answer same , there is 2 bits of law knowledge required.

 

[Rich_NL]

So no team had possession at the start of the maul? Then the team going forward in the maul, and if that doesn't decide it, the attacking team. If it was exactly on the halfway line with no movement, I'd be inclined to say Green.

 

[Taff]

I would say the attacking side.

 

[crossref]

So I think, the answer is white

If green had caught it, it would be a white scrum
If white had caught it, it would have been a white scrum

So scrum white.

Garces gave a scrum to attacking team, which happened to be white, so the correct result, for the wrong reason

 

[didds]

wrong reason?

awarded to attacking team (which is what Garces said) - which is white as the ball was in the green half?

or is "attacking team" the incorrect call are you saying CR?

didds

 

[crossref]

I am saying that it didn't matter which one had caught it, as bacause it was from a kick it made no difference ..either way it's a scrum white.

 

[beckett50]

So I think, the answer is white

If green had caught it, it would be a white scrum
If white had caught it, it would have been a white scrum

So scrum white.

Garces gave a scrum to attacking team, which happened to be white, so the correct result, for the wrong reason

You are forgetting that a Maul formed DIRECTLY from a catch has a slightly different result if it ends Unsuccessfully

 

[crossref]

You are forgetting that a Maul formed DIRECTLY from a catch has a slightly different result if it ends Unsuccessfully

No, that is my whole point !

Green kicked

If green catch it, maul forms, maul dies, turnover scrum white

If white catch it, maul forms, maul dies, no turnover , scrum white

Either way it's scrum white

 

[Rich_NL]

If green catch it from a kick in open play, scrum green. Unless I'm missing something in the laws.

 

[crossref]

If green catch it from a kick in open play, scrum green. Unless I'm missing something in the laws.

yes you missed this bit : bolded

[LAWS]
16.18 If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.
[/LAWS]

Green kicked it
- if green catch it, maul forms, maul dies, turnover > scrum white
- if white catch it, maul forms, maul dies, NO turnover > scrum white

 

[menace]

If green catch it from a kick in open play, scrum green. Unless I'm missing something in the laws.

Has to be an opponents kick.
It was a green kick...so catching your own kick doesnt give you the feed in an unsuccessful maul.

Edit: beaten by CR!!

 

[Rich_NL]

Ah, under law 19 it doesn't specify "opponent", I thought it was all moved there. Thanks!

 

[crossref]

Ah, under law 19 it doesn't specify "opponent", I thought it was all moved there. Thanks!

Ah, now that's interesting, I hadn't noticed Law 19.

[LAWS]
An unplayable maul after kick in open play.
Who puts in
The team in possession at the start of the maul.[/LAWS]

So Law 19 contradicts Law 16 !


So now I understand what's going on in this thread ! -- some of us are reading Law 16 while others are reading Law 19.


What a mess.
Can't believe it has taken us a year to notice that!

 

[ianh5979]

I heard ref say both players caught it at the same time, so he gave put in to attacking team

 

[Taff]

I heard ref say both players caught it at the same time, so he gave put in to attacking team

There is a precedent for it.

IIRC if 2 opposing players are holding onto the ball when it goes to touch, the attacking team get the throw in.

 

[ACUSmember]

Ah, now that's interesting, I hadn't noticed Law 19.

So Law 19 contradicts Law 16 !


So now I understand what's going on in this thread ! -- some of us are reading Law 16 while others are reading Law 19.


What a mess.
Can't believe it has taken us a year to notice that!

I think you have to do a lot of reading in context, but you can avoid a contradiction.

I'd have said law 19 is intended to be a quick summary of the full law set out at 16.18, and therefore should be read in context of that; I'd have thought the majority of the time a maul forming from a kick in open play will be because the non-kicking team has caught the ball and is immediately swamped by the kick-chase, with catcher's team mates attempting to help out or at least not lose masses of ground. In this normal scenario, the summary is correct. It's only in the rare event that a kicking team manages to catch its own kick and then is immediately engulfed in a maul that the full wording of 16.18 makes clear the kicking team don't get the put-in.


Equally, despite it only being mentioned in the part of law 19 concerning an unsuccessful end to a maul, and not repeated in the section concerning an unplayable maul from a kick in open play, the proviso as to what happens if the ref cannot decide who had possession at the start of the maul must surely be intended to apply to both - and that seems to be the basis on which Garces made his decision.

To my mind, that would seem the most sensible way of interpreting the various provisions. Although it would mean that if your opponent kicked the ball into your half of the field, and you and an opponent go up to claim the catch and you both get hands on it, you would be better off ceding the ball and then wrapping the ball carrier up the moment he hits the ground with a bid to form a maul then, rather than continuing to wrestle for possession.

 

[crossref]

you are saying go with Law 16 -- and I'd agree.

but you can hardly fault a ref for going with Law 19