Weird In-Goal Play Question

[The Fat]

If you are the OP, don't read this.

However, if you are an experienced ref, you will know that if Team A kicks the ball in-goal and a Team B player picks up the moving ball in-goal while having a foot in touch, then there is an option of a 22DO or a scrum where the ball was kicked. Equally, if the ball itself went THROUGH in-goal to go beyond either the Touch-in-Goal or Dead Ball lines, then the same option applies. Others that may apply but not (as Ian makes clcear) in this scenario of a grubber: If a kick-off, restart or 22DO is kicked into in-goal without touching another player and is then immediately made dead by Team B, the options are kick again or a scrum at the place of the kick. Also, if the kicker from Team B failed to kick the ball out of in-goal, and it was collected by a team-mate closer to the goal line and then grounded, that team-mate is offside and a PK is awarded on the 5m line. Equally, if the Blue player caught the ball on the full in in-goal and shouted MARK, the mark is awarded as a FK on the 5m line. There may be others.

Got a laugh out of this.
Ian, did you think Dixie was telling the OP not to read your post #6?
I took Dixie's post as continuing on from your post #6 but advised the OP not to read Dixie's examples for fear of confusing him at such an early stage.
Dixie, have I interpreted that correctly?

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Or "fetcher", "gate", "clean-out", "ankle-tap", "forward pass", "truck and trailer", "feed", "blindside", "openside", "gain line", "breakdown", "grubber kick", "wipers kick", "offload" and "turnover".


NONE of these commonly used rugby terms are listed or defined in the Laws of the Game, but it doesn't stop any of us from knowing what they mean and using them when we watch, play or referee the game.

Guess I am now out of touch!! "Fetcher" and "wipers kick" (should there be an apostrophe there?) are new to me. As for "Jackler" mentioned earlier, the only reference in Google is back to this board. Perhaps just as well I no longer referee

 

[Dixie]

The Wipers kick was a term mainly used in the SH in the 1970's and early '80's, indicating a low, scudding crossfield kick from 1st 5/8 to a point well behind the openside defensive winger.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

The Wipers kick was a term mainly used in the SH in the 1970's and early '80's, indicating a low, scudding crossfield kick from 1st 5/8 to a point well behind the openside defensive winger.

Well of course in NH the ball would have stuck in the mud long before it got across the pitch, hence not a popular tactic...
(I played social rugby at FH in those days and speak from experience of many such miss kicks...)

 

[Ian_Cook]

The Wipers kick was a term mainly used in the SH in the 1970's and early '80's, indicating a low, scudding crossfield kick from 1st 5/8 to a point well behind the openside defensive winger.

Not quite. It was used well into the 90's.

A well executed wipers kick takes a low trajectory, just over the opposing back-line but often in front of the last defender. It pitches a couple of metres inside the field of play and skids out. The idea is that being low and fast it is difficult to field the ball cleanly so it could draw a knock-forward.

Aaron Mauger was a great exponent of the wipers when he played 1st or 2nd 5/8 for Canterbury, the Crusaders and the All Blacks.

You don't see the wipers very much these days, possibly being killed off by the QTI

Guess I am now out of touch!! "Fetcher" and "wipers kick" (should there be an apostrophe there?) are new to me. As for "Jackler" mentioned earlier, the only reference in Google is back to this board. Perhaps just as well I no longer referee

I'm surprised that "jackler" only comes back to this board for you with a Google search. I get

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/blogs/dan-retief/Brssow_rugbys_supreme_jackler

http://rugby-coaching-blog.com/2010/04/20/new-ruck-laws-drill/

http://www.rugbycoachingclub.co.uk/rugby/coaching-files/end-jackler

et al

 

[Simon Thomas]

"wiper" is a familiar call to me thorughout 70s, 80s and 90s.

When I switched to #10 on coming out of retirement to play for Alton, this was a set move, especially in our own half. We had two experienced centres who could kick (Jenko - Taff Evans-Neath, Aly Sly-London Scottish) and they were repectively left and right footed.
Coach Alistair McHarg had us use the wiper a lot with me making a postman long pass (as an ex scrummie) to the centre who would put in a long diagonal kick through to touch between half way and oppo 22m line. Also we had two good kicking scrum halves for boxes, and with me at fly half with long raking kicks too, we would constantly put the opp back into their own half. That was the L7 to L6 promotion season.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Coach Alistair McHarg had us use the wiper a lot with me making a postman long pass (as an ex scrummie) to the centre who would put in a long diagonal kick through to touch between half way and oppo 22m line. Also we had two good kicking scrum halves for boxes, and with me at fly half with long raking kicks too, we would constantly put the opp back into their own half. That was the L7 to L6 promotion season.

That sounds exciting! :biggrin:

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Having refereed Alton on a number of occasions during the 80's and 90's, Simon, I must confess the subtlety of that ploy was lost on me!! But then when you are chasing up and down a hill as steep as that one it is lung capacity that becomes more relevant.

PS Did you do it up the hill as well as down into the muddy bottom left corner?

 

[Paul Dolan]

Hi,

I have another 'weird in-goal' law question. This didn't actually happen, it was a scenario that formed in my own head while reading the law book last night. It states in the laws that a ruck, maul or scrum cannot form inside the in-goal area. That's fine, I can see how a ruck and scrum cannot form in in-goal, but what if the following scenario occurs. Gold are attacking, Blue are defending. Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area where a Gold attacker tackles him, Blue player stays on his feet long enough for his team mates to arrive, meanwhile Gold's teammates also arrive. The ball is in Blue's possession but Gold have the ball and player wrapped up in the tackle. What has formed resembles a maul, but it has formed in-goal. Now, what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static. What is the referee's call? Secondly, if the 'maul' for want of a better term, leaves the in-goal area and re-enters the in-goal area and then goes to ground where the Blue defender is in possession, what is the call? There is probably a really simple and obvious explanation, if anyone provide it that would be interesting.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Having refereed Alton on a number of occasions during the 80's and 90's, Simon, I must confess the subtlety of that ploy was lost on me!! But then when you are chasing up and down a hill as steep as that one it is lung capacity that becomes more relevant.

PS Did you do it up the hill as well as down into the muddy bottom left corner?

Usually down the hill was for touch and a real 45 degree diagonal, whereas up the hill was a lower kick at a flatter angle behind the outside centre wing and 5-10m in from touch.

 

[Simon Thomas]

It was very effective LLP, and almost always meant we were in the oppo half far more than our own - once in the oppo half we then had the big pack take it up in channels 1 & 2 to drawn in their 10,12 and flankers, with quick ruck ball to go wide with quick hands or a miss move at the third or fourth re-cycle.

 

[OB..]

Hi,

I have another 'weird in-goal' law question. This didn't actually happen, it was a scenario that formed in my own head while reading the law book last night. It states in the laws that a ruck, maul or scrum cannot form inside the in-goal area.

What the law actually says is that a ruck/maul "can only take place in the field of play". If the ball is in in-goal, ruck and maul laws do not apply.

That's fine, I can see how a ruck and scrum cannot form in in-goal, but what if the following scenario occurs. Gold are attacking, Blue are defending. Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area where a Gold attacker tackles him, Blue player stays on his feet long enough for his team mates to arrive, meanwhile Gold's teammates also arrive. The ball is in Blue's possession but Gold have the ball and player wrapped up in the tackle. What has formed resembles a maul, but it has formed in-goal. Now, what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static. What is the referee's call?

"Held up". And fairly quickly to avoid prolonged wrestling. 5m scrum to Gold.

Secondly, if the 'maul' for want of a better term, leaves the in-goal area and re-enters the in-goal area and then goes to ground where the Blue defender is in possession, what is the call?

Same as before. There may be arguments as to who had the ball when the maul started, was it a turnover etc, but as I see it, Gold have earned their 5m scrum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi,

I have another 'weird in-goal' law question. This didn't actually happen, it was a scenario that formed in my own head while reading the law book last night. It states in the laws that a ruck, maul or scrum cannot form inside the in-goal area. That's fine, I can see how a ruck and scrum cannot form in in-goal, but what if the following scenario occurs. Gold are attacking, Blue are defending. Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area where a Gold attacker tackles him, Blue player stays on his feet long enough for his team mates to arrive, meanwhile Gold's teammates also arrive. The ball is in Blue's possession but Gold have the ball and player wrapped up in the tackle. What has formed resembles a maul, but it has formed in-goal. Now, what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static. What is the referee's call? Secondly, if the 'maul' for want of a better term, leaves the in-goal area and re-enters the in-goal area and then goes to ground where the Blue defender is in possession, what is the call? There is probably a really simple and obvious explanation, if anyone provide it that would be interesting.

OB has given you the right answers to this, but just make a point, its not so much that these phases of play cannot form or exist in-goal. its just that once the ball is in-goal, the Laws that govern those phases (Law 16, 17 and 20) no longer apply.

Same applies with the tackle. If a ball carrier is taken to ground in-goal,

► the tackler is under no obligation to release or roll away
► the ball carrier is under no obligation to release or roll away
► no-one has any obligation to stay on their feet or get up
► there is no gate, players can approach to play the ball from any direction
etc etc

 

[Dixie]

Hi,

I have another 'weird in-goal' law question. This didn't actually happen, it was a scenario that formed in my own head while reading the law book last night. It states in the laws that a ruck, maul or scrum cannot form inside the in-goal area. That's fine, I can see how a ruck and scrum cannot form in in-goal, but what if the following scenario occurs. Gold are attacking, Blue are defending. Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area where a Gold attacker tackles him, Blue player stays on his feet long enough for his team mates to arrive, meanwhile Gold's teammates also arrive. The ball is in Blue's possession but Gold have the ball and player wrapped up in the tackle. What has formed resembles a maul, but it has formed in-goal. Now, what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static. What is the referee's call? Secondly, if the 'maul' for want of a better term, leaves the in-goal area and re-enters the in-goal area and then goes to ground where the Blue defender is in possession, what is the call? There is probably a really simple and obvious explanation, if anyone provide it that would be interesting.

OB has given you the right answers to this

Welcome to the forums, Paul. Feel free to ask your "silliest" or "simplest" question here; far better to get it straight in your mind while you have time to think, than be presented with the issue on the field of play!

I agree with OB that the attacking 5m scrum is the correct award.

 

[Davet]

Ball over the line is held up; 5m scrum attacking ball - and the ref should blow that quickly, so the "play resembling a maul", as the Laws describe it won't get chance to move around and go back into FoP. Remember, by definition it is NOT a maul, therefore the usual conditions about it moving forward etc don't apply - just blow up and scrum down. Simples!

 

[didds]

Hi,

Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area .... what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static.

5m attacking scrum. I believe the advice in such situations is to blow early to avoid flare-ups. Sides need to do something positive with the ball very quickly (Rip/drop and score/touchdown).

No maul=no offside = players can join from any position. Blow it early cos some players might not understand this and lamp somebody they think is "offside" !

didds

 

[didds]

Same as before. There may be arguments as to who had the ball when the maul started, was it a turnover etc, but as I see it, Gold have earned their 5m scrum.

I'd add that it is unlikely in the 2nd scenario that blue ever let go - so they took it uin, took it out, thenj (the important bit) took it in again.

for blue to have won full possession at any time = touch down/clearance/play away from the "maul", for Gold to have done so would be a score/play away similarly.



didds

 

[OB..]

I'd add that it is unlikely in the 2nd scenario that blue ever let go - so they took it uin, took it out, thenj (the important bit) took it in again.

for blue to have won full possession at any time = touch down/clearance/play away from the "maul", for Gold to have done so would be a score/play away similarly.



didds

I think the chopperesque point of law is that when play goes into in-goal, the maul disappears. When it re-appears, is must surely be a new maul, with no clear way of saying who took the ball into it.

I don't give much credence to the argument, and I agree the referee should probably have blown earlier to prevent this sort of thing happening.

 

[The Fat]

Hi,

I have another 'weird in-goal' law question. This didn't actually happen, it was a scenario that formed in my own head while reading the law book last night. It states in the laws that a ruck, maul or scrum cannot form inside the in-goal area. That's fine, I can see how a ruck and scrum cannot form in in-goal, but what if the following scenario occurs. Gold are attacking, Blue are defending. Blue defender carries the ball into his own in-goal area where a Gold attacker tackles him, Blue player stays on his feet long enough for his team mates to arrive, meanwhile Gold's teammates also arrive. The ball is in Blue's possession but Gold have the ball and player wrapped up in the tackle. What has formed resembles a maul, but it has formed in-goal. Now, what happens if the maul doesn't go to ground or doesn't leave the in-goal area, it just becomes static. What is the referee's call? Secondly, if the 'maul' for want of a better term, leaves the in-goal area and re-enters the in-goal area and then goes to ground where the Blue defender is in possession, what is the call? There is probably a really simple and obvious explanation, if anyone provide it that would be interesting.

Blue defender carried the ball into his own in-goal area. No-one was able to ground the ball and so the referee will not allow prolonged (maul type in this case) wrestling for the ball in-goal and will blow his whistle fairly quickly and order a 5m scrum with Gold (attacking team) to have the put in.


Edit:
Doh!!!!!!
Didn't read the last page before posting.
Didn't realise your question had already been answered.