PDA

View Full Version : End of maul



Shelflife
21-09-14, 23:09
Red V Blue,

Blue take the ball on and a maul is formed, I call maul, maul continues forward and then goes to ground.

I can see the ball and its available but a red player who was in the maul is going to make it awkward for blue to get the ball (given the position he has ended up in).

I foresee blue boots all over him so I whistle and award blue a scrum on the basis that the ball is available but unplayable.

not an ideal situation but felt that to let it continue could have led to boots on bodies and a flashpoint.

Thoughts?

Pegleg
21-09-14, 23:09
Unsuccessful end to a maul = Turnover. Red does not have to roll away or release. Good play by Red. He won the turnover. For me you've got it wrong.


The ball can't be both unplayable and available. The two are mutually exclusive.

FightOrFlight
21-09-14, 23:09
Red V Blue,

Blue take the ball on and a maul is formed, I call maul, maul continues forward and then goes to ground.

I can see the ball and its available but a red player who was in the maul is going to make it awkward for blue to get the ball (given the position he has ended up in).

I foresee blue boots all over him so I whistle and award blue a scrum on the basis that the ball is available but unplayable.

not an ideal situation but felt that to let it continue could have led to boots on bodies and a flashpoint.

Thoughts?

Brought in by Blue...not used...scrum Red ball. The ball is not available if it is unplayable. It also must be playable immediately when the maul goes to ground so as to avoid the said boot fest and flashpoint. My rule of thumb would be when the 9 goes down to get the ball he can get hands on and get it out. If not turnover.

Dickie E
22-09-14, 00:09
the ball is available but unplayable.



As others have suggested, I can't picture how this can be. Can you explain further?

talbazar
22-09-14, 01:09
What about law:
17.5 Successful end to a maul
A maul ends successfully when :
the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
the ball is on the ground
the ball is on or over the goal line.

If the ball carrier goes to ground, the ball is on the deck and some players (at least 1 from each team) are on their feet...
Don't we have a ruck?
And as such, Blue shall not interfere with the ball...

Maybe a few more details could help in the OP's situation...

My 2 cents!
Pierre.

FightOrFlight
22-09-14, 01:09
If the ball carrier goes to ground, the ball is on the deck and some players (at least 1 from each team) are on their feet...
Don't we have a ruck?
And as such, Blue shall not interfere with the ball...

Maybe a few more details could help in the OP's situation...

My 2 cents!
Pierre.

If Blue go down over the man or ball they do not have to roll away in this case and in 90% of occasions they will always find themselves on the man or ball stopping it coming back so they can earn the turnover.

Dickie E
22-09-14, 03:09
If Blue go down over the man or ball they do not have to roll away in this case and in 90% of occasions they will always find themselves on the man or ball stopping it coming back so they can earn the turnover.

I like Talbazar's logic. If ball is on ground after a collapsed maul then a ruck has formed and Blue can't then grab the ball to stop it. If ball is wrapped up prior to going to ground then turnover scrum

The Fat
22-09-14, 03:09
I like Talbazar's logic. If ball is on ground after a collapsed maul then a ruck has formed and Blue can't then grab the ball to stop it. If ball is wrapped up prior to going to ground then turnover scrum

This^^^

People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before posting

Pegleg
22-09-14, 07:09
Nothing in the OP to suggest the ball was got to ground. so let's ignore the "maul into ruck" issue. It's a collapsed maul with an unavailable ball. No "post tackle" requirements! result = Turnover!

Shelflife
22-09-14, 10:09
Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.

crossref
22-09-14, 10:09
Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.

I don't see how it can be a scrum blue.

EITHER you are ruling collapsed maul, so means red don't have to roll away, it's a scrum red (blue took it in)
OR you are saying it's a maul that ended successfully and became a ruck, in which case red do have get clear and it's Red on th ground in a ruck, lying on the ball, and it's a PK to Blue

I don't think scrum blue is an option.

Dixie
22-09-14, 10:09
Nothing in the OP to suggest the ball was got to ground. so let's ignore the "maul into ruck" issue. It's a collapsed maul with an unavailable ball. No "post tackle" requirements! result = Turnover!

Agreed. the issue here is what is meant by "available". Shelflife in the OP clearly feels that it he can see it through the tangle of body parts, it's available though unobtainable. To me (and apparently others), this is not the case. The wording of the law regarding Availability is:

17.2(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick

In this case, play could not continue, and the reason is that the ball (though visible) was not available to be played immediately. Shelflife, you need to recalibrate on your understanding of available. If it's beneath a load of limbs, or if two players are wrestling for it, it's not available - turnover.

talbazar
22-09-14, 10:09
This^^^

People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before posting

Just read it.
And it looks like IRB (without defining it clearly) states that there is a possibility for a Maul to become a Ruck...
So my initial logic seems backed-up here...
Again, I do agree that if the ball isn't on the ground, there is no obligation for whoever to make the ball available...
But, if the ball is on the deck and some players (one from each team at least) are still on their feet... Then it becomes a ruck to me...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

Pegleg
22-09-14, 11:09
Ball has gone to ground and I can see it, red player who was part of the maul is between ball and the scrum half, hes not going to roll away so I whistle and award scrum blue.


So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

Under no circumstances is it a Blue scrum.

crossref
22-09-14, 12:09
So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

Under no circumstances is it a Blue scrum.

that's what I said in post #11

Phil E
22-09-14, 12:09
Turnover.

Simples*


























* just said that to annoy Dickie who is allergic to Meercats!

OB..
22-09-14, 12:09
People should read Clarification 2 - 2011 if unsure before postingIt used to be nice and clear: the only way a maul could turn into a ruck was if the ball carrier released the ball to ground.

The Clarification saysThere is a further variable to be taken into account when the ball goes to ground at a collapsed maul and there are players from both sides on their feet bound over the ball so that Law 16 Ruck becomes applicable.So if there are no players on their feet we do not have a ruck? Curiouser and curiouser.

Players may well not know if the collapse has created a ruck; the referee must tell them so that they know how to react correctly.

For my money that sort of a mess is best dealt with as a maul turnover.

Browner
22-09-14, 12:09
So ball has gone to ground. Is it possible for red to roll away and release? "...he's not going to roll away..." Why? Out of choice or lack of oportunity?

If it is not possible for him then it surely must be an unsuccessful end to the maul. So turnover RED ball at the scrum.

However:

IF it has turned into a ruck (it is reasonable to expect red to move away from the ball) and red does not do so, we have a PK against red.

.

Hi Pegleg,
if we agree that Law never really wanted to encourage a situation where mauling players dropped to the floor and had ruckers stood above rucking the ball ' for a protracted period' - hense " available immediately "

Then IYO,
is it the 'right' of the opponent (Red) to deny the BC the chance to make it playable (even when ball is on the ground) , or are opponents forced to release first ( aka same priority 'order' as at a tackle) to give the BC the opportunity to then avail the ball?

Can Red choose to be in the way, or does "available immediately" always follow the time it takes for 16.4(d) movement compliance to happen?

Pegleg
22-09-14, 13:09
I'd say that:

1; if blue has got the ball to the ground and thus created a ruck then it is Red's obligation to roll away if at all possible. We have to judge if it was possible and if red is genuine in his attempt to do so.

2; if it is a maul then no. Red stops Blue making the ball available, as he would if the maul stayed on its feet. red then gets the reward of the turnover. So in a maul, for me, red had every right to "kill the ball" legally. Blue needs to protect its ball in a maul.

There are three way a maul can go to ground:

1; the ball carrier can go to ground and make the ball available (if he can).

2; the maul can collapse by accident.

3; the defenders take the maul down.

In the first two instances it is the ball carrying sides problem; "use or lose". In the third, the defenders have the problem due to their illegal activity.

Browner
22-09-14, 14:09
I'd say that:

1; if blue has got the ball to the ground and thus created a ruck then it is Red's obligation to roll away if at all possible. We have to judge if it was possible and if red is genuine in his attempt to do so.

2; if it is a maul then no. Red stops Blue making the ball available, as he would if the maul stayed on its feet. red then gets the reward of the turnover. So in a maul, for me, red had every right to "kill the ball" legally. Blue needs to protect its ball in a maul.

There are three way a maul can go to ground:

1; the ball carrier can go to ground and make the ball available (if he can) or score a Try ( deliberately or accidentally)

2; the maul can collapse by accident.

3; the defenders (or attackers ) take the maul down deliberately

In the first two instances it is the ball carrying sides problem; "use or lose". In the third, the defenders have the problem due to their illegal activity.

Then we are back to .... Is a ruck actually ever created by the BC ( in the act of going to ground) , or is it merely an additional MAUL 'ending' permission.

I can see why 'not allowing it to end successfully' remains a desire , I'm only querying whether or not (ruck law) of rolling clear is legitimately obligated/demanded.

If you get my drift. Indeed, clarification point ( d ) of 2\2011 says

. d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

" Not been made available immediately" seems to give no roll away or "interference" timing adjustment/ allowance, and this was clearly part of the question

FightOrFlight
22-09-14, 17:09
Given the fact that Les Kiss engineered the so called "choke tackle" as part of Ireland's defensive tactics in RWC2011 you see failed mauls and turnovers in probably every game here that you referee at most levels. As such the IRFU have dealt with a lot of questions about it from Grassroots and Panel referees.

The way I have been told to handle it is..."Call Maul" to notify the players it is now a maul.....try and ascertain where the ball is(ie: if the oppo have it wrapped up it gives you a fair idea it may not be coming out again).....notify the 9 with relation to stop/restart of movement or "use it".....if it goes down and you can see the ball is not coming out blow it up as a turnover....but if you see the ball available and the 9 can get it out easy play on.

The issue here around a ruck forming after the maul is a fairly simple one. 2 scenarios:

1) Ball goes down as the maul does and is placed to ground by the the carrier. If the ball is available it is a ruck....the oppo may now drive through the middle as in any ruck to win possession but as the ruck is formed normal rules on hands apply. The team on possession may also ruck to retain etc.

2) Ball goes down with the maul and a defender goes down on the ball/carrier or with the ball wrapped up....he is under no obligation to move now so the ball is unavailable and the ruck cannot form...peep...turnover scrum.

Dixie
22-09-14, 17:09
2) Ball goes down with the maul and a defender goes down on the ball/carrier or with the ball wrapped up....he is under no obligation to move now so the ball is unavailable and the ruck cannot form...peep...turnover scrum.

I don't have a problem with the outcome, but you've invented a new criterion for a ruck that the iRB has not set out ... to whit, there must be added to the two opposing players in contact over the ball on the ground the possibility that the ball might easily emerge. Not a bad idea, but sadly it lacks any authority at all ...

Pegleg
22-09-14, 18:09
Then we are back to .... Is a ruck actually ever created by the BC ( in the act of going to ground) , or is it merely an additional MAUL 'ending' permission.

I can see why 'not allowing it to end successfully' remains a desire , I'm only querying whether or not (ruck law) of rolling clear is legitimately obligated/demanded.

If you get my drift. Indeed, clarification point ( d ) of 2\2011 says


" Not been made available immediately" seems to give no roll away or "interference" timing adjustment/ allowance, and this was clearly part of the question

Whist there is still a maul then you can wrap around the ball to prevent it being released. When the ball hits the deck you can't if you are not already there and you must do nothing to prevent the ball coming out. It's all about that word immediately. I'd be looking to blow pretty much as soon as the player touches the ground unless it is clear the ball is available.

So if that makes sense:
If the defender is positioned, as the ball hits the ground, so as to prevent immediate release then it's no ruck but an unsuccessful end to a maul.

However, If the ball is available as it hits the ground the defender can do nothing to change that ( other than by actual rucking). So he must keep out of the way / move away.

FightOrFlight
22-09-14, 19:09
I don't have a problem with the outcome, but you've invented a new criterion for a ruck that the iRB has not set out ... to whit, there must be added to the two opposing players in contact over the ball on the ground the possibility that the ball might easily emerge. Not a bad idea, but sadly it lacks any authority at all ...

I would say it is more of an idea than a law. A ruck would be a competition with at least 1 from each team over the ball contesting etc...however if in this case red goes down on the ball and is not obliged to roll away so it is not a competition as blue cannot legally contest to free the ball...the "play is dead" so to speak.

As far as rolling away applies in law the red guy on the ball is not a tackler so is not obliged to roll in that respect and he also did not end up off his feet in the course of rucking so is not obliged to roll away in that respect either.

Blue Smartie
22-09-14, 22:09
Its just as well we love this game because these laws are a real pain. So to add some clarity / confusion / plain 'ballocks' (take your pick) here is a different line of thought which contradicts some of the posts above.

Situation 1: Maul collapses without foul play) - ball off the ground
No player is obliged to do anything positive (release/roll away). Scrum ordered, turnover ball. (Pretty uncontroversial so far?)

Situation 2: Ball carrier goes to ground - ball off the ground.
As per the law clarification if the ball carrier has not made it available by his actions (generally he's holding on to it while sitting on the floor while the maul carries him along) then PK 17.2(d). If the ball is unavailable because there is a big heap of bodies which prevents it being available with no fault of the ball carrier. Scrum turnover 17.6(g).

Situation 3: Ball goes to ground and is immediately available.
Hurrah, successful end to the maul and play on.

Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.

Situation 5: maul - ball on the ground - players bound over it
Ruck laws now apply (get your hands off) and 16.4(d) players on the ground must try to move away from the ball.

For what it is worth, if we were not asked to stop play immediately I would suggest that you could take some guidance from the definitions to law 14 (ball on the ground - no tackle). "The game is to be played by players who are on their feet ... A player [on the ground] who makes the ball unplayable is negating the purpose and the Spirit of the Game and must be penalised"

So, back to the OP, Shelflife is right to do what he did as Blue were going forward and got the ball to deck and all of you who insisted on a turnover are wrong (where are those ducking emoticons?).

Browner
22-09-14, 23:09
Clarification 2\2011 asked ... (My bold )
d) When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?

It was answered ( again my bold)
d) If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before.

So,
that's clear, interference on the ground can't happen because the maul will either already be deemed ended 'unsuccessfully'or it will have ended successfully

FightOrFlight
22-09-14, 23:09
Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.



So, back to the OP, Shelflife is right to do what he did as Blue were going forward and got the ball to deck and all of you who insisted on a turnover are wrong (where are those ducking emoticons?).

The clarification states that this situation you outline cannot occur as criteria for Law 17 have been met and so it is a turnover scrum.

The law is saying that the maul is either successful or unsuccessful. Success means the ball can be played immediately(5 secs..ish). If this is not the case it's a turnover.....so those of use who insisted turnover were right...:hap:

The ball being available but unplayable is not possible in law

Browner
23-09-14, 00:09
Situation 4: The ball carrier gets the ball to ground but it is not immediately available (which I think is the situation causing the headaches above).
As per the law clarification if you haven't got a penalty then you don't let this progress and a scrum is ordered. BUT, the clarification does not say whose put in it will be and it does not result in a turnover by default. The maul has ended successfully (17.5) - 17.6(c) does not apply. What you now have is "any other stoppage" (20.4(d)) and your decision moves to who was going forward or who is attacking.

Situation 5: maul - ball on the ground - players bound over it
Ruck laws now apply (get your hands off) and 16.4(d) players on the ground must try to move away from the ball.


I'm seeing 4&5 slightly differently smartie

Situation 4. In the absence of a contradictory clarification, normal turnover ( by virtue of taken into maul , but not exited it succesfully) turnover of possession via scrum feed law must always apply.

Situation 5 .... Is a strange one.
The Maul supposedly hasnt 'ended' succesfully or unsuccesfully.
But we now have the combined state of Bodies on the floor and rucker's on their feet
A) bodies on the floor ( if they remain in the way) they dont have move ( see clarification 2\2011 (d) )
B) but they have to comply with ruck law ( which means they should move away) so this directly contradicts with ( a)

On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, im more minded to think that a ruck cant really ever exist within a maul ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet ) ....... To do otherwise the said maul must already have ended 'unsuccesfully'

?

Pegleg
23-09-14, 07:09
On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, im more minded to think that a ruck cant really ever exist within a maul ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet ) ....... To do otherwise the said maul must already have ended 'unsuccesfully'



Or due to the small window of opportunity:

"On balance, because of these unresolvable conflicts, I'm more minded to think that a maul is highly unlikely, in reality, to convert into a ruck ( unless the ball is dropped and all players remain on their feet) and that most occasions, even if the ball gets to the ground, the maul is ending unsuccessfully."

Shelflife
23-09-14, 10:09
Ok, its good to get some views that dont agree with with i did.

Let me try and explain my tought process, Blue maul goes to ground legally, bodies everywhere all on the ground so no ruck,i can clearly see the ball on the blue side on the ground, as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I know have is that a red player is going to make it akward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player, he could lean over him but ive rarely seen a SH to do the sensible thing.

Red player is not actively interfering but is in the way by virtue of the way he has fallen in the maul. IMO he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in, so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

Browner
23-09-14, 11:09
. as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I now have is that a red player is going to make it awkward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player,

And this is exactly why that maul ISNT available it has become unplayable. Red is entitled to be there ( clarification 2/2011)


. he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in
Exactly why ' unsuccessful ended maul' has to be whistled - quick

Remember,
if red deliberately collapsed the maul ....call it,
If ball is immediately available .....use it
If it needs excavating, or players to move then its unplayable. Simples.

The longer you wait to see what 'develops' the more ' foul play' will develop.

FightOrFlight
23-09-14, 17:09
Ok, its good to get some views that dont agree with with i did.

Let me try and explain my tought process, Blue maul goes to ground legally, bodies everywhere all on the ground so no ruck,i can clearly see the ball on the blue side on the ground, as far as im concerned at this stage its available and i call it available, problem I know have is that a red player is going to make it akward for the SH to get the ball without standing on the red player, he could lean over him but ive rarely seen a SH to do the sensible thing.

Red player is not actively interfering but is in the way by virtue of the way he has fallen in the maul. IMO he wont get out of the way before the boots come flying in, so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

The law on unsuccessful end to a maul is there to help you in this situation. I can see where you are coming from however. If I called ball available to the 9 I would do so because the ball is readily there for him to play. If he only had to reach over a red player to do so then I would still deem it playable as long as he could pick it up easily. In this case with the ball available if I saw him use the boot on a player who clearly now in my estimation is not affecting the "playability" of the ball I would be looking at a possible RC for the 9 for stamping.

Pegleg
23-09-14, 20:09
so i managed the situation to avoid a potential flare up. not worthy of a pen as its just the way that he ended up after the maul.

NOthing wrong with managing it. Just the wrong outcome as I see the law. The ball was not coming out of the maul without "direct action" so it is an unsuccessful end and therefore a turnover.

Browner
24-09-14, 03:09
We know how you Irish are still keen on using boots to agressively excavate genuinely unplayable Maul endings.... Cian Healey told me!
:-)

Blue Smartie
24-09-14, 21:09
The clarification states that this situation you outline cannot occur as criteria for Law 17 have been met and so it is a turnover scrum.

I'm not looking to pick a fight here but the law clarification doesn't say anything of the sort. What is says is apply law 17 to a collapsed maul to determine whether it was not immediately available through misdeed or misfortune so that you don't have to worry about other players on the ground. What I was trying to suggest was that if the ball is on the ground there is no longer any maul; some other part of the laws applies...


The law is saying that the maul is either successful or unsuccessful. Success means the ball can be played immediately(5 secs..ish).

This is not entirely accurate. The law says that if the ball carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available then it is an unsuccessful end to the maul. If the ball goes to ground it is a successful end to the maul. Immediately available does not apply to the latter statement.


The ball being available but unplayable is not possible in law

I never said that this was the case. I said that the ball can be on the ground and unplayable which is entirely different.

Pegleg
25-09-14, 10:09
Ok A ball going to ground is a "successful end to a maul" but, in this scenario, it is unplayable. So what law do we apply? It seems, to me, wrong to say it have become ruck.

DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on
their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has
ended.
Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or
keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

Surely there is a clear inference here that there must be an attempt to win the ball - legally. Since the ball is "unplayable" neither side can attempt to win it legally. So it is equitable to say it has become a maul. Rather is it not in a mid point where it is neither a maul (that has ended) nor a ruck. There for surely it is right to go with the last definite state and call it a turnover.

Taff
25-09-14, 21:09
Ok A ball going to ground is a "successful end to a maul" but, in this scenario, it is unplayable. So what law do we apply? It seems, to me, wrong to say it have become ruck.
Why not? If it satisfies the conditions for a ruck.

In fact I'm pretty sure there is a clarification that as good as says a maul can be turned into a ruck - despite a lot of people saying a maul can never become a ruck.

Pegleg
25-09-14, 22:09
Why not? If it satisfies the conditions for a ruck.

In fact I'm pretty sure there is a clarification that as good as says a maul can be turned into a ruck - despite a lot of people saying a maul can never become a ruck.

My last paragraph in to post you partially quoted.

ChrisR
26-09-14, 05:09
In the OP it would seem that all players are off their feet. Therefore, even tho the ball is on the deck, there is no ruck. If the ball is playable/available but the SH won't make a play for it I think turnover is a fair result.

However, if the ball goes to the ground before it collapses then it has become a ruck and, if it collapses then it has ended as a ruck and no turnover.

The Fat
26-09-14, 06:09
In the OP it would seem that all players are off their feet. Therefore, even tho the ball is on the deck, there is no ruck. If the ball is playable/available but the SH won't make a play for it I think turnover is a fair result.

However, if the ball goes to the ground before it collapses then it has become a ruck and, if it collapses then it has ended as a ruck and no turnover.

Would depend which team was moving forward and if neither then ruck law goes with attacking team which may not necessarily be the team originally in possession

Pegleg
26-09-14, 06:09
I think this is where OB is right. We have to have some practicality in this. If a mass of 16 bodies are grappling for the ball and the BC and some others go to ground, where is the ball?

If it hits the deck under said BC and immediately several others of the "fatties" slum on top and the ball never became playable. I would treat it as a collapsed maul and T/O.

However, if there was a "window of opportunity" for the ball to be contested, by players on their feet, then a ruck now exists and if that becomes unplayable then we are refereeing an unsuccessful (dead) ruck.

I (we) have to decide if that window existed. In most cases, I am guessing, it does not.

Pinky
26-09-14, 09:09
I think this is about rewarding dominance. If a maul forms, the BC team keep it if they can get it out and to help them with that th BC can go to ground, but ball must be available immediately. If oppos are more dominant by (legally) stopping the ball coming out, then t/o. If it all falls over, then folks off their feet need to not interfere with the ball, but I agree they don't have to roll away. If as above the ball was available for the s/h to reach in and pick up, I would expect him to, without standing on a defender, but I would also expect the defender to keep still and let that happen.

OB..
26-09-14, 10:09
It used to be simple.

In 1992 the IRB brought in a turnover law for both ruck and maul. In 1994 they rescinded it for the ruck. Players immediately started to go to ground with the ball claiming they had converted the maul into a ruck. Almost as fast it was made clear that you could only turn a maul into a ruck if the ball alone went to the ground.

Now we have a ridiculous can of worms.