PDA

View Full Version : Can a maul become a ruck?



Rushforth
02-11-14, 19:11
Background: a red player was held by a blue player, and was joined by plenty of other red players long before the six of them were lying on the ground. A clear penalty under either maul or ruck law, so no issue there.

My question is: can a maul ever become a ruck?

Note that I used to believe so, but that my current understanding based on other threads here is that we nowadays tolerate it when the original ball-carrier "collapses the maul" in the interest of keeping the game going, but should the ball remain unplayable the defending side gets the scrum put-in as per the maul law.

It used to be side going forward for both, so less "difficult".

And to instantly derail my own question, how far can a maul move from the original "tackle" site before the ball-carrier going down becomes an issue? I've only pinged it once, U17 last season, when the maul had been driven some 10 yards diagonally upfield, and the ball-carrier then decided to flop to ground.

crossref
02-11-14, 19:11
Background: a red player was held by a blue player, and was joined by plenty of other red players long before the six of them were lying on the ground. A clear penalty under either maul or ruck law, so no issue there.
.
what was the PK for?

Can a maul become a ruck?

- if the ball falls loose to the floor then the maul becomes a ruck
- if the ball carrier goes to the ground then it's the end of the maul, either the ball comes out (play on) or it doesn't (turnover). It doesn't become a ruck.

Pegleg
02-11-14, 20:11
what was the PK for?

Can a maul become a ruck?

- if the ball falls loose to the floor then the maul becomes a ruck
- if the ball carrier goes to the ground then it's the end of the maul, either the ball comes out (play on) or it doesn't (turnover). It doesn't become a ruck.

I'd guess for the players going off their feet: "before the six of them were lying on the ground."

I'd agree with the statement.

Dixie
02-11-14, 20:11
how far can a maul move from the original "tackle" site before the ball-carrier going down becomes an issue? I've only pinged it once, U17 last season, when the maul had been driven some 10 yards diagonally upfield, and the ball-carrier then decided to flop to ground.

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

The law makes the ball carrier an exception to the rule that players must endeavour to stay on their feet. It makes no reference of him going to ground immediately, quickly, soon or within a distance of the maul starting. It follows that if a maul travels 90m before stalling, the BC is entitled to go to ground. That entitlement, however, is not absolute. It is constrained by safety matters, so if the action of him going to ground brings the entire edifice down around his ears, then we are no longer considering 17.2(d) but have moved to 17.2(e) - a player may not intentionally collapse a maul. I expect some to argue that his intention was simply to go to ground, and not to bring everyone else with him. But IMO the word intentionally relates to the action that causes the collapse, and would be better written: no player may intentionally take an action likely to collapse the maul.

Taff
02-11-14, 23:11
... My question is: can a maul ever become a ruck?
I would say yes.

I'm pretty certain that there is a ruling somewhere that confirms it.

Rushforth
02-11-14, 23:11
I would say yes.

I'm pretty certain that there is a ruling somewhere that confirms it.

This is the closest I could find and doesn't fully answer my question:

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&year=2011&clarification=83

Taff
03-11-14, 00:11
This is the closest I could find and doesn't fully answer my question:
Hell Rushforth, how much clearer do you want it to be mate? :biggrin:

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

There 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.

(a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.

Rushforth
03-11-14, 00:11
Hell Rushforth, how much clearer do you want it to be mate? :biggrin:

I searched and that was the best I could find, and as I said, this is the opinion I held until 2011 myself (i.e., before I was a referee).

And frankly the "clarification" really isn't from either perspective. >biggergrin<

Taff
03-11-14, 03:11
... Can a maul become a ruck?

- if the ball falls loose to the floor then the maul becomes a ruck
- if the ball carrier goes to the ground then it's the end of the maul, either the ball comes out (play on) or it doesn't (turnover). It doesn't become a ruck.
Normally Crossref, everything you say makes sense to me - but I'm afraid I don't agree with you here.

If the ball carrier manages to get to ground and the ball is on the floor, as long as the other requirements for a ruck are there (two opposing players on their feet in physical contact over the ball on the ground) we clearly now have a ruck.

And if that ruck ends unsuccessfully, why would we treat it as an unsuccessful maul?

I was always told that a maul could become a ruck, but a ruck could never become a maul. That was before "jackling" was allowed. Since "jackling" was allowed, the old adage was scrapped.

Pegleg
03-11-14, 09:11
I agree with Taff that the clarification does allow a maul to become a ruck. However, the ball must be "ruckable". Just getting it to the floor is not enough. The players in a collapsed maul are not required to roll away so they can "kill the ball". Surely we can't allow boots in such a mess.

Of course, even with the jackel a ruck does not turn into a maul. Rather the jackel is hands on before any ruck is formed. So and is the only player allowed to play the ball with hands so we have, in reality, neither ruck nor a maul.

ChrisR
03-11-14, 10:11
Background: a red player was held by a blue player, and was joined by plenty of other red players long before the six of them were lying on the ground. A clear penalty under either maul or ruck law, so no issue there.

Unless you have reason to believe that the maul was taken to ground deliberately then there is no foul, no penalty.

My question is: can a maul ever become a ruck?

Yes, as described by taff.

Note that I used to believe so, but that my current understanding based on other threads here is that we nowadays tolerate it when the original ball-carrier "collapses the maul" in the interest of keeping the game going, but should the ball remain unplayable the defending side gets the scrum put-in as per the maul law.

Yes, as per maul law.

It used to be side going forward for both, so less "difficult".

And to instantly derail my own question, how far can a maul move from the original "tackle" site before the ball-carrier going down becomes an issue? I've only pinged it once, U17 last season, when the maul had been driven some 10 yards diagonally upfield, and the ball-carrier then decided to flop to ground.

The ball carrier is allowed to go to ground. Don't agree with Dixie that the BC going to ground is liable for the rest of the mob collapsing.

ChrisR
03-11-14, 10:11
I agree with Taff that the clarification does allow a maul to become a ruck. However, the ball must be "ruckable". Just getting it to the floor is not enough. The players in a collapsed maul are not required to roll away so they can "kill the ball". Surely we can't allow boots in such a mess.

Of course, even with the jackel a ruck does not turn into a maul. Rather the jackel is hands on before any ruck is formed. So and is the only player allowed to play the ball with hands so we have, in reality, neither ruck nor a maul.

Agree with first paragraph.

A ruck can become a maul by the following sequence of events:

1. Tackle made.
2. Jackler gets hands on ball, ball on deck.
3. Opponent binds onto jackler, ruck has formed.
4. Jackler lifts ball off deck. Ruck has ended.
5. Teammate binds with jackler, still in contact with opponent, ball off the deck, maul has formed.

crossref
03-11-14, 11:11
in practice in my games a maul never becomes a ruck

- I have never seen the ball drop to the ground, with players still on feet and something that resembles a ruck being the result. If I ever do see it my mind is completely open to the possibility of calling ruck. It just doesn't seem to happen.

- I do see (often!) mauls falling over and then the ball either comes out 'immediately' or it doesn't and I blow. They just never become rucks.

OB..
03-11-14, 13:11
In 1992 the IRB introduced a turnover law for both rucks and mauls. In 1994 they rescinded it for rucks. It was made very clear at the time that a ball carrier going to ground did not convert a maul to a ruck - that could only happpen if the ball alone went to ground.

That all seemed fairly clear, but now it is getting out of hand. A jackler can convert a ruck into a maul, and the ball carrier can turn a maul into a ruck. All inside a seething mass of struggling bodies.

In practice, at ordinary levels, crossref is right.

Browner
03-11-14, 14:11
[QUOTE=Pegleg;285257

Of course, even with the jackel a ruck does not turn into a maul. Rather the jackel is hands on before any ruck is formed. So and is the only player allowed to play the ball with hands so we have, IN REALITY, NEITHER RUCK NOR A MAUL .[/QUOTE]

Or .... you still have a ruck ( until it ends - as per Law) but one person ( IF he had his hands on the ball BEFORE formation) has Lawful permission to keep handling the ball ( which invariable means he successfully wins possession) after the ruck formation. And no one else can put their hands on the ball to stop him, because they don't have Law permission in this, 'as yet unended' - Ruck state.

?

ChrisR
03-11-14, 15:11
From crossref: "in practice in my games a maul never becomes a ruck"

.... and there is reason for that. In rugby today mauls are 90% the product of a lineout, well orchestrated and the ball quickly moved to the last player. No need to put the ball on the deck.

In the other 10% the maul forms from an attempted smother tackle but the BC stays upright and is joined by a teammate and a maul forms. Often the ball gets tied up, the maul stalls and turnover, the maul collapses and ??? or the BC fights to ground and ??? This reflects a coaching deficiency as the better solution is for the BC to stay on their feet and force the ball down to play it back with the foot. Hence maul into ruck.

Pegleg
03-11-14, 15:11
So it does not meet the definition of a ruck. Remember the jackeling player has his hands on the ball BEFORE it is a ruck so how can there be a ruck when none of the criteria are met?

"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 (1). 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 (2), without being guilty of foul play."

Clearly in the mess that the lawmakers have created. We have a "Ruck" where the ball is not on the ground (1) nor can people use their feet to win or keep possession (2)

Of course the IRB are not to worried about it they will let us sort it out.

RobLev
03-11-14, 15:11
So it does not meet the definition of a ruck. Remember the jackeling player has his hands on the ball BEFORE it is a ruck so how can there be a ruck when none of the criteria are met?

Hands on != ball lifted.


"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 (1). 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 (2), without being guilty of foul play."

Clearly in the mess that the lawmakers have created. We have a "Ruck" where the ball is not on the ground (1) nor can people use their feet to win or keep possession (2)

Of course the IRB are not to worried about it they will let us sort it out.

If the jackler picks the ball up before the oppo and teammate bind on, he is (momentarily) the ball-carrier in open play and the binding on turns it into a maul.

If he hasn't picked it up by the time the oppo makes contact with him/his bound on teammate, then he's allowed to keep his hands on without sanction or competition.

BUT (IMHO) as soon as he picks it up (thereby clearly winning the ball and making it available to be played) he is under an obligation to get it out of the back of the ruck as soon as reasonably possible and in any event within 5 seconds of the ref's call of "Use it" (ie no trundling downfield as a quasi-maul) on pain of a turn-over scrum; we had a thread on this in the last year.

Pegleg
03-11-14, 15:11
Rucking involves the use of the feet to win or keep possession. Are you going to allow players to use their feet when the ball is in the jackel's hands? It's the law and we manage it but it is clearly a nonsense.

Browner
03-11-14, 15:11
So it does not meet the definition of a ruck. Remember the jackeling player has his hands on the ball BEFORE it is a ruck so how can there be a ruck when none of the criteria are met?

"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 (1). 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 (2), without being guilty of foul play."

Clearly in the mess that the lawmakers have created. We have a "Ruck" where the ball is not on the ground (1) nor can people use their feet to win or keep possession (2)

Of course the IRB are not to worried about it they will let us sort it out.

Pegleg, its a bit simpler IMO

if a jackler\tackler gains possession of the ball ( by being on feet & legal & lifting it) before a Ruck is formed, then it can't now become a ruck "coz - ball on floor criteria can't be met.
However ...
If a jackler\tackler hasn't yet gained possession, but has sucessfully managed to get his hands on the ball as a pre-condition of such an attempt & then a ruck forms ,then he can handle the ball 'post ruck formation' within Law.

Least that's how I see it.

Pegleg
03-11-14, 15:11
Indeed so he can handle the ball in a ruck where as that is expressly forbidden in law. How do legal ruckers use their feet to win the ball without running the risk of penalty?

Let's go back to call ruck and hands off.

I'm not disagreeing with you on what the law is. I just feel the law is an ass in this situation.

Browner
03-11-14, 15:11
Indeed so he can handle the ball in a ruck where as that is expressly forbidden in law. How do legal ruckers use their feet to win the ball without running the risk of penalty?

.
They cant' ...without that risk existing. They're simply "Beaten by the tack/jack's" speed/skill...... Live with it.

Its tough enough to win a possession turnover these days, any move to further removing this skill sends us toward 'Rugby(uncontested possessions) League' ..... Crucifix box unloosened :nono: no no no !!!!

Pegleg
03-11-14, 16:11
So it is not a true ruck as there is no competition for the ball. The Ruckers form a ruck knowing they will not be able to ruck.


"Here you are guys this guy has the ball in his hand form a ruck but you can't actually ruck."


If that's what is wanted fair enough.

Browner
03-11-14, 16:11
So it is not a true ruck as there is no competition for the ball. The Ruckers form a ruck knowing they will not be able to ruck.


"Here you are guys this guy has the ball in his hand form a ruck but you can't actually ruck."


If that's what is wanted fair enough.

"rucking" has a proviso in Law, "without being guilty of foul play"

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.

IF you can achieve that condition, then ruck away til your heart's content, if you can't remain lawful then tough, live with it.

Remember HE GAINED HIS RIGHT 1ST.
The days of not being responsible for your boots have long gone , much to the sadness of many welsh forwards from yesteryear !


I get your point though...... Why bother forming the ruck ........ we often see teams deciding they cant win possession, so they refrain, & regroup to defend the next phase. Another alternative is let him pick it up, then tackle him and then he has to release the ball .

OB..
03-11-14, 18:11
Has anybody else spotted the need for a matrix showing the transitions between phases?

For my money the jackler who lifts the ball after a ruck has formed has turned it into a maul (usually - if there are no team mates bound on, then he can be tackled).

Pegleg
03-11-14, 23:11
Indeed OB. let's get it clear. But please let's not pretend you can have a ruck when the ball is in the hands. It is just silly.

Pinky
04-11-14, 00:11
Indeed OB. let's get it clear. But please let's not pretend you can have a ruck when the ball is in the hands. It is just silly.

Peg leg, if Jackler gets hands on, a ruck can still form while ball is on ground. In theory he.could then lift it. This does not make it a maul, still a ruck until it ends, eg successfully by ball leaving or unsuccessfully, then scrum. Not a t/o scrum as never a maul.

Browner
04-11-14, 00:11
For my money the jackler who lifts the ball after a ruck has formed has turned it into a maul (usually - if there are no team mates bound on, then he can be tackled).

Alternatively , he is exercising his ' unique' status to have won possession for his team, unprevented by rucking opposition who do not have the same exception.

Jackler successes are difficult enough , if he lifts the ball (post ruck formation) and his opposition can then immediately switch from rucking to wrapping him up in a ruck-2-maul conversion, then
a) its a jumbled mess &
b) the resultant scrum put in to his opposition immediately undoes all his possession turnover jackalling.

IMO, this isn't sufficient reward for how difficult this jackalling skill is nowadays.

My 2p.

OB..
04-11-14, 01:11
Alternatively , he is exercising his ' unique' status to have won possession for his team, unprevented by rucking opposition who do not have the same exception.So you argue that once he has lifted the ball, nobody else can compete for it? If it is still a ruck, that mean no team-mates can handle it either.

Browner
04-11-14, 13:11
So you argue that once he has lifted the ball, nobody else can compete for it? If it is still a ruck, that mean no team-mates can handle it either.

Yep, until the ruck ends ( and lifting ball off the floor isn't currently one of those endings) , so 'everyone else' does not have law permission to handle the ball.

(Nb...notwithstanding this ......... its The same as in all rucks , which currently mean the ball winning team sometimes help the ball get to the scrum half quicker/tidier and the scrum half can do his little bit of digging/excavation/preparation merely to aid game flow, same as currently happens)

Currently Mr jackTackler has a unique ruck-handling rights , Law either recognises this OR it changes to remove them, but currently we shouldn't surpress these by a ruck metamorphing into a maul merely through this Single players skill actioning his "rights"

ChrisR
04-11-14, 13:11
Browner, you are a master of obfuscation by convolution.

1. Jackler gets hands on ball on ground.
2. Opponent engages him.
3. Jackler lifts ball off ground.

From your post above you consider ruck law still applies.

And if the jackler is driven away from the tackle area and brought to ground you would PK for 'collapsing the ruck'?

And if a teammate of the jackler joins and strips the ball, or the opponent strips the ball, then this would be 'handling in the ruck'?

Why? Why invent a new category of play and anoint the jackler with special powers?

Browner
04-11-14, 14:11
. Browner, you are a master of obfuscation by convolution. Sorry, too complicated for me to understand! I presume its praising, so thanks :sarc:

1. Jackler gets hands on ball on ground . IF this is after a Tackle(*) then 16.4(b) has now commenced
2. Opponent engages him. Or Ruck forms around him = Ruck now formed as per16.1(b)
3. Jackler lifts ball off ground. As permitted in 16.4(b)
From your post above you consider ruck law still applies. Seems to be so in Law ?

And if the jackler is driven away from the tackle area and brought to ground you would PK for 'collapsing the ruck'd? Ah ha, the old debate over collapsing the ruck eh....??? Can you collapse?- law says no!, is saddle rolling/collapsing rife and ignored?-yes!. Do players routinely go off their feet deliberately at the Ruck and remain unpunished?-yes they do!.

However I will try to answer the difficult question as best I can ........
IF its 1v1 then I'd re-consider this drive and collapse as a new tackle situation, because both players are now on the ground and Ruck condition is "on feet".
IF its 1 v 2\3\4 then collapsing the JackTacklerRuckee ( as defined above (*) ) is much more likely ( if C&O'ly deliberate) but ignored IF the JackTackler retains possession for his team ( under materiality)



And if a teammate of the jackler joins and strips the ball, or the opponent strips the ball, then this would be 'handling in the ruck'?
Opponents? Yes, because their "handling" is material to the outcome of having won possession Lawfully.
Own team ? No, for all the same reasons we allow 'own team players' to assist the ball getting recycled within existing rucks via assisting the delivery.

Why? Why invent a new category of play and anoint the jackler with special powers? I haven't, and the JackTackler already has these unique "rights" I

In essense, I'm always looking to reward the 'contest for the ball winner' , as without such reward our USP of our 'code' goes stale IMHO.

RobLev
04-11-14, 14:11
Browner, you are a master of obfuscation by convolution.

1. Jackler gets hands on ball on ground.
2. Opponent engages him.
3. Jackler lifts ball off ground.

From your post above you consider ruck law still applies.

And if the jackler is driven away from the tackle area and brought to ground you would PK for 'collapsing the ruck'?

And if a teammate of the jackler joins and strips the ball, or the opponent strips the ball, then this would be 'handling in the ruck'?

Why? Why invent a new category of play and anoint the jackler with special powers?

I can't speak for Browner, but for me:

Law 16.4(b) allows a jackler to keep his hands on the ball during a ruck provided he had his hands on before the ruck forms. There is nothing in the Law to suggest that by exercising his rights under 16.4(b) the jackler is converting the ruck into a maul. So the Law says that ruck law still applies (I know OB disagrees, but know whence our disagreement comes - he says (I believe) that a ruck can end by conversion into a maul).

No-one else is allowed to handle the ball in the ruck - so neither team-mate nor opponent are allowed to strip the ball.

The other side of the coin is that because we do not have a maul, the jackler's side can't trundle it off upfield; they have clearly obtained possession, so they have to get the ball out and back into play - encouraged by a shout of "Use it" if necessary.

ChrisR
04-11-14, 15:11
RobLev, you have conveniently skipped step 3, "Jackler lifts ball off ground". Until the 'lift' no=one is doubting that ruck law is still in force.

The question is: "Does lifting the ball end the ruck?"

If the jackler gets the ball off the deck before he is engaged then he is liable to be tackled as a BC.

If he is bound onto a teammate and an opponent with the ball in his hands then we now have a maul.

You are hanging your analysis on the absence of the scenario being covered in 'end of ruck law'.

RobLev
04-11-14, 15:11
RobLev, you have conveniently skipped step 3, "Jackler lifts ball off ground". Until the 'lift' no=one is doubting that ruck law is still in force.

The question is: "Does lifting the ball end the ruck?"

If the jackler gets the ball off the deck before he is engaged then he is liable to be tackled as a BC.

If he is bound onto a teammate and an opponent with the ball in his hands then we now have a maul.

You are hanging your analysis on the absence of the scenario being covered in 'end of ruck law'.

I have already said that if he gets it off the ground before he's engaged it's (at that moment) open play; how could it be anything else? He can be tackled (and rinse and repeat...) - or if players from either side bind on it becomes a maul.

If he doesn't get it off the ground before engagement, then there's a ruck.

I am indeed saying that the law sets out the circumstances in which a ruck ends; and that simply lifting the ball in the ruck is not one of those prescribed circumstances. As there is a comprehensive code, I can't see the justification for adding to it; particularly where there is a Law specifically entitling a player to handle the ball in the ruck, and that Law does not restrict the way in which he handles it, or say that his handling it in a specific way has the consequence of changing the phase of play.

The effect of refereeing it this way is simply that the ruck is over quicker; either because, since the jackler is allowed to handle the ball, he can get it to his SH quicker or, because the ball has clearly been won, the clock for blowing it unplayable starts quicker. He gets the turnover, but in place.

Allowing the jackler to create a maul simply by picking the ball up gives his side the advantage not of a turnover in place, but the opportunity to pass the ball to the back of the maul and trundle off upfield with the ball uncontestable. That, it seems to me, gives the jackler far too much advantage.

Browner
04-11-14, 15:11
RobLev, you have conveniently skipped step 3, "Jackler lifts ball off ground". Until the 'lift' no=one is doubting that ruck law is still in force.

The question is: "Does lifting the ball end the ruck?" Yep, that is OBs thrust, he thinks it should - Law doesn't list that as an ending event ( it lists the others) so currently the answer is no, it doesn't.
If the jackler gets the ball off the deck before he is engaged then he is liable to be tackled as a BC. Agree

If he is bound onto a teammate and an opponent with the ball in his hands then we now have a maul. but you're forgetting the key consideration .. only if he got it off the floor BEFORE the Ruck forms

You are hanging your analysis on the absence of the scenario being covered in 'end of ruck law'.

If you and OBs view is to be considered in a Law change, then the Law writers need to consider the effect that it will have on the Ruck. .

...ie

Jack/Tackler has hands on ball.
Ruck forms around him.
JT starts lifting the ball.
At merely 1cm of the ground (the Ruck has now ended as per your wish for it now to be metamorphing into a Ruul (RuckMaul)) .... Opposition players are all now permitted to stick their hands on the ball, so they all do 'proclaiming "1cm off the floor, Ruul, sir "

Instead of helping the game, you'd have a jumbled mess of competing hands on a ball , compounded by claim and counter claim over legality, which is known to be undesirable.

Whilst I understand why Ruck2maul might seem a good idea, in practice it might not be.

My interpretation is a much better 'clarity' on this subject IMHO.

rdenk
16-01-15, 17:01
Gents,

A maul can become a ruck, but:

Law 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.

and Law 17.2(e):
A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.

So it is possible, but there is a grey area. I've seen refs giving the penalty kick for 17.2 e. Sometimes in my honest opinion quite too easy. It all comes down to what the refs interpretation is.

JJ10
22-02-15, 16:02
Classic example of this conundrum yesterday....assessor watching and was discussed at the end of the game.

I've had a read of various threads and I'm still not sure. Guess it can all come down to interpretation, but this is how it went.

- Black attacking maul moving forward, ball carrier gets to ground and ball “available".
- Ball not immediately played by black, mainly due to lack of scrum half and direction/ideas from black.
- Ruck formed as players bind over the ball - attacking side to protect it and defending side to try and get hold of it
- “Messy” ruck…. leads to ball becoming unplayable….

I gave a Black scrum as they were in possession moving forward, ball became unplayable after a ruck.

Now obviously, a couple of other mauls in the game never made it to ground and the ball was never available - so the resulting restart was scrum, defending put in.

Cue discussion at end of game with assessor....

Thoughts?

Browner
22-02-15, 18:02
Classic example of this conundrum yesterday....assessor watching and was discussed at the end of the game.

I've had a read of various threads and I'm still not sure. Guess it can all come down to interpretation, but this is how it went.

- Black attacking maul moving forward, ball carrier gets to ground and ball “available".
- Ball not immediately played by black, mainly due to lack of scrum half and direction/ideas from black.
- Ruck formed as players bind over the ball - attacking side to protect it and defending side to try and get hold of it
- “Messy” ruck…. leads to ball becoming unplayable….

I gave a Black scrum as they were in possession moving forward, ball became unplayable after a ruck.

Now obviously, a couple of other mauls in the game never made it to ground and the ball was never available - so the resulting restart was scrum, defending put in.

Cue discussion at end of game with assessor....

Thoughts?

See Law 17.6 (g) which deals with your specific scenario

(g)If the ball carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.



When the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

Or, in other words .... a collapsed maul that becomes unplayable = turnover.

OB..
22-02-15, 18:02
We have had the argument from time to time that being available is not the same as being played, as in this example. Some argue that being available means the maul has ended successfully and what remains must be a ruck.

Frankly I think the situation is as clear as mud. However I do insist that the ball carrier going to ground does not create a ruck. That attempt to avoid a turnover was ruled invalid 20 years ago, and I have seen nothing since that clearly changes that.

JJ10
22-02-15, 18:02
See Law 17.6 (g) which deals with your specific scenario

Or, in other words .... a collapsed maul that becomes unplayable = turnover.

Agree... but is the ruck that results (in this case - I know its fairly rare) a totally seperate event?




Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

There 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 do ruck laws now take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws? If so, then 16.7 (a) is what I went with. I'm happy enough with either - just wondering which takes precedence. I note that there is disagreement on these boards! :deadhorse:

Taff
22-02-15, 19:02
Agree... but is the ruck that results (in this case - I know its fairly rare) a totally seperate event? So do ruck laws now take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws?
Sorry, but ask yourself if you're now looking at a ruck ... why wouldn't ruck laws take precedence over the previously applicable maul laws?

There's nothing special about a maul that gives it preferential treatment over a ruck. Hell, a lot of ruck and maul laws are near identically worded.


... If so, then 16.7 (a) [ie Ruck law] is what I went with. I'm happy enough with either - just wondering which takes precedence.
I agree with you - I would have applied Ruck law as well.


... I note that there is disagreement on these boards!
What did your assessor say? I know Referees can't even agree amongst ourselves (and given that most of the assessors I know are former Refs, I assume not all assessors will agree either) in which case I reckon you need to be consistent, and as long as you can explain how you arrived at your decision (correctly in my opinion) and stick to it throughout a game, that's the best you can hope for.

JJ10
22-02-15, 19:02
The assessor and had a chat and I was invited to check the lawbook...

We agreed all other ball unplayable after a maul decisions were correct. For me, this one occassion, and it is pretty rare, the requirements for a ruck were clearly met. Therefore, I applied law 16 after it became unplayable, bearing in mind that it had been clearly playable by the attacking team initially and then met the definition of a ruck. Attacking were the last moving forward - scrum, attacking ball. However, if you interpret that the maul cannot become a ruck, then the above is worthless.

I went away, checked the laws and arrived here. And as OB says, it really is:


as clear as mud.

L'irlandais
22-02-15, 21:02
Law clarification (http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=16&clarification=19) concerning Jackler's rights.

ChrisR
23-02-15, 14:02
This thread started as "Can a maul become a ruck?". It then took on the life of "Can a ruck become a maul?" until JJ10 did a course correction back to "maul to ruck".

L'irlandais, I think your reference applies to the hi-jacked section "ruck to maul". Yes? No?

Re. JJ10 post: If, in the scenario that you described, the ball was on the ground and playable with players bound over it then you had a ruck. If the ball then became unplayable without foul play then you were correct in awarding a scrum to the side going forward.