PDA

View Full Version : succesful end to a maul



wrighty
08-02-15, 21:02
law 17.5,states maul has ended when the ball is on the ground.So why was an England player penalised for picking it up after the ball was dropped in the maul,unless he was infront of player who dropped it,so technically off side?Ref said that it was now a ruck.I was under the impression that a maul cannot be converted int o a ruck?Was his decision correct or should it have been play on?

Taff
08-02-15, 21:02
There is a ruling somewhere that confirms a maul can become a ruck - provided all the requirements of a ruck exist.

Since "Jackling" or "poaching" has been allowed, a ruck can become a maul too - again, provided all the requirements are met.

Browner
08-02-15, 22:02
law 17.5,states maul has ended when the ball is on the ground.

So why was an England player penalised for picking it up after the ball was dropped in the maul?

Yep, maul ended at the dropping of the ball, thereafter it was a ruck. so....
16.4 (b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck . ...applied.

andyscott
08-02-15, 23:02
Maul turned ruck, cannot reform a maul.

FlipFlop
09-02-15, 09:02
Take your pick from "handling in ruck", or "obstruction" for all the players in front of him. Really dumb thing to do, as so obvious.

Dixie
09-02-15, 11:02
There is a ruling somewhere that confirms a maul can become a ruck - provided all the requirements of a ruck exist.
That clarification is #2 of 2011. The question asked did not raise the point, but the iRB themselves brought it into the mix:

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.

...

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

So you can't assume that a maul cannot become a ruck - it clearly can. In the England lineout scenario, the maul was formed. The ball was then dropped and hit the deck. This represented the end of the maul under Law 17.5:

Law17.5 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.

The next question is: what phase of play subsequently exists? The answer is that all the conditions for a ruck are in place. Players, on their feet, are in physical contact above the ball on the ground. So it is clearly a ruck. The offside lines from the maul are retained by the immediate application of the ruck laws.

RobLev
09-02-15, 12:02
That clarification is #2 of 2011. The question asked did not raise the point, but the iRB themselves brought it into the mix:

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.

...

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

So you can't assume that a maul cannot become a ruck - it clearly can. In the England lineout scenario, the maul was formed. The ball was then dropped and hit the deck. This represented the end of the maul under Law 17.5:

Law17.5 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.

The next question is: what phase of play subsequently exists? The answer is that all the conditions for a ruck are in place. Players, on their feet, are in physical contact above the ball on the ground. So it is clearly a ruck. The offside lines from the maul are retained by the immediate application of the ruck laws.

I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.

Taff
09-02-15, 15:02
I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.
Sorry, I disagree.

Once it's become a ruck ... IMO we should treat it like a ruck. Ie if the ball becomes unplayable, then IMO it's a scrum to the side moving forward, or last moving forward.

Camquin
09-02-15, 16:02
I think there is a difference between the ball being placed on the floor and the ruck going to ground.

If the ball carrier stays up but the ball goes to ground, we now have a ruck.
If the ball carrier goes to ground the ball has to be immediately playable - or we have an unsuccessful maul -> turnover.

RobLev
09-02-15, 16:02
Sorry, I disagree.

Once it's become a ruck ... IMO we should treat it like a ruck. Ie if the ball becomes unplayable, then IMO it's a scrum to the side moving forward, or last moving forward.

I have emphasised what I see as crucial.

IMHO - if the ball gets to ground, but is unplayable at that point, it never becomes a ruck. If it gets to ground and is there immediately playable, then it's a ruck and any subsequent unplayability is handled under the ruck Laws.

crossref
09-02-15, 16:02
if the maul collapses and we have players and the ball all on the ground then I don't see how you can referee it as ruck, it's a maul that ended, and either the ball is away or - if the ball isn't available- it's ended unsuccessfully.

I think a maul becomes a ruck only if the ball falls to the ground on its own, with players still on their feet. This happens once in a blue moon, and if you are reffing it as a ruck I thnk you need a loud yell of 'ruck' so that it's clear to everyone.

Browner
09-02-15, 17:02
I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.

17.6(b) is a 'bluff raise' Roblev.

17.5 says when ball drops to the ground its ends, so when it did , it did just that - ended.

The conditions of a ruck now exist, so therefore it is one.

Whether it could, in time, be deemed an 'unsuccessful ruck' see 16.7, .....well it didn't, because the handling offence curtailed us finding out.

OB..
09-02-15, 18:02
If the ball goes to ground is a maul and is not playable, as far as I am concerned it is an unsuccessful end to a maul.
If you do not rule that way, then every time the ball goes to ground, including being held by a player, the claim will be that it became a ruck so no turnover.

Browner
09-02-15, 18:02
If the ball goes to ground in a maul and is not playable, as far as I am concerned it is an unsuccessful end to a maul.
If you do not rule that way, then every time the ball goes to ground, including being held by a player, the claim will be that it became a ruck so no turnover.

But ball going to ground ends the maul succesfully, so how can it then become unplayable maul? We must be in a different phase of play OB.

OB..
09-02-15, 19:02
But ball going to ground ends the maul succesfully, so how can it then become unplayable maul? We must be in a different phase of play OB.I'm afraid that makes a nonsense of a maul turnover, so it is not a sensible reading of the law.

Camquin
09-02-15, 20:02
I fail to see how you can read 17.5 in any other way:

A maul ends successfully:
- when the ball is on the ground

As crossref says this happens once in a blue moon.
If I ever see it I will endeavour to call "ruck" as loudly as possible.
The ball is playable as it can be legally rucked.
It may be one of the very few times we see a classic ruck with players on their feet - as oppossed to the usual muck after a tackle with everyone off their feet.

It is different to 17.6 (g) The ball carrier goes to ground, which we see much more often. Ball usually unplayable so turnover.

Camquin

Browner
09-02-15, 20:02
I'm afraid that makes a nonsense of a maul turnover, so it is not a sensible reading of the law.

[LAWS]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.[Law]

OB, you seem to be arguing that if the ball in a maul is dropped to the ground, then that maul hasn't ended instead it just becomes a unplayable maul.

I say a ruck now commences, and it either then becomes a playable or unplayable ruck.

The BC exception of 17.6(g) never occurs because there is no longer a C of the B

OB..
09-02-15, 21:02
[LAWS]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.[Law]

OB, you seem to be arguing that if the ball in a maul is dropped to the ground, then that maul hasn't ended instead it just becomes a unplayable maul.

I say a ruck now commences, and it either then becomes a playable or unplayable ruck.

The BC exception of 17.6(g) never occurs because there is no longer a C of the B
It has always been the case that if the ball is dropped to the ground, the maul becomes a ruck. However the problem is if a player takes the ball to the ground, the mere fact that the ball may touch the ground should not be deemed to turn the maul into a ruck. That was my point - one I have been making since 1994 when they rescinded the turnover law for a ruck..

It is essential to interpret the phrase "the ball is on the ground" as referring to the ball alone when not in the grasp of the ball carrier.

tim White
09-02-15, 21:02
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum).

If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

If the ball does not come out of the ruck within a reasonable time then you could reasonably blow for unsuccessful end to a ruck(scrum to team going forward/attacking)

OB..
09-02-15, 21:02
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum).

If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

If the ball does not come out of the ruck within a reasonable time then you could reasonably blow for unsuccessful end to a ruck(scrum to team going forward/attacking)Precisely.

Browner
09-02-15, 22:02
It has always been the case that if the ball is dropped to the ground, the maul becomes a ruck. However the problem is if a player takes the ball to the ground, the mere fact that the ball may touch the ground should not be deemed to turn the maul into a ruck. That was my point - one I have been making since 1994 when they rescinded the turnover law for a ruck..

It is essential to interpret the phrase "the ball is on the ground" as referring to the ball alone when not in the grasp of the ball carrier.

Thanks for the clarification, we agree then, always did seemingly.

It was when you said
If the ball goes to ground in a maul and is not playable, as far as I am concerned it is an unsuccessful end to a maul. without mentioning a dropped ball exception, that I took you to mean always/ for ANY reason, seems not.

Strange, because this whole thread has been about the incident where the ball was dropped, so I merely thought it was that incident we were talking about, least I was.

Although

RobLev
09-02-15, 22:02
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum).

If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

If the ball does not come out of the ruck within a reasonable time then you could reasonably blow for unsuccessful end to a ruck(scrum to team going forward/attacking)

What I had in mind (for example) was a maul where there were already players on the ground, the ball drops amongst them and there's no way the ball is coming out; the ball is immediately unplayable, as it hits the ground, just as if it is taken to ground by the BC and becomes unplayable.

Taff
10-02-15, 00:02
If ball carrier and ball go to ground the ball must be available immediately or it an unsuccessful end to a maul (TO Scrum). If only the ball goes to ground the maul has now turned into a ruck.

... I think a maul becomes a ruck only if the ball falls to the ground on its own, with players still on their feet. This happens once in a blue moon, and if you are reffing it as a ruck I thnk you need a loud yell of 'ruck' so that it's clear to everyone.
Where does it say that the ball alone needs to be on the ground for a maul to become a ruck?

It doesn't gents, so why add in a condition when neither the book or the clarification does? To me, if the ball is on the ground (whether somebody put it there, or more realistically somebody dropped it or even more commonly the BC took it down with him) and there are at least 2 opposing on their feet over the ball, that maul is now a ruck. If the BC can't get it to ground - fair enough, it's not a ruck.

I agree it may be a good idea to call "Ruck" but it may be stating the bleedin obvious, because that's what everybody thought they were looking at anyway.

Dickie E
10-02-15, 00:02
To me, if the ball is on the ground (whether somebody put it there, or more realistically somebody dropped it or even more commonly the BC took it down with him) and there are at least 2 opposing on their feet over the ball, that maul is now a ruck.

So in this case, what do you suggest are the obligations on the opponent who went to ground with BC and now has his arms wrapped around ball and BC?

chbg
10-02-15, 01:02
Where does it say that the ball alone needs to be on the ground for a maul to become a ruck?

It doesn't gents, so why add in a condition when neither the book or the clarification does? To me, if the ball is on the ground (whether somebody put it there, or more realistically somebody dropped it or even more commonly the BC took it down with him) and there are at least 2 opposing on their feet over the ball, that maul is now a ruck. If the BC can't get it to ground - fair enough, it's not a ruck.


Because, under the Law addressing an Unsuccessful End to a Maul, if the ball carrier goes to ground [whether the ball is on the ground or not] then the referee, under the Maul Law, orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available (17.6(g)). By definition, an unsuccessful end to the maul cannot change a maul into a ruck.

By convention we consider that a ball is available if it can be taken away from the maul. One could argue that a ball could also be available if it could be rucked immediately, i.e. even though he does not have to, the grounded ball carrier has immediately let go of the ball so that it is on the ground, he and any other players on the ground have rolled away, and therefore those still standing can use their feet to win the ball. Under this blue moon, the maul has become a ruck.

OB..
10-02-15, 02:02
Where does it say that the ball alone needs to be on the ground for a maul to become a ruck?

It doesn't gents, so why add in a condition when neither the book or the clarification does? To me, if the ball is on the ground (whether somebody put it there, or more realistically somebody dropped it or even more commonly the BC took it down with him) and there are at least 2 opposing on their feet over the ball, that maul is now a ruck.


I'm afraid that makes a nonsense of a maul turnover, so it is not a sensible reading of the law.
In 1992 they introduced a turnover for both mauls and rucks. In 1994 they rescinded the turnover at a ruck. Players immediately started to try and preserve possession in a failing maul by going to ground and claiming it was a ruck. Almost as immediately it was clarified that this was not true. A maul could be turned into a ruck only if the ball alone went to ground.

There have been changes in the wording of the law since then but no real reason to change the interpretation.

Womble
10-02-15, 07:02
So in this case, what do you suggest are the obligations on the opponent who went to ground with BC and now has his arms wrapped around ball and BC?

"you have got to let him up"

In all seriousness guys, make it simple for yourselves and the players. 1 in a million mauls actually turn in to rucks under law so referee it as such !

FlipFlop
10-02-15, 10:02
In all this "the ball is on the ground - it is a ruck" arguement, people seem to have forgotten that a requirement for a ruck is only part met by the ball. IT also requires 1 player from either side, being on their feet, in contact blah blah blah.

So 99% of the time that bodies go to ground in a maul, all the bodies come crashing down. We don't have the requirement for a ruck, even though the ball is on the ground.

Browner
10-02-15, 15:02
In 1992 they introduced a turnover for both mauls and rucks. In 1994 they rescinded the turnover at a ruck. Players immediately started to try and preserve possession in a failing maul by going to ground and claiming it was a ruck. Almost as immediately it was clarified that this was not true. A maul could be turned into a ruck only if the ball alone went to ground.

There have been changes in the wording of the law since then but no real reason to change the interpretation.

Perhaps, clarification 2/2011 helped remuddy the water??

When asked

c) When a maul collapses, is there any obligation on players to roll away from the ball in order to make the ball available?

IRB answered,

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

It seems to be that some Referee interpretation rests on how soon subsequently commences!

Case study ( the 1% rare case?)
Maul commences, original BC & one opponent (within the maul) both collapse to the ground inside this maul [ ie... as per 2/2011 (c) ] and both these maulers still have (encased) other players standing above in contact AND the ball is now on the ground.
THEN
Q? Is this is the ruck/picture/scenario that the IRB were clarifying in (c) above, where it means there is an obligation for both the collapsees to roll away from (presumably this also means release their hold on ??) the ball on the ground.

?

crossref
10-02-15, 15:02
Case study ( the 1% rare case?)
Maul commences, original BC & one opponent (within the maul) both collapse to the ground inside this maul [ ie... as per 2/2011 (c) ] and both these maulers still have (encased) other players standing above in contact AND the ball is now on the ground.
THEN
Q? Is this is the ruck/picture/scenario that the IRB were clarifying in (c) above, where it means there is an obligation for both the collapsees to roll away from (presumably this also means release their hold on ??) the ball on the ground.

?

not for me. if the ball is loose an available to the 9 and he plays it, play on -- otherwise if the ball is trapped that's a maul thats ended unsuccessfully. turnover.

Browner
10-02-15, 16:02
not for me. if the ball is loose an available to the 9 and he plays it, play on -- otherwise if the ball is trapped that's a maul thats ended unsuccessfully. turnover.

So what 'Ruck example' are the IRB expecting in the answer in Cla 2\2011 (c) ?

crossref
10-02-15, 16:02
I think Clarification 2/2011 is a complete mess, and not very helpful.
I don't think its clear what it means, and I am not convinced the authors were clear either - it reads like a committee-compromise answer to me.

So I am not attempting to tell you what the authors meant, but instead how I ref it : and I am with womble : about one in a million mauls will turn into a ruck, so in practical terms ref it that none do

Taff
10-02-15, 23:02
Because, under the Law addressing an Unsuccessful End to a Maul, if the ball carrier goes to ground [whether the ball is on the ground or not] then the referee, under the Maul Law, orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available (17.6(g)). By definition, an unsuccessful end to the maul cannot change a maul into a ruck.
But which comes first? If the BC has gone to ground and all the other requirements of a Ruck exist (ie 2 opposing players - in physical contact - on their feet - over the ball on the ground) then we're immediately in a new phase of play; ie the maul phase has finished and the ruck phase has started. If the new phase ends unsuccessfully, it makes no sense to me to apply the laws applicable to the previous phase.


... In all seriousness guys, make it simple for yourselves and the players. 1 in a million mauls actually turn in to rucks under law so referee it as such !
Honestly Womble, I'm amazed. I must get 2 or 3 of these every game. Sometimes they succeed - sometimes they don't. The team who took it in realise that there is a danger of a turnover .. and will do their damnedest to either get it out .. or at the very least create a ruck. We see these on televised matches every game surely. If I remember, I will make a note of the game time for a few from this weekends 6 Nation games. If we don't get at least a couple per game, I'll buy you a pint.


In all this "the ball is on the ground - it is a ruck" argument, people seem to have forgotten that a requirement for a ruck is only part met by the ball. IT also requires 1 player from either side, being on their feet, in contact blah blah blah. So 99% of the time that bodies go to ground in a maul, all the bodies come crashing down. We don't have the requirement for a ruck, even though the ball is on the ground.
In fairness FlipFlop, I did say "provided all the requirements of a ruck exist". I accept it's not an automatic ruck; if the conditions for a ruck haven't been met, it gets treated for what it is - a collapsed maul.


I think Clarification 2/2011 is a complete mess, and not very helpful. .. it reads like a committee-compromise answer to me.I agree it could be worded better; eg why does any player have to "Roll away" at a ruck? I've just checked the ruck section of the laws, and the word "Roll" doesn't appear in there once.

Even with the dodgy wording, the clarification does make it clear that a maul can become a ruck, and if I'm looking at a ruck .... then I apply ruck laws ...not maul laws.

OB..
11-02-15, 14:02
I think we agree that:
If the ball alone goes to ground in a maul, we have a ruck.
If the ball carrier goes to ground in a maul, that does not constitute a collapsed maul; however the ball must be immediately available, or it is an unsuccessful end to a maul.

The tricky point is what happens if the ball touches the ground when the ball carrier goes to ground. In 1994 it was made abundantly clear that this did NOT create a ruck. Subsequent changes in the wording of the law and Clarifications have muddied the waters because the situation is not actually addressed. We are trying to draw inferences.

I prefer to stick to the earlier interpretation for two reasons:
(1) referees do not have to be sure if the ball actually touched the ground or not;
(2) the rationale for removing the turnover law from a ruck is still valid - it was too easy to make the ball unplayable, therefore it was not good to provide an easy way to make the maul turnover law ineffective. (Consistency).

crossref
11-02-15, 14:02
Honestly Womble, I'm amazed. I must get 2 or 3 of these every game. Sometimes they succeed - sometimes they don't. The team who took it in realise that there is a danger of a turnover .. and will do their damnedest to either get it out .. or at the very least create a ruck. .

which is rather worrying, isn't it ? Taff and I referee to the same Laws but our interpretations differ so much that 2 or 3 times a game he declares that a maul has become a ruck - and in two seasons with the Society I don't think I have ever done.

Without saying who is right and who is wrong - that's a quite a big difference ! In the precise same situation Taff might be PK players for use of hands or falling over ball or, if the ball gets stuck, awarding scrums to the team going forward. Whereas I will be penalising no one, but blowing my whistle and awarding a turnover.

We have to feel sorry for players encountering that sort of inconsistency from one week to the next :chin:

Lee Lifeson-Peart
11-02-15, 15:02
Whereas I will be penalising no one, but blowing my whistle and awarding a turnover.



Moi aussi!

ChrisR
11-02-15, 18:02
Taff referees in Wales. Perhaps they are better coached. Or not.

When a team takes the ball into contact, forms a maul and skillfully move the ball to the back there is rarely a need to convert the maul into a ruck as, if the foward drive stalls, the ball can be kept in play by rolling out/breaking off or simply hand the ball back to the SH.

However, the ball can get tied up by the ops when taken into contact in general play. Then, a poorly coached team will hang on for dear life and concede the turnover. A better coached team will break the ops hold by forcing the ball downward and convert the maul into a ruck. Perhaps this is Taff's scenario.

Then there is the BC who, when tied up by the ops in a maul, tries to drag the ball free by going to ground. If he is successful in getting the ball free and places it then we have a ruck and the ball is in play.

If the tied up BC goes to ground but the ops still have their hands on the ball then the ball is not in play and we have a turnover for unsuccessful end to the maul. This must be crossref's scenario.

This is not a difficult thing to coach but it seems to be a lost art. Except, perhaps, in Wales.

crossref
11-02-15, 18:02
if the ball is available and played -- then we can discuss forever whether or not the maul became a brief ruck, it makes no difference either way -- the ball has gone..

its only when the ball is not available and you blow your whistle that makes any difference what you call it. And now it makes a BIG difference (the 'ruck' camp are giving PKs for blocking the ball, or scrums to teams going forward, the maul camp are giving turnover scrum)

didds
11-02-15, 19:02
i may have missed a nuance but it makes a difference if a BC goes to ground with the ball and another player than handles the ball.

- if its a ruck its a PK
- if is a maul-where-the-ball-must-be-immediately playable... either it continues as a maul again/still, or its an unsusccessful end to a maul as the ball was not played away from it ... depending on whether one requires that to occur.

didds

Ian_Cook
11-02-15, 19:02
I'll see your Law 17.5, and raise you Law 17.6(b):

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable

So the ref still has to make a judgment on whether the ball is playable; a ball on the ground but unplayable is an unsuccessfully ended maul (so scrum ordered), not a successfully ended maul segueing into a ruck.

When the ball is dropped onto the ground in a Maul it becomes a ruck, so you cannot apply 17.6 (b) or any other Maul Law; you should apply 16.7 (a)

16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.

This might seem like just a nitpicking technicality, but its more important than that because it can change who feeds the scrum.

At a scrum following maul, the first priority is that the ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began, but at a scrum following a ruck, the first priority is that the ball is thrown in by the team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable.


i may have missed a nuance but it makes a difference if a BC goes to ground with the ball and another player than handles the ball.

- if its a ruck its a PK
- if is a maul-where-the-ball-must-be-immediately playable... either it continues as a maul again/still, or its an unsusccessful end to a maul as the ball was not played away from it ... depending on whether one requires that to occur.

didds

Its not a ruck if a player in the maul takes the ball to ground in a maul without the ball touching the ground.

RobLev
11-02-15, 19:02
When the ball is dropped onto the ground in a Maul it becomes a ruck, so you cannot apply 17.6 (b) or any other Maul Law; you should apply 16.7 (a)

16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.

Question - if the ball is unplayable as it hits the ground, does the maul end successfully such that it then becomes a ruck before it becomes unplayable - or has it become unplayable while still in the maul such that the maul has ended unsuccessfully?


This might seem like just a nitpicking technicality, but its more important than that because it can change who feeds the scrum.

Accepted.

Browner
11-02-15, 19:02
eg why does any player have to "Roll away" at a ruck? I've just checked the ruck section of the laws, and the word "Roll" doesn't appear in there once.


Your observation is correct
16.4 (d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball.

But 'roll away' is recognised as the easy speak of this law.

Taff
11-02-15, 19:02
which is rather worrying, isn't it ? Taff and I referee to the same Laws but our interpretations differ so much that 2 or 3 times a game he declares that a maul has become a ruck - and in two seasons with the Society I don't think I have ever done. Without saying who is right and who is wrong - that's a quite a big difference.
TBH I've always done it like that and have never ever been told that it's wrong. In fact, I don't remember anyone ever querying it - players, coaches and spectators just expect it to be treated as a ruck. Mind you, I've never refereed outside Wales.

I do get questioned by some players when I don't consider it a ruck - eg if the ball doesn't get to the ground and I give a turnover for an unsuccessful end to a maul. A lot seem to think that a player alone going to ground gets them the put in if it becomes unplayable. As soon as you say "That wasn't a ruck. The ball was never on the ground" they just accept it.


.... In the precise same situation Taff might be PK players for use of hands ..
When it happens, I do say "That's now a ruck. Hands off". The vast majority do.


... a poorly coached team will hang on for dear life and concede the turnover. A better coached team will break the ops hold by forcing the ball downward and convert the maul into a ruck. Perhaps this is Taff's scenario.
That's almost exactly my scenario - except I don't think I have ever seen a BC place the ball on the ground to create a ruck. 99% of the time they will go to ground (legally) with the ball. If a team thinks I'm going to blow for an unsuccessful maul, if they can't get the ball out rather than lose the turnover at the scrum, they will try to at least get the throw in at the scrum for an unsuccessful ruck.

Ian_Cook
11-02-15, 20:02
Question - if the ball is unplayable as it hits the ground, does the maul end successfully such that it then becomes a ruck before it becomes unplayable - or has it become unplayable while still in the maul such that the maul has ended unsuccessfully?

We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully.

There is no scenario where the ball going to ground is an unsuccessful end to the maul unless one or more players (other than the BC) also go to ground, in which case, we have a collapsed maul which, in Law application, trumps the rest of the maul & ruck Laws on safety grounds. That's why we blow it up quickly after a collapse.

I cannot imagine a realistic scenario (i.e. not some chopperesque, "angels on pinheads" one) where the ball dropped on the ground (with or without the BC) becomes unplayable unless there is also a collapse.

RobLev
11-02-15, 20:02
We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully.

There is no scenario where the ball going to ground is an unsuccessful end to the maul unless one or more players (other than the BC) also go to ground, in which case, we have a collapsed maul which, in Law application, trumps the rest of the maul & ruck Laws on safety grounds. That's why we blow it up quickly after a collapse.

I cannot imagine a realistic scenario (i.e. not some chopperesque, "angels on pinheads" one) where the ball dropped on the ground (with or without the BC) becomes unplayable unless there is also a collapse.

I was thinking, I hope not too chopperesquely (is that a word? - it is now), of a situation where the maul is crossing ground covered in whole or part with bodies, and the ball lands amongst them.

OB..
11-02-15, 20:02
We are talking about the situation where the ball or the player with the ball, go to ground and the ball touches the ground, while the remaining players remain on their feet. Once this happens, the maul ends successfully. That is where I disagree. For that to be the case the very clear rulings to the contrary in 1994 must have at some stage have been reversed. In fact what has happened is that various changes in the wording of law and clarification have muddied the waters so a different interpretation is feasible.

I will not change my view until I get something authoritative on this particular point.

I do not like the situation where the referee has to decide if the ball actually touched the ground when a ball carrier goes to ground in the middle of a maul. We know that others do not have to release the ball, so his struggles to ground it increase the likelihood of a collapse. Much better simply to say it is still a maul.

didds
11-02-15, 20:02
Its not a ruck if a player in the maul takes the ball to ground in a maul without the ball touching the ground.

so how does he take the ball to ground without the ball touching the ground?

my head hurts!!

didds

OB..
11-02-15, 21:02
so how does he take the ball to ground without the ball touching the ground?

my head hurts!!

diddsHe goes to ground with the ball, but may be sitting or kneeling. 17.6 (g) I suppose he might also be lying down but unable to ground the ball.

didds
11-02-15, 21:02
ah right... i took "took the ball to ground" too literally!

cheers

didds

ChrisR
11-02-15, 22:02
When a BC in a maul goes to ground with the ball there are really only two scenarios:

1. He has sole possession. If he places the ball on the ground we now have a ruck and he must release it. The ball is now playable, albeit still in the ruck.
If he fails to place the ball on the ground then we still have a maul, it is not playable immediately and we have a turn-over.

2. He has joint possession with an opponent who has no obligation to release. The BC is on the deck, the ball isn't and won't be playable immediately. Quick whistle, turnover.

The referee decision making isn't hard. just seeing what the heck's happening may be.

Ian_Cook
12-02-15, 01:02
That is where I disagree. For that to be the case the very clear rulings to the contrary in 1994 must have at some stage have been reversed. In fact what has happened is that various changes in the wording of law and clarification have muddied the waters so a different interpretation is feasible.

I will not change my view until I get something authoritative on this particular point.

I do not like the situation where the referee has to decide if the ball actually touched the ground when a ball carrier goes to ground in the middle of a maul. We know that others do not have to release the ball, so his struggles to ground it increase the likelihood of a collapse. Much better simply to say it is still a maul.


As with anything else in the Law OB, the referee should call what he sees. If the referee didn't see the ball touch the ground, then it didn't. This is no different IMO from "didn't see the grounding", "didn;t see the knock forward", didn't see the offside player", "didn't see the high tackle".

menace
12-02-15, 02:02
As with anything else in the Law OB, the referee should call what he sees. If the referee didn't see the ball touch the ground, then it didn't. This is no different IMO from "didn't see the grounding", "didn;t see the knock forward", didn't see the offside player", "didn't see the high tackle".


Gee you didn't see much when you were refereeing Ian....you must have been a popular ref. Ever get called a "blind c@nt" :pepper:

Ian_Cook
12-02-15, 05:02
Gee you didn't see much when you were refereeing Ian....you must have been a popular ref. Ever get called a "blind c@nt" :pepper:



Only by one side menace :biggrin:

Taff
22-02-15, 17:02
In all seriousness guys, make it simple for yourselves and the players. 1 in a million mauls actually turn in to rucks under law so referee it as such !

... Honestly Womble, I'm amazed. I must get 2 or 3 of these every game. ... If I remember, I will make a note of the game time for a few from this weekends 6 Nation games. If we don't get at least a couple per game, I'll buy you a pint.
I was just having a tidy up on my phone which jogged my memory. If you still have the Ireland v France game recorded, have a look at game clock


7 mins 20 secs
52 mins 15 secs
62 mins 40 secs.

I was watching in the pub, so couldn't rewind etc but from memory all were mauls where the BC tried to get to ground to create a ruck.