PDA

View Full Version : Defender held up but is driven immediatly out of in-goal !



rugbyslave
22-06-15, 19:06
Blue defending , Blue have put-in at 5m scrum, blue win the ball and the scrum half fumbles backwards with the pass into the in goal which is picked up by blue defender who is caught by a white player in the in goal but blue is immediately helped and a sort of maul immediately begins moving(I know a maul cannot form inside the in-goal) and collapses back into the field of play over the goal line. The referee calls ball is not coming out and awards scrum to the team last moving forward. 1) A maul could not have formed as it was in the in-goal 2) so blue cannot be told "use it or lose it" (no Maul).
I cannot find anything in the law book for this situation. help.

rugbyslave
22-06-15, 19:06
The blue defender is possibly 1m in in-goal when she is caught but continuously drives to get out of in-goal, the white players do not tackle but go for the ball and then blue comes to help and another white player joins in, this group of players now collapse with the ball outside the in-goal just over the goal-line in the field of play.

Rushforth
22-06-15, 20:06
Interesting! I can't find anything specific either.

Since the defending team don't have the chance to "move or use" not "use or lose", the "sort-of-maul" has less options available for those defenders.

My decision would be that the attacking team (by which is meant the team playing in their opponents half, not the ball-carrier nor the side moving forwards) should get a 5m scrum. And since mauls which cross over the try-line are allowed to be collapsed once they are no longer a maul (despite potential safety issues) for a try, perhaps the "sort-of-maul" can similarly not be penalised for collapsing (since there is no maul in the first place).

Anyway, at first look I take a different decision to your referee, but still a scrum, not a penalty.

Pegleg
22-06-15, 20:06
Ok My 2p worth:

There's no maul (one can't form in goal) The ball leaves Blue's ingoal (so they {Blue} are moving forward).

The group of players go to ground.

Assuming I do not feel any collapse to be dangerous I would apply:-


Law 20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(a) After an infringement, the team that did not cause the infringement throws in the ball. - There's no infringement so not relevant.
(b) Scrum after ruck. Refer to Law 16.7. - There's no RUCK so not relevant.
(c) Scrum after maul. Refer to Law 17.6. - There's no MAUL so not relevant.
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball. - Blue were moving forward before the stoppage so a Blue Scrum is awarded. (the attacking side issue (White) is not relevant since that only applies if neither side was moving forward before the stoppage.

rugbyslave
22-06-15, 20:06
I am a bit nervous to cut the clip as the game was of a very weak nature and I am not sure the referee would be so keen, at first I really thought it should have been whites ball but after seeing the ball driven back over the goal line I am not sure anymore. I will request permission to cut clip.

crossref
22-06-15, 21:06
I like pegleg's answer

d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Dickie E
23-06-15, 00:06
I like pegleg's answer


ditto

Ian_Cook
23-06-15, 00:06
Yep, I agree with pegleg too... scrum 5m, blue ball

Phil E
23-06-15, 11:06
The post title says it all.

Held up first.

Attacking Scrum.

The Fat
23-06-15, 12:06
The post title says it all.

Held up first.

Attacking Scrum.

The title may hold the answer but only if blue was held up rather than held as they moved forward.
I would agree with attacking scrum if players were momentarily stationary so that they were effectively "held up".

If the blue defender had started moving forward before held by white and that forward momentum was continuous to the point where they were back into the FoP, I would be leaning towards Pegleg's answer.

It would be one of those "you had to be there" moments I think.

If there was a bit of a wrestle in in-goal before the pack started moving, held up would probably look right.

Now, how do I get down from this fence?

Pegleg
23-06-15, 12:06
It's similar to a question from a week or so ago. The actual description does not suggest "held up" to me but the heading does. So where do we go?

With the actual description rather than the title of the thread for me.

If you feel it is held up blow quickly and deal with it. If play comes back out into the field you have less support to help you sell a "held up in goal" if the play was 5 metres into the FOP.

As i read the OP I stand by my call. However, IF I saw if "in the flesh" I may make a different call.

The Fat
23-06-15, 12:06
It's similar to a question from a week or so ago. The actual description does not suggest "held up" to me but the heading does. So where do we go?

With the actual description rather than the title of the thread for me.

If you feel it is held up blow quickly and deal with it. If play comes back out into the field you have less support to help you sell a "held up in goal" if the play was 5 metres into the FOP.

As i read the OP I stand by my call. However, IF I saw if "in the flesh" I may make a different call.

Hence my post.
The title says held up but I too got a different picture as I read the description of events.
Need to know if there was any stationary pack or whether blue gathered the ball and started to move forward i.e. forward movement not momentarily stopped by white.

crossref
23-06-15, 12:06
this is the video of this incident right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JKFisxfSk

Browner
23-06-15, 13:06
The OP doesn't make it clear ...... Does a teammate/s of the BC 'join/bind onto her' Before or After the BC is shoved back across the Goal line?

If After, then you merely have a 'held hug ' until teammates arrive, & their late joining now signals a properly constructed/formed maul.

But if it was before then everyone agrees a maul can't be formed in goal - it is only formed within the FoP. But, Conceptually can the shoving of a BC (and his/her 'bound on' teammates) "begin"a maul the very instant they shove the 'hug' beyond the goal line back into the FoP, is the beginning merely dependant on the crossing of a line ??

. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. . All these conditions now exist at the line crossing.

As an aside,

1) Pegleg says that "dangerous collapse" is being considered by him, dangerous collapse of what exactly ???? Yes it certainly appears to be a maul but he's already said it isn't, so what dangerous collapse is he assessing ?

2) In the OP the 'zombiemaul' quickly ends, but what would happen if it didn't?? and it continuously rumbles/driven say 10/12/15/20! Metres upfield , would players be expected to observe 'maul' offside lines as it does? .... I'd say that everyone would expect this to be now considered as a maul, and that viewing is 'crystalised' where exactly ??? 10m,8,5,3,1m from goal line ????????

Pegleg
23-06-15, 13:06
THe ref clearly makes the wrong call.

The Ref indicates "held up".

Well:

1; Blue is in possesion. So IF it's a maul it should be T/O ball.

2; If it is held up in goal (who ever is held up) it is Scrum with Attacking ball.

3; The only way it can be a Blue scrum is if it is a scrum as I describe in my earlier post.


As soon as she gives the "Held up" sign, the call fails.

IF that is the video I'd have blown up for "held up" much earlier. That ball aint coming out. Poor control . Also the blue hooke is probably being driven up in the scrum so the whistle should have come much earlier.

Browner
23-06-15, 13:06
this is the video of this incident right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9JKFisxfSk

"Clear the tunnel, scrum" , then steps away unable to see the feed go along the middle line, or any hooking offences ..... Not exactly a benchmark or standard practice :confused:

In addition, Red look to have isolated BC and now crossed the goal line before blue teammate gets to bind onto blue BC.

Pegleg
23-06-15, 13:06
1) Pegleg says that "dangerous collapse" is being considered by him, dangerous collapse of what exactly ???? Yes it certainly appears to be a maul but he's already said it isn't, so what dangerous collapse is he assessing ?


I said that it is a consideration. As in every incident of a player being taken to ground there is a possibility of it being done dangerously. And "maul type" structure that goes to ground requires considerstion on the part of the referee , however briefly, "was there anything wrong (dangerous) there?"

So I'm assessing the possibility of dangerous play. If you wish to play with words Browner, be my guest.

Browner
23-06-15, 14:06
I said that it is a consideration. As in every incident of a player being taken to ground there is a possibility of it being done dangerously. And "maul type" structure that goes to ground requires considerstion on the part of the referee , however briefly, "was there anything wrong (dangerous) there?"

So I'm assessing the possibility of dangerous play. If you wish to play with words Browner, be my guest.

It goes without saying that you assess dangerous play at every rugby moment Pegleg. It was when you mentioned "collapse" that insinuated you were considering a 'collapse specific state of play'. You now say you weren't, that's fine, and has cleared up the query I raised.
Cheers

Pegleg
23-06-15, 14:06
I was stating the collapse of the bodies described by the OP. Fairly straightforward really.

Ian_Cook
23-06-15, 21:06
After seeing the video, I still think she got it right.

I see she makes the "Unplayable ball in ruck or tackle" secondary signal, so she didn't think it was a maul..

Pegleg
23-06-15, 23:06
After seeing the video, I still think she got it right.

I see she makes the "Unplayable ball in ruck or tackle" secondary signal, so she didn't think it was a maul..


But

A tackle can only occur in the field of play Law 15.1

And

A ruck cannot tacke place in goal Law 22.6

So her signal is wrong.

She gets the right outcome but her reasoning is wrong.

Ronald
24-06-15, 08:06
We have discussed this video on a Lions (South Africa) referees page on Facebook. According to her father (also the cameraman), the collapse of the muck took place in the field of play. So the muck started in-goal, got pushed over the goal line and collapsed in the field of play. Interestingly, a fairly senior referee coach with SA Referees said that once the muck had moved into the field of play, it became a maul, and the collapse should then be treated as an unsuccessful end to a maul with a turnover....thoughts?

rugbyslave
24-06-15, 09:06
"Clear the tunnel, scrum" , then steps away unable to see the feed go along the middle line, or any hooking offences ..... Not exactly a benchmark or standard practice :confused:

In addition, Red look to have isolated BC and now crossed the goal line before blue teammate gets to bind onto blue BC.

If you listen carefully she says"clear the tunnel" she does not step away she say "scrum" the ball is put in immediately on scrum(this is and U16 scrum engagement is South africa). The teams have to push and put the ball in immediately.
The players 80% are playing their first game ever. They were not able to engage on Crouch ,Bind , Set and then the ref to signal ball put in.

rugbyslave
24-06-15, 09:06
THe ref clearly makes the wrong call.

The Ref indicates "held up".

Well:

1; Blue is in possesion. So IF it's a maul it should be T/O ball.

2; If it is held up in goal (who ever is held up) it is Scrum with Attacking ball.

3; The only way it can be a Blue scrum is if it is a scrum as I describe in my earlier post.


As soon as she gives the "Held up" sign, the call fails.

IF that is the video I'd have blown up for "held up" much earlier. That ball aint coming out. Poor control . Also the blue hooke is probably being driven up in the scrum so the whistle should have come much earlier.

The ref does not say "held up" all she says "collapsed" and then "ball not coming out, blue moving forward".

crossref
24-06-15, 09:06
fairly senior referee coach with SA Referees said that once the muck had moved into the field of play, it became a maul, and the collapse should then be treated as an unsuccessful end to a maul with a turnover....thoughts?

I don't think that really helps : if it started with a muck, who took the ball into the maul ? Is it the team who took the ball into the original muck? Or the team that pushed the muck over the line to create a maul ?

I still go back to peglegs first answer
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

and the more we talk about it, the better that option seems. It really is a stoppage not properly covered by any Law
[Philosophy mode]Apart from this Law! Which will make your head spin if you think about it too much..[/Philosophy Mode]

Ronald
24-06-15, 09:06
I agree with you crossref, that was my explanation on the Facebook page too, and if that ever happens to me, that will be my call!

crossref
24-06-15, 09:06
I agree with you crossref, that was my explanation on the Facebook page too, and if that ever happens to me, that will be my call!

my experience is that whenever an unusal situation is discussed on RugbyRefs, it usually happens in real life within three games (I take this as evidence that we all live in the matrix ! :) )

Browner
24-06-15, 10:06
If you listen carefully she says"clear the tunnel" she does not step away she say "scrum" the ball is put in immediately on scrum(this is and U16 scrum engagement is South africa). The teams have to push and put the ball in immediately.
The players 80% are playing their first game ever. They were not able to engage on Crouch ,Bind , Set and then the ref to signal ball put in.

Noted Rugbyslave, i didn't realise we were considering SA Juniors scrum variations.

Aside from the general discussion concerning the 'zombieMaulinGoal' ..... Turning to the vid clip , I dont see a Maul created within the in-Goal area, instead Red isolated the BC who had driven over the goal line back into the FoP before blue teammate gets to bind onto blue BC teammate - only then is a Maul Formed.