PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Maul in goal



FatherFlipper
06-06-16, 16:06
Evening,

Question here relating to a game I watched about a month back.

London play-off final. Visitors have a line-out from a penalty, on the five metre line. Catch, drive. Trundle forward, over the try line. However, maul is completely upright the entire time, and never even vaguely comes close to being dotted down. After a few moments of 15 players hugging on the spot in-goal, he blows, and awards a defensive scrum on the five.

Is this correct? The visiting fans around me were a little bit perplexed and thought it should have been scrum five as held up in goal. Yay or nay? I'll be honest and say I would have gone scrum five attacking as well on the same basis the visiting fans perceived. Any help would be gratefully received.

(as it was, the visiting scrum was so dominant, they won the scrum against the head and scored from the next phase in play anyway...)

Staffs_Ref
06-06-16, 16:06
Evening,

Question here relating to a game I watched about a month back.

London play-off final. Visitors have a line-out from a penalty, on the five metre line. Catch, drive. Trundle forward, over the try line. However, maul is completely upright the entire time, and never even vaguely comes close to being dotted down. After a few moments of 15 players hugging on the spot in-goal, he blows, and awards a defensive scrum on the five.

Is this correct? The visiting fans around me were a little bit perplexed and thought it should have been scrum five as held up in goal. Yay or nay? I'll be honest and say I would have gone scrum five attacking as well on the same basis the visiting fans perceived. Any help would be gratefully received.

(as it was, the visiting scrum was so dominant, they won the scrum against the head and scored from the next phase in play anyway...)
Had the ball crossed the goal line? If so, then the maul would be deemed to be over and I would say that it should have been called as held up and 5 metre attacking scrum awarded.

However, if the referee deemed that the ball had not crossed the goal line (and it seems this may well have been what he decided) then it sounds as if the awarded turnover of possession as a result of the attacking team taking the ball into the maul and failing to use it within the time the referee allowed.

OB..
06-06-16, 18:06
I had hoped this was a historical query!
13. Maul in Goal. When a player holding the ball is mauled by one or more of the opposite side outside goal, and carried inside goal by the scrummage, then only those who are touching the ball with their hands may continue in the maul inside goal, and when a player has once released his hold of the ball, he may not again join in the maul, and if he attempt to do so, may be dragged out by the opposite side. (The object of such maul being, of course, to touch the ball down.)
But if a player running in is tackled inside goal-line, then only the player who first tackles him, or if two or three tackle him simultaneously may join in the maul. (1866)

However, as has been said.modern law has a different concept, and there is no such thing as a maul in goal nowadays.

crossref
06-06-16, 18:06
Had the ball crossed the goal line? If so, then the maul would be deemed to be over and I would say that it should have been called as held up and 5 metre attacking scrum awarded.

However, if the referee deemed that the ball had not crossed the goal line (and it seems this may well have been what he decided) then it sounds as if the awarded turnover of possession as a result of the attacking team taking the ball into the maul and failing to use it within the time the referee allowed.

good answer.
I wonder if the referee made a secondary signal

Pegleg
06-06-16, 19:06
Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" and woudl not help as to where it was held up. As suggested the crux is where he deamed the ball to be held up.

colesy
06-06-16, 21:06
Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" and woudl not help as to where it was held up. As suggested the crux is where he deamed the ball to be held up.

I don't think so. Held up in goal would be a different signal to an unsuccessful end to a maul in the FOP.

crossref
06-06-16, 21:06
Trouble is the secondary signal would probably be "maul held up" .

what signal is that then ??? :wink:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?signal_category=2

L'irlandais
07-06-16, 06:06
Almost right. Scrum 5 is the way to go.22.10 Ball held up in-goal
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Dickie E
07-06-16, 07:06
if the maul moved into in goal then continued on its merry way over DBL I would go with 22 drop out. The thing similar to a maul would need to become stationery (or very close to it) to be a 5 M scrum IMO

FatherFlipper
07-06-16, 19:06
Thanks gents - to confirm: the whole maul shuffled aimlessly towards the middle of in-goal before just, sort of, stopping. No doubt where the ball was. Not sure if there was a secondary signal, as the action took place over the opposite side and the ref was slightly obscured by 15 blokes huddled together. The attacking players were, shall we say, slightly bemused (so add a few beers into the mix and you can imagine their fans befuddlement).

Pinky
13-06-16, 23:06
if the maul moved into in goal then continued on its merry way over DBL I would go with 22 drop out. The thing similar to a maul would need to become stationery (or very close to it) to be a 5 M scrum IMO

I think this is wrong on the basis that a maul cannot take place in the in-goal. I think Staffs_Ref got it bang on. FF, think it should have been attacking scrum if it got right into the in-goal.

irishref
14-06-16, 11:06
My tuppenceworth: we're all agreed that no maul can take place in-goal.

Ergo there has been a successful end to the maul. Now we have to allow the attacker a bit of time to ground the ball.

If this doesn't happen it's held up and thus 5m scrum to the attacking team.

I think the ref forgot the maul ended successfully.

Dickie E
15-06-16, 02:06
I think this is wrong on the basis that a maul cannot take place in the in-goal. I think Staffs_Ref got it bang on. FF, think it should have been attacking scrum if it got right into the in-goal.

I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

A question for you. Maul moves into in-goal so you've already decided its either a try or held up. As you bring whistle to lips a defender wrests the ball out of the maul and runs 100m to score under posts. Bring it back for a 5 metre scrum?

DocY
15-06-16, 08:06
I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

Playing Devil's advocate (I agree that you shouldn't blow if the former maul is still moving), but what about 10.1 b-e? There's all sorts of obstruction going on.

ChrisR
15-06-16, 13:06
I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

A question for you. Maul moves into in-goal so you've already decided its either a try or held up. As you bring whistle to lips a defender wrests the ball out of the maul and runs 100m to score under posts. Bring it back for a 5 metre scrum?

..... and the referee must determine whether the situation is still developing or has it reached stagnation.

However 22.10 seems to allow only a try or an attacking 5m:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.

DocY
15-06-16, 13:06
..... and the referee must determine whether the situation is still developing or has it reached stagnation.

However 22.10 seems to allow only a try or an attacking 5m:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.

I think it's just poorly worded again so it only covers the usual case of the (former) maul falling over. I struggle to believe the intent was that driving the maul into TiG or a defender stealing the ball would result in an attacking 5m scrum. But the law is also supposed to cover Carling-esque drivings over the DBL without a maul - I refuse to believe that should be an attacking scrum!

I struggle a bit more with the maul being driven back into the FoP, but would give a defending scrum. Mainly because if I didn't there'd be 30+ guys saying "WTF?" and I don't think the law would be on my side (at least not clearly enough).

If pressed to justify it in law I'd say something like: maul formed, ball goes over goal line, maul successfully ended, BC driven back into the FoP and held by an opponent and a team mate = new maul (attacking team took it in), new maul ends unsuccessfully.

OB..
15-06-16, 14:06
.This would seem to deny the defenders the 22 if they drove the BC out of goal or the possibility of a defender getting control of the ball. I don't like this interpretaion but that is how I read it.If a defender gains the ball, then it has not (necessarily) been held up. Play on. Similarly if the ex-maul is driven out of play.

Phil E
15-06-16, 14:06
If a defender gains the ball, then it has not (necessarily) been held up. Play on. Similarly if the ex-maul is driven out of play.

The law doesn't state that "held up" has to be by an attacker.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the
ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul
takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

DocY
15-06-16, 14:06
The law doesn't state that "held up" has to be by an attacker.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the
ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul
takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Isn't this to cover something like a defender trying to run from behind his own goal line and an attacker holding him and stopping him grounding the ball? I don't really see how it [edit: the holding up being by a defender] applies to an attacking maul.

Phil E
15-06-16, 14:06
Isn't this to cover something like a defender trying to run from behind his own goal line and an attacker holding him and stopping him grounding the ball? I don't really see how it [edit: the holding up being by a defender] applies to an attacking maul.

Because OB said if a defender gained the ball (i.e. ripped it in the notamaul), then it wasn't held up.

DocY
15-06-16, 14:06
Because OB said if a defender gained the ball (i.e. ripped it in the notamaul), then it wasn't held up.

Thanks - we must have been imaging different things; my image was of the defender ripping the ball and grounding it (or otherwise taking it away from the notamaul). If he's still in the maul then I probably won't have noticed the change in possession.

OB..
15-06-16, 17:06
Because OB said if a defender gained the ball (i.e. ripped it in the notamaul), then it wasn't held up.I deliberately added "(necessarily)" because I realised the ball might still be held up. My point was that a defender stealing the ball does not necessarily mean it has been held up. He might get it free for a touch finder etc.

Pinky
16-06-16, 02:06
I think you're over extending the "maul can't exist in goal" idea. What the law means is that, once the mass moves into in goal, offside lines disappear and a collapse (provided it is safe) is legal. There is no law stopping the mass from moving through in goal and over DBL.

A question for you. Maul moves into in-goal so you've already decided its either a try or held up. As you bring whistle to lips a defender wrests the ball out of the maul and runs 100m to score under posts. Bring it back for a 5 metre scrum?

Maul ends as soon as ball is over goal line. At that point I'm thinking, if attackers touch it down its a try, if not it's held up. i wouldn't stand about for 20s while someone ran the length of the pitch. Ripping it out of the maul once it is over the line is still held up for me.

Dickie E
16-06-16, 02:06
Maul ends as soon as ball is over goal line. At that point I'm thinking, if attackers touch it down its a try, if not it's held up. i wouldn't stand about for 20s while someone ran the length of the pitch. Ripping it out of the maul once it is over the line is still held up for me.

Attacking ball carrier goes to ground and knocks ball on in the process. Scrum 5 to attacking team for held up?

If so, a quick shower and grab a beer at the off licence on the way home, I'd suggest.

DocY
16-06-16, 08:06
Maul ends as soon as ball is over goal line. At that point I'm thinking, if attackers touch it down its a try, if not it's held up. i wouldn't stand about for 20s while someone ran the length of the pitch. Ripping it out of the maul once it is over the line is still held up for me.

So how long would you give the attacking team to touch down before calling it as held up? You're always going to hang around a bit to see if something happens and if that's long enough for the ball to come clear of the former maul, why stop play?

ChrisR
16-06-16, 12:06
So how long would you give the attacking team to touch down before calling it as held up? You're always going to hang around a bit to see if something happens and if that's long enough for the ball to come clear of the former maul, why stop play?

Is it a question of time? I think it's more a question of the possibility of resolution.

DocY
16-06-16, 12:06
Is it a question of time? I think it's more a question of the possibility of resolution.

Sure, that's how I'd deal with it (maybe I didn't read Pinky's post very well - I interpreted it as him blowing up very quickly after the ball crossed the line). You wait until there's no possibility of a resolution, then give the try or held up, but if a defender's ripped the ball, or an attacker knocks on, there's your resolution.

Elpablo73
16-06-16, 19:06
I may be relatively new to refereeing but was told that it is about the picture being painted for you. If it is obvious that no-one is doing anything to show that something will happen, blow whistle and 5m attacking scrum; if there is a good chance of a ground, give them that chance, until you think they've had enough time to ground it or it no longer looks probable, then blow whistle and 5m scrum.

I would also give a 5m attacking scrum if the defending team have possession when the mauls goes into the in-goal and they don't paint a picture that they are able to get the ball back into the field of play.

IMHO the only way a maul going into the in-goal is not being either a try or 5m attacking scrum is if:


as the ball crosses the goal line, it is ripped immediately by the defending side and it is grounded (a drop-out) or
as the ball crosses the goal line, it is ripped immediately by the defending side and gotten out of the in-goal (play on).

Pegleg
17-06-16, 10:06
Define "immediately".

Elpablo73
17-06-16, 13:06
Immediately - without delay; at once.


This is a personal measure and is a very small amount of time. Possibly how long it take you to decide the ball has crossed the goal line. So ranging from it is being ripped as the ball is crossing the line, to saying "the ball has crossed the goal line, the ball has been ripped".

DocY
17-06-16, 14:06
Immediately - without delay; at once.


This is a personal measure and is a very small amount of time. Possibly how long it take you to decide the ball has crossed the goal line. So ranging from it is being ripped as the ball is crossing the line, to saying "the ball has crossed the goal line, the ball has been ripped".

That doesn't sound very fair to me. I presume you're not saying the attacking team have to get the ball down immediately, so why do the defending team have to rip the ball immediately?

Elpablo73
20-06-16, 12:06
If the defending team doesn't rip immediately I would be giving a held-up in goal (22.10). 5m attacking scrum

DocY
20-06-16, 13:06
If the defending team doesn't rip immediately I would be giving a held-up in goal (22.10). 5m attacking scrum

But why immediately? You'll give the attacking team time to get the ball to ground, why not let the defending team have the same amount of time to rip the ball?

Blowing for the ball being held up is what happens when the players haven't resolved the situation on their own and should be considered a last resort (albeit one that's more frequent than the other outcomes).

While the situation is still evolving, let the players get on with it. The attacking team are wanting to touch down, the defending team are wanting to get the ball into TiG or to rip it (though they'll often settle for holding it up). Only if neither side succeeds in doing that (or if the attacking side infringe) should you award an attacking scrum 5.

Elpablo73
20-06-16, 18:06
DocY

As I said when I originally posted my response I am relatively new to refereeing so was putting forward my limited experience of this situation. I do still believe that the majority of outcomes of a maul going in goal would be beneficial to the attacking team.

However, you have given me pause for thought that if, whilst this collection of players is still moving, the defending side should be given the chance to do something with the ball, whether it be rip it and ground it, rip it and return it to the field of play or take everything TiG.

Just a follow-on question: If the defending successfully rip the ball and they are held up, how do we restart the game? 22m DO because it was taken in by the attacking side, 5m defending scrum or something else?

chbg
20-06-16, 21:06
Still Attacking 5m scrum:


22.10 Ball held up in-goal

When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

When ANY player carrying the ball is held up, the attacking team throw in to a 5m scrum. (Emphasis, not shouting!)

tim White
22-06-16, 08:06
If a 'non-maul' has moved into in-goal this is a potential try scoring position; If it still moving and the ball carrier has close support why would you not wait a few seconds to see if a try can be scored -if I had possession I would not be happy if the ref blew up when all I had to do was get to ground (accepting you cannot wait forever). I would suggest if it is still moving and is then forced over the dead ball line by defenders that a 5m scrum to the defenders is the most equitable outcome, you gave the attackers every chance to do something but the defenders defended it successfully.:shrug:

crossref
22-06-16, 08:06
I would suggest if it is still moving and is then forced over the dead ball line by defenders that a 5m scrum to the defenders is the most equitable outcome, you gave the attackers every chance to do something but the defenders defended it successfully.:shrug:

it may or may not be equitable (I am not sure) but surely it's clearly wrong in Law.

Dickie E
22-06-16, 09:06
If a 'non-maul' has moved into in-goal this is a potential try scoring position; If it still moving and the ball carrier has close support why would you not wait a few seconds to see if a try can be scored -if I had possession I would not be happy if the ref blew up when all I had to do was get to ground (accepting you cannot wait forever). I would suggest if it is still moving and is then forced over the dead ball line by defenders that a 5m scrum to the defenders is the most equitable outcome, you gave the attackers every chance to do something but the defenders defended it successfully.:shrug:

I was about to click 'like' until I got to this:

forced over the dead ball line by defenders that a 5m scrum to the defenders

DocY
22-06-16, 10:06
it may or may not be equitable (I am not sure) but surely it's clearly wrong in Law.

How so? The attacking team put the ball into in-goal and it was made dead there.

crossref
22-06-16, 10:06
How so? The attacking team put the ball into in-goal and it was made dead there.

yes, so should be 22 metre Drop Out then !

DocY
22-06-16, 10:06
yes, so should be 22 metre Drop Out then !

You're quite right!

There isn't a smiley for hitting yourself in the forehead!

crossref
22-06-16, 11:06
(the other option of course, as people say above, is to regard this unusual event as more like a special case of 'held up' and to give an attacking 5m scrum)

DocY
22-06-16, 11:06
(the other option of course, as people say above, is to regard this unusual event as more like a special case of 'held up' and to give an attacking 5m scrum)

Yeah - I don't like that though. It's good play from the defence and should be rewarded (particularly if it involves manhandling Will Carling!)

And, considering a maul can't exist in in goal so we can't have a separate maul law, it would turn tackling the BC into TiG into an awkward area. I'm sure everyone agrees that this would be a 22, but if one says that driving a BC into TiG would count as held up, I can't see there being a distinction in law between that and tackling a winger into TiG.

ChrisR
22-06-16, 12:06
The question boils down to this:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL

When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead.
A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(a) (deleted for clarity)

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the
attacking team throws in the ball.

Does 22.11(b) override 22.10?

22.10 specifies a player in the grasp of an opponent (deduced from "held up") but 22.11(b) makes no mention of it.

My conclusion is that 22.10 only applies to a player who is "held up in goal" (as the heading states) and not driven out of goal.

Therefore a maul driven TiG or over the dead ball line comes under 22.11(b) unless the referee deems it falls under 22.10 due to time or no resolution.

OB..
22-06-16, 13:06
The question boils down to this:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL

When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead.
A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(a) (deleted for clarity)

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the
attacking team throws in the ball.

Does 22.11(b) override 22.10?

22.10 specifies a player in the grasp of an opponent (deduced from "held up") but 22.11(b) makes no mention of it.

My conclusion is that 22.10 only applies to a player who is "held up in goal" (as the heading states) and not driven out of goal.

Therefore a maul driven TiG or over the dead ball line comes under 22.11(b) unless the referee deems it falls under 22.10 due to time or no resolution.A noble effort, but we are again trying to find an answer by subtle analysis of the actual wording, a procedure I generally distrust.

My preference would be to say that if the ball is being contested as it is taken into in-goal, then 22.10 will apply if neither team manages to ground it. Only if the attacking team is solely responsible for the ball going into in-goal can the defenders earn a 22.

However that is not necessarily how WR would see it.

Camquin
22-06-16, 15:06
In most cases there will be a ball carrier and a tackler.
If a ball carrier is tackled into touch, the ball carrier is responsible for putting the ball into touch.
If they cross the goal line and are tackled into touch in goal, the ball carrier is still responsible and I would give a drop out.

Also if it is a maul, you generally know who has possession and they would be responsible for taking it into the in-goal.
If you really do not know who was in possession, then favour the attacking team - just as if there is doubt about grounding.

But you could referee a lot of games and not see that.