PDA

View Full Version : From ARU online referee course



Dickie E
31-12-17, 08:12
My answer in magenta. Their "correct" answer in blue. I don't think their "correct" answer is correct:

3674

Thoughts?

crossref
31-12-17, 08:12
I am confused by the structure of the question, if it's incorrect that it's wrong , then it's right etc.

For me if B gain possession in the maul but subsequently ignore my call of use it, I would give the scrum to Team A , and I don't think anyone would complain.

Ian_Cook
31-12-17, 09:12
Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward
before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the
attacking team throws in the ball

Team A took the ball in, so regardless of what happens after that, if the maul end unsuccessfully, team B throw the ball into the subsequent scrum

The ARU answer is correct

Rich_NL
31-12-17, 09:12
From the 2018 rules:

A maul ends unsuccessfully when the ball's available, the ref says "use it" and it's then not played.

Scrum sanction, unsuccessful maul: feeding team is the team not in possession at the start of the maul.


Seems a bit... counterintuitive, and I suspect many more would complain if you gave it to team B than team A, but by the letter of the law team B gets the scrum.

Balones
31-12-17, 09:12
I am pedantic enough to get annoyed wnen I see questions that mention taking a ball into a maul. Nobody does this. Rather we have a side in possession when a maul is formed. How can you take a ball into something that doesn’t exist?

In practice I would have thought that it is the defending side that creates a maul and not the side in possession. Without the defence we don’t have anything except a team in possession of the ball.

Camquin
31-12-17, 09:12
So if you turn over the ball in the maul, you can ignore the referee's call to use it with impunity.
As ever the law writers has failed to think through what they have written.
They cover the standard case - the ball carrier's team retain the ball - but fail to even cover the turn over.

Sanction needs to be rewritten

Sdie in possession fails to respond to call of "use it"
Scrum, side not in possession to put in.

Balones
31-12-17, 10:12
So if you turn over the ball in the maul, you can ignore the referee's call to use it with impunity.
As ever the law writers has failed to think through what they have written.
They cover the standard case - the ball carrier's team retain the ball - but fail to even cover the turn over.

Sanction needs to be rewritten

Sdie in possession fails to respond to call of "use it"
Scrum, side not in possession to put in.

I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

Christy
31-12-17, 10:12
I have had following in a match .
Maul , with ball at team A .
Team B have gained possession of ball .
Maul gone to ground legally & ball not available .

I then awarded scrum to team B .
As they were not initial team to have the ball at maul creation .

However .
Had maul gone to ground , again with team B now in possession .
With ball clearly playable ,,i would still say use it & expect same to be gone .

I couldnt see me offering a scrum to team B , for now not using a clearly playable ball .
I also couldnt see any team deliberately not using same .
Regardless of score or pitch position or even if 1 team had a dominant scrum

Dickie E
31-12-17, 10:12
I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

The scenario is that the ball is quite clearly at the back on one team's side. No ambiguity who has possession otherwise the ref would never say "use it"

Pegleg
31-12-17, 10:12
The matrix in 2018 Law Book (Pg 91)


Infringement / stoppage:

Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul.

Location of scrum:

In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the scrum, ruck or maul took place.

Who throws in:

The team not in possession.

Note it does not refer to "when the maul formed". It refers to "Failure to use" and "the team not in possession". For me that implies the side "Failing" to use us is "punished by the loss pof the ball.

the 2017 Law books which we have (apparently) to carry as well says:

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(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.


Note it does not say "the team not in possession when the maul formed".


For me 17.6 (g) Trumps (c) in this special case.
Why was the "use it" law brought in? To prevent sides wasting time holding the ball in to run the clock down and then get a new scrum to waste more time. Therefore it is illogical to reward a side for oing just that.

Pegleg
31-12-17, 10:12
I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.


But the "use it" is applicable when the ball is avaiulable to one or other side. So you do know who is now in possession, You are not unsighted, if you were you would not be calling "use it".

ChrisR
31-12-17, 11:12
Referencing only the 2018 Laws because these should be the base for moving forward.

From maul law page 74.

17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when: (I've deleted items not relevant to OP)
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).

d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.

e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been played within five seconds of the call.

Sanction: Scrum.

. . . and we also have:

18. If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.

From the scrum law table page 91.

Infringement/stoppage Who throws in

A maul that ends unsuccessfully. The team not in possession at the start of the maul. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team.

An unplayable maul after kick in open play. The team in possession at the start of the maul.

Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul. The team not in possession.


Mauls can be incredibly messy. Was it caught from a kick and was the maul immediate? Was the ball stripped before or after the maul formed? Was it stalled or moving? etc. etc.

The one thing that is C & O: The ball was available, they were told to use it, they didn't. Therefore the scrum feed goes to the team not in possession.

Balones
31-12-17, 12:12
So that there is no element for doubt (until someone gets it changed by WR) for inexperienced referee and those not so aware of the nature of the RR forum, the expectation in practice is that you will award the scrum to the side not in possession at the start of the maul. To not do this would result in you risking a law error comment in your report. Whether you like it or not. You would most likely receive some adverse comments from some knowledgeable directors of rugby/coaches as well.

ChrisR
31-12-17, 12:12
Well, Mr. Reportwriter Sir, the ball was caught by Red from a Blue kick in open play, the catcher took two steps before Blue wrapped him up and drove him backwards as Red support joined. At some point the ball was stripped from Red but Red was driving forward when the whole mess collapsed. Blue placed the ball on the ground and it was immediately available to the Blue SH. I called "Use it!" but he was too busy picking his nose so after 5 secs I said (to myself) "**** this, if you don't want it you don't get it" and awarded a scrum to Red.

Balones
31-12-17, 13:12
Well, Mr. Reportwriter Sir, the ball was caught by Red from a Blue kick in open play, the catcher took two steps before Blue wrapped him up and drove him backwards as Red support joined. At some point the ball was stripped from Red but Red was driving forward when the whole mess collapsed. Blue placed the ball on the ground and it was immediately available to the Blue SH. I called "Use it!" but he was too busy picking his nose so after 5 secs I said (to myself) "**** this, if you don't want it you don't get it" and awarded a scrum to Red.

With my coach’s hat on - “You shouldn’t let emotion or frustration get in the way of making the right decision”.��

Balones
31-12-17, 13:12
Strictly speaking at the level I am observing I am not allowed to ‘coach’ in my reports (the coaches get upset because that is their job!) but simply report on what I observe/see.) However when I am coaching I would tell the referee that if the ball does come out the ‘other side’ I would advise not calling a ‘use it’ so that the side not in possession at the start gets the benefit and rewarded for their efforts. Making a safe and expected decision isn’t a bad thing for overall management.

crossref
31-12-17, 14:12
Lets be fair, the scenario is a very unusual one , which you would rarely see
Blue successfully steal the ball, and make it available .. but then refuse to use it, because they prefer a scrum (which they are very confident the ref will give them , despite the refusal to use it
)
Blimey .. if blue wanted a scrum they are going about it the hard way..just wrap them up and wait for the turnover !

Silly scenario, silly structure for the question as well .. choose the sentence which is wrong .. is it a law exam or a logic puzzle

didds
31-12-17, 14:12
I'm with CR with this - unless the question is being asked to test a ref's thought processes rather than get a "right answer" it does seem somewhat of a clever-cloggs-gotcha question.

TBH IF it ever happened in a game I reckon you can sell it either way. Lets face it - whichever way you call it one side will think you are wrong anyway.

didds

Pegleg
31-12-17, 14:12
Where in law does FAILING gain a reward? To reward the failure to use the ball with a scrum is absurd.

Balones
31-12-17, 15:12
Where in law does FAILING gain a reward? To reward the failure to use the ball with a scrum is absurd.

Wouldn't be a reward if you were being stuffed in the scrums!:)

Balones
31-12-17, 16:12
I'm with CR with this - unless the question is being asked to test a ref's thought processes rather than get a "right answer" it does seem somewhat of a clever-cloggs-gotcha question.

TBH IF it ever happened in a game I reckon you can sell it either way. Lets face it - whichever way you call it one side will think you are wrong anyway.

didds

In general I would agree but add the caveat that it may depend on the level of game it happened in.

crossref
31-12-17, 16:12
Wouldn't be a reward if you were being stuffed in the scrums!:)

but if that was the case they would use it...

crossref
31-12-17, 16:12
In general I would agree but add the caveat that it may depend on the level of game it happened in.

but what level of game would a team steal the ball at a maul, successfully make it available, but then fail to Use It ..

a kids game perhaps?

Balones
31-12-17, 16:12
but what level of game would a team steal the ball at a maul, successfully make it available, but then fail to Use It ..

a kids game perhaps?

Sorry. I was really referring to Didd's second paragraph only.

Pegleg
31-12-17, 17:12
Wouldn't be a reward if you were being stuffed in the scrums!:)

In which case you would get the ball out. Come on now.

Pegleg
31-12-17, 17:12
but what level of game would a team steal the ball at a maul, successfully make it available, but then fail to Use It ..

a kids game perhaps?

Come on kids would not be that stupid.

Camquin
31-12-17, 18:12
If teams always used the ball quickly, we would not have a law requiring the ref to tell them to use it.

Pegleg
31-12-17, 19:12
Indeed not. That is why WR tried to stop the time wasting tactic. To suggest that they get a second benefit would be stupid.

The point of the above post is that kids would not be stupid enough to hold the ball in if their scrum was poor knowign tht doing so would result in a scrum.

Dickie E
31-12-17, 21:12
silly structure for the question as well .. choose the sentence which is wrong ..

Of course! I've just reread the question! It's the old double negative - second time this week I've been caught out! Please disregard the OP. And apologies to ARU for ever doubting them.

crossref
31-12-17, 21:12
So in the unlikely event of this really happening on the pitch, what would you actually give ?

Balones
31-12-17, 22:12
What were the other statements? The OP says which of the following statementS.... etc.

Dickie E
31-12-17, 23:12
What were the other statements? The OP says which of the following statementS.... etc.

multiple choice with 4 options. I can no longer access as I have completed the test. Sorry.

Pegleg
01-01-18, 10:01
So in the unlikely event of this really happening on the pitch, what would you actually give ?

The side failing to use the ball does not get the reward of the scrum. Common sense!

crossref
01-01-18, 11:01
The side failing to use the ball does not get the reward of the scrum. Common sense!

that's what I would give, but I thought the ARU were saying the opposite.

Pegleg
01-01-18, 12:01
The question was "which statement is wrong?"




http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3674&d=1514707476&thumb=1

So saying that the team taking tbe ball in loses ir in this case is WRONG. That is the statement titled "correct Answer" is correct because it is wrong.

Rugby is in good hands with WR and some of our Unions!

ChrisR
01-01-18, 13:01
That's one thing to agree about: The question sucks!

The reason that I posted the commentary below was not to be a smartass but to illustrate the ambiguities that can quickly arise in this kind of scenario that makes the refs decision difficult.

The referee is responding to his assessor who has questioned why he awarded the scrum to a particular side and is writing his report.

Well, Mr. Reportwriter Sir, the ball was caught by Red from a Blue kick in open play (was that kick from a PK open play or a restart?) , the catcher took two steps (was that immediate or not?) before Blue wrapped him up and drove him backwards (Blue definitely going forward) as Red support joined (now we have a maul). At some point the ball was stripped from Red (did that happen before or after the maul formed?) but Red was driving forward (are Red now the side going forward?) when the whole mess collapsed (was that intentional?) . Blue placed the ball on the ground (does that make it a successful end to the maul?) and it was immediately available to the Blue SH.

I called "Use it!" but he was too busy picking his nose so after 5 secs I said (to myself) "**** this, if you don't want it you don't get it" and awarded a scrum to Red.

Now this last part would never happen (well, about as frequently than a zombie apocalypse) but it's the only non-ambiguous part of the whole event so that's what I'd call.

crossref
01-01-18, 13:01
So , I am still confused.

who does the ARU think should get the scrum --
- Team A (because B failed to use it) or
- Team B (because Team A had possession when the maul started)

I'd give the scrum to Team A, as would pegleg and Dickie E
I can see Ian and Balones would give it to B

Both sides have claimed that the ARU agrees with them!

What a rubbishly worded question !

Balones
01-01-18, 14:01
I sense there is a strong concensus with your last sentence crossref.

Jolly Roger
01-01-18, 14:01
As Pegleg points out in #10 the team failing to use the ball loses th ball. That is what the law says. It is not an issue of what seems right but a fact of law.

Jolly Roger
01-01-18, 14:01
I have just downloaded the 2018 law book which states:

LAW 16
15. When a maul has stopped moving towards a goal line, it may restart moving towards a goal line providing it does so within five seconds. If it stops a second time but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, the referee instructs the team to use the ball. The team in possession must then use the ball in a reasonable time. Sanction: Scrum.

So no change there.

crossref
01-01-18, 16:01
I have just downloaded the 2018 law book which states:

LAW 16
15. When a maul has stopped moving towards a goal line, it may restart moving towards a goal line providing it does so within five seconds. If it stops a second time but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, the referee instructs the team to use the ball. The team in possession must then use the ball in a reasonable time. Sanction: Scrum.

So no change there.

Yes, that Law would imply Scrum to Team A

BUT

A maul ends unsuccessfully when
- The ball becomes unplayable
- The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play)
- The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the ball does not emerge.
- The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available
- The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been played within five seconds of the call.
Sanction:Scrum

and

Infringement / stoppage Location of scrum Who throws in
- A maul that ends unsuccessfully.
- In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the maul ended.
- The team not in possession at the start of the maul.


Which implies scrum to Team B

So you have to take your choice which Law to apply

Here on the Forum we have votes for A and votes for B
The ARU have a view, but they have hidden the view inside a riddle.

It's not really clear what is the correct - or best - answer

OB..
01-01-18, 17:01
So if the pseudo-legalese is unclear, let's apply a little rugby sense: if the ball is available and the team fails to use it after being told to do so, that is in itself an infringement (failure to respect the authority of the referee). The scrum should therefore go to their opponents.

crossref
01-01-18, 17:01
So if the pseudo-legalese is unclear, let's apply a little rugby sense: if the ball is available and the team fails to use it after being told to do so, that is in itself an infringement (failure to respect the authority of the referee). The scrum should therefore go to their opponents.


yes, that has my vote.

Pegleg
01-01-18, 17:01
So if the pseudo-legalese is unclear, let's apply a little rugby sense: if the ball is available and the team fails to use it after being told to do so, that is in itself an infringement (failure to respect the authority of the referee). The scrum should therefore go to their opponents.

Amen!

Ian_Cook
01-01-18, 21:01
This is the way I see it.

1. The requirement for the ball to be played within 5 seconds of a maul becoming stationary is part of 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL.

2. The overarching instruction for a Maul which ends unsuccessfully is that the scrum feed wil go to the team that was NOT in possession when the Maul began. This is clearly spelled out in Law..

17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

This is completely unambiguous, there is no wiggle room; no possible interpretation of this Law other than what is written. If a team creates a Maul, and then loses the ball in the maul, why should they then benefit from their own failure at the expense of the other team?

After reading all the other input to this thread, I stand by my original reply in Post#3... Team B gets the feed to the scrum.


ETA:

This is also fully supported in the 2018 Laws

2018 LAW 16: ENDING A MAUL

17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).
c. The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the
ball does not emerge.
d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.
e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been
played within five seconds of the call.

LAW 19 SCRUM
1. Where the game is restarted with a scrum and which team throws in is determined as
follows:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vx9yntn59a9xx4a/Scrumaftermaul1.jpg?raw=1


However, later in the Law they have this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8pgik59sl6htpej/scrumaftermaul2.jpg?raw=1

Oh dear, a conflict in the Laws... who would have thought?

I guess they still have not fired those pesky 12 year-old proof readers yet!!

crossref
01-01-18, 21:01
I know on this case you will reach the same conclusion, but shouldn't your Law references be to the current Law Book , rather than last year's ?

Pegleg
01-01-18, 21:01
17.6 (g) second paragraph and NOT 17.6 (c) is the crucial law here.

Ian_Cook
01-01-18, 22:01
17.6 (g) second paragraph and NOT 17.6 (c) is the crucial law here.

And what makes that so?

17.6 (c) states "Scrum after maul". For mine that makes it the overarching instruction as regards the whys and wherefores of a scrum after a maul. Otherwise, why have that Law?

I agree its counter-intuitive, but that doesn't mean its wrong

Dickie E
01-01-18, 22:01
I am confused by the structure of the question, if it's incorrect that it's wrong , then it's right etc.

For me if B gain possession in the maul but subsequently ignore my call of use it, I would give the scrum to Team A , and I don't think anyone would complain.

I have heard back from ARU and they have confirmed that Team A should get the scrum feed

Pegleg
01-01-18, 22:01
For me this is why:


20.6 (g) Specifically deals with the 5 second use it scenario


2017 Book

20.6 (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.


2018 Book

Scrum Matrix

Infringement / stoppage
Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul.

Location of scrum
In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the scrum, ruck or maul took place.

Who throws in
The team not in possessionRemember the Use it law was a later addition hence the sparate Law. See further the 2018 re write:

17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).
c. The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the
ball does not emerge.
d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.
e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been
played within five seconds of the call.
Sanction: Scrum.

Someone asked why it did not state who get the scrum in the rewrite. Well, it could be becasue it is different for clauses a-d (not taking in side) and e (the side not in possession).

Pinky
02-01-18, 01:01
I can understand your logic and have some sympathy but the logic behind the law is that you are only certain about who is in possession when the maul starts. When a maul forms you are unsighted and as such may not be able to determine who is in possession when it collapses. The law takes the possible inconsistency out of the situation.

Balones, you should be certain of who you have told to use the ball, so I would not see a problem with not giving them the put-in.

didds
02-01-18, 08:01
You are all correct.

The law book is very broken in places.

No change there then.

HNY!

didds

Balones
02-01-18, 11:01
Interesting response from a couple of professional referees I know after outlining the scenario.
(Please bear in mind the level at which they referee.)
"Impossible won't happen". As one pointed out the law relating to mauls were initially set up before "use it" was introduced and when it was introduced a turnover during the maul was not considered. Here I think is the crux of our dilemma.

OB..
02-01-18, 11:01
In Law 19 (2018) there are separate entries labelled "A maul that ends unsuccessfully" and "Failure to 'use it' at scrum, ruck or maul."

Law 16 (2018) does not distinguish the two:-
16.17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
[...]
e. The ball is available to be played, the referee has called “use it” and it has not been
played within five seconds of the call.

This only matters if the team that took the ball into the maul has lost it to their opponents.

As referees we have to resolve any such conflict and I can see no reason to give the benefit to a team that has failed to follow the referee's instruction to use it.

Dickie E
02-01-18, 19:01
Interesting response from a couple of professional referees I know after outlining the scenario.
(Please bear in mind the level at which they referee.)
"Impossible won't happen". As one pointed out the law relating to mauls were initially set up before "use it" was introduced and when it was introduced a turnover during the maul was not considered. Here I think is the crux of our dilemma.

I guess the ARU thinks that it may happen, otherwise they wouldn't have put the question in the test.

Maybe their answer was code for "Balones, stop bothering us with your unlikely 'what if' scenarios".

Pegleg
02-01-18, 21:01
Another pointer is inlcuded in the Matrix:

Infringement / stoppage
Failure to “use it” at scrum, ruck or maul.

Location of scrum
In the scrum zone at the point closest to where the scrum, ruck or maul took place.

Who throws in
The team not in possession.

Note the matrix referes to SCRUM RUCK and MAUL all having the same sanction if a side fails to "use it". They LOSE possession! It would be illogical to read the "Who throws in" bit as: "The team not in possession except for the Maul when the side in possession gets the throw."

VM75
02-01-18, 21:01
I am pedantic enough to get annoyed wnen I see questions that mention taking a ball into a maul. Nobody does this. Rather we have a side in possession when a maul is formed. How can you take a ball into something that doesn’t exist?

In practice I would have thought that it is the defending side that creates a maul and not the side in possession. Without the defence we don’t have anything except a team in possession of the ball.

Actually it isn't the defending side that create the maul , it's the ball carrying players teammate who binds onto the ballcarrier that signals the creation, until then we only have a stopped or slowed down by a defender [or two] ballcarrier

DocY
03-01-18, 09:01
Interesting response from a couple of professional referees I know after outlining the scenario.
(Please bear in mind the level at which they referee.)
"Impossible won't happen". As one pointed out the law relating to mauls were initially set up before "use it" was introduced and when it was introduced a turnover during the maul was not considered. Here I think is the crux of our dilemma.

I think you've nailed it with the bit in brackets. At the level I referee it happens a few times per season!

Balones
09-01-18, 09:01
Been a bit busy so not kept up with things on the forum. Also been in contact with the RFU Laws dept to discuss the scenario that we have been throwing around in relation to a rip at the maul and the use of “use it”, etc. It would appear that we may have a difference of opinion between Unions. (Not for the first time you might say.) The response was that if A were in possession at the start of the maul then regardless of the “use it” call the scrum would go to B.

The thought behind this is –
The words 'use it' were introduced to prevent time-wasting.
They indicate to the players that the referee was not going to blow his whistle immediately because the referee could see the ball was available even if the players couldn't; thus trying to make sure that anyone didn't do anything illegal to kill the ball. It takes the indecision out of the situation.
“Use it” was not introduced to penalise a side that may have held up a ball carrier, or in our scenario ripped the ball, both of which would be considered good defensive play.

Balones
09-01-18, 09:01
Perhaps it is a bit like not being able to compel a side to use an advantage if it is offered.
A side that has done the good defensive work of either held the ball carrier up or ripped the ball may want the scrum instead of wanting to use it out wide. (5M attacking scrum?) Ripping a ball in a maul is just a way of making sure the that the original ball carrying team do not have the ability to use. If you penalise them for not using it themselves then a side that does rip the ball may in future simply make sure that it is not available at all.

crossref
09-01-18, 09:01
Their opinion is this scenario therefore REWARDS time wasting as blue can ignore the call to use it as long as possible , and then get put in to the time consuming scrum.. so it's a time wasters charter :-)

Last week I asked the sareferee duty ref about this , so perhaps we will get a third view

Balones
09-01-18, 10:01
I appreciate what you are saying and it is a balance between time-wasting and rewarding a side for good play. The 5 seconds is not much compared to the time-wasting that was done before it was introduced, if that was the intention of the side in possession at the start of the maul.
The scrum causes all sorts of problems and nobody an deny that it can be time-wasting, boring etc etc, but as the laws stand (and the game as a whole) it is the method that rugby union uses for rewarding a side for the opposition making mistakes or minor law infractions. The alternative is a rugby league solution.
In the scenario at hand the awarding of the scrum is not the problem, it is the scrum itself and it is this that needs a solution and not the penalisation of good defensive play.

crossref
09-01-18, 10:01
I don't feel strongly about this one .. it's a scenario that none of us are ever likely to see. If it happens to me , in England, I will follow the RFU

And then I will be that ref who makes a decision contrary to what all 30 players are expecting, because I read some technical discussion on RR.COM

Balones
09-01-18, 10:01
I don't feel strongly about this one .. it's a scenario that none of us are ever likely to see. If it happens to me , in England, I will follow the RFU

And then I will be that ref who makes a decision contrary to what all 30 players are expecting, because I read some technical discussion on RR.COM

I have to agree with you about doing what is expected by your Union. It is not really our problem and why I have replied several times in various threads that is you don't like something then take it up with your union or WR. It is the reason why I take my position on several points of law. I am after all in my case an employee of the RFU.
I cannot remember ever seeing a scrum awarded after a failure to use it at a maul. I have seen one at a ruck and one at a scrum.

crossref
09-01-18, 10:01
And this scenario, don't forget, is a combination of two events, both very rare on their own: a change of possession at a maul AND a failure to use it.
The chance of both happening is small

didds
09-01-18, 12:01
Much sense spoken in the last two posts.

That doesn;t make the debate around this wrong of course. :)

didds