PDA

View Full Version : Collapsed Maul



Davet
24-02-04, 14:02
I always take the view that when a maul collapses (no fault), and the ball dissapears under a mass of bodies, then maul law still applies; all that has happened is that the ball has become unplayable in the maul - so unplayable = turnover.

The ball being on the floor isn't relevant, after all with bodies on the floor as well then it certainly isn't a ruck.

Views?

SimonSmith
24-02-04, 14:02
I always take the view that when a maul collapses (no fault), and the ball dissapears under a mass of bodies, then maul law still applies; all that has happened is that the ball has become unplayable in the maul - so unplayable = turnover.

The ball being on the floor isn't relevant, after all with bodies on the floor as well then it certainly isn't a ruck.

Views?

Here's the law:

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped
moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses
(not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.
(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.

I'd say that if the ball "disappears" you can't see if a ruck has been formed. The maul ended unsuccessfully, so it is a turnover.

Robert Burns
24-02-04, 18:02
If the team in possession was moving forward well and it collapsed, i'd have to look at giving the scrum to them, as they were moving forward, hence positive play, a stationary scrum going over I would put as a turnover.

I suppose this scenario all depends on what you see at the time, the good thing with this scenario is that in theory the referee cannot be wrong as the law accomodates for being unsure.

MrBadger
24-02-04, 23:02
"the team in possession was moving forward well and it collapsed, i'd have to look at giving the scrum to them, as they were moving forward, hence positive play, a stationary scrum going over I would put as a turnover"

Wrong. If they took it in and didn't get it out - TURNOVER. No pretending you don't know who took it in to subvert the law in favour of your preferences!

Q: WHY do teams all think that if they get the ball "to ground" from a maul they get the put in?

they are wrong.

Robert Burns
24-02-04, 23:02
nothing to do with pretending, why would a team thats moving forward well collapse a maul when that will lose them the ball, i'll agree 9 times out of ten, but I never said I would always give them the scrum I said I would still have to look at it, depending on what you were seeing.

The maul may not always be collapsed deliberately, but may be caused by the opposition, not fair then IMO to give them the scrum.

Davet
25-02-04, 11:02
nothing to do with pretending, why would a team thats moving forward well collapse a maul when that will lose them the ball, i'll agree 9 times out of ten, but I never said I would always give them the scrum I said I would still have to look at it, depending on what you were seeing.

The maul may not always be collapsed deliberately, but may be caused by the opposition, not fair then IMO to give them the scrum.

The premise is that the maul has collapsed, but NOT from deliberate intent, otherwise penalty against the collapser.

However, as Mr Badger says, merely getting the ball to ground doesn't turn a maul into a ruck. If the maul collapses, accidentally, and the ball is not immediately available then I would normally award a scrum to the side who did not take the ball in. A maul is a maul - even when its a collapsed maul. So maul law applies - and side going forward would only get put in if I was uncertain as who had taken the ball in.

If they get the ball to ground, and create a ruck while the players are all (or mostly) on their feet; and THEN it collapses I would play ruck laws.

Red Munster
25-02-04, 18:02
The onus is on the team that created the maul to use it or lose it.

If the maul collapses through no one's fault, and if the ball is not visible, do you blow up straight away or do you wait to see if the scrum half can locate the ball?

SimonSmith
25-02-04, 18:02
The onus is on the team that created the maul to use it or lose it.

If the maul collapses through no one's fault, and if the ball is not visible, do you blow up straight away or do you wait to see if the scrum half can locate the ball?

My rule of thumb is: if I can't see, and if the s/half can't see it - blow. Bodies on the ground like isn't conducive to anything good. And assessors/advisors love a quick whistle there.

didds
26-02-04, 10:02
My rule of thumb is: if I can't see, and if the s/half can't see it - blow. Bodies on the ground like isn't conducive to anything good. And assessors/advisors love a quick whistle there.

blowing quickly aside, if as has been said a collapsed maul (no blame) isn not of course a ruck (no players in contact on their feet over the ball etc) that presumably means a player from a previously onside (at the pre-collapse maul) position can run around to try to claim the ball if it is visible?#

Presumably so?

didds

Davet
26-02-04, 11:02
blowing quickly aside, if as has been said a collapsed maul (no blame) isn not of course a ruck (no players in contact on their feet over the ball etc) that presumably means a player from a previously onside (at the pre-collapse maul) position can run around to try to claim the ball if it is visible?#

Presumably so?

didds

Didds

Nice try - but speaking personally I'd penalise him.

I suspect that moments like that are why they call us referees, rather than lawyers - and remunerate accordingly.

Deeps
26-02-04, 12:02
Didds

Nice try - but speaking personally I'd penalise him.

I suspect that moments like that are why they call us referees, rather than lawyers - and remunerate accordingly.

didds - If the ball becomes visible at the collapse and is played immediately then play on but maul law still applies and the offside line is still there. Where it becomes a problem is in junior games where the situation can become very dynamic very quickly and instead of trying to keep up with it mentally I will often declare the result a mess and restart with a scrum.