Defender held up but is driven immediatly out of in-goal !

[Pegleg]

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]

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]

this is the video of this incident right?

[Browner]

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]

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]

this is the video of this incident right?

"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

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

[Pegleg]

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]

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]

I was stating the collapse of the bodies described by the OP. Fairly straightforward really.

[Ian_Cook]

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..