Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: Maul in goal

      
  1. #11

    Referees in Scotland
    Pinky's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Edinburgh Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    09 Apr 10
    Posts
    1,507
    Thanks (Received)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    163

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    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.

  2. #12

    Referees in Holland


    Soc/Assoc
    NRB
    Grade
    IRB level 2
    Join Date
    15 Oct 11
    Posts
    959
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    60

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    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.

  3. #13

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,668
    Thanks (Received)
    120
    Likes (Received)
    1438

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Dickie E; 15-06-16 at 03:06.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #14
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,775
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    403

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,227
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Received)
    321

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    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.

  6. #16
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,775
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    403

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Marauder View Post
    ..... 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.

  7. #17

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,678
    Thanks (Received)
    129
    Likes (Received)
    1637

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Marauder View Post
    .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.
    He trudg’d along unknowing what he sought,
    And whistled as he went, for want of thought.
    The Referee by John Dryden

  8. #18

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,997
    Thanks (Received)
    177
    Likes (Received)
    1380
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
    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.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  9. #19
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,775
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    403

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    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.

  10. #20

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,997
    Thanks (Received)
    177
    Likes (Received)
    1380
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by DocY View Post
    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.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •