Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Maul in goal

      
  1. #41
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    402

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    yes, so should be 22 metre Drop Out then !
    You're quite right!

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

  2. #42

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,832
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1776

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    (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)

  3. #43
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    402

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    (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.
    Last edited by DocY; 22-06-16 at 11:06.

  4. #44
    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)
    320

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    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.

  5. #45

    Advises in England
    OB..'s Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Glos & District
    Grade
    Adviser (grass roots)
    Join Date
    07 Oct 04
    Posts
    22,567
    Thanks (Received)
    111
    Likes (Received)
    1557

    Default Re: Maul in goal

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

  6. #46
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,390
    Thanks (Received)
    22
    Likes (Received)
    224

    Default Re: Maul in goal

    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.

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
  •