Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

      
  1. #11

    Referees in England
    beckett50's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    East Midlands
    Grade
    Level 6
    Join Date
    31 Jan 04
    Posts
    2,137
    Thanks (Received)
    11
    Likes (Received)
    104

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Quote Originally Posted by winchesterref View Post
    I had an slightly unusual maul situation at the weekend.

    A maul formed, and attacking team were moving forwards. Ball carrier at the back then had a teammate bind on to him, and they broke away in a peeling motion, just as a defender managed to latch on to him. End result was all 3 going to ground, ball unplayable, scrum to attacking team.

    Defending team felt the maul was unsuccessful and this was a turnover; I deemed that the maul completed just before defender engaged the ball carrier, with a tackle and subsequent ruck. Certainly caused a few raised eyebrows anyway.
    One presumes that the ball was at the front, and so a tackle then ensued.

    Was the ball unavailable because
    a. the tackler hadn't released and made a positive effort to clear the area
    b. the attacking players were holding the tackler into the tackle to prevent the above, or
    c. the ball was genuinely unavailable because it was a mass of legs and arms and no way was the ball coming out safely or legally?


    As to the OP, the ball is available at the back of the Maul, off-side lines are still in place and the half-back has to "Use it".
    --------------------

    https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=691560798


    "Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf" Native American Proverb

    Vanillaisforicecream

  2. #12
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    426
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    84

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrouchTPEngage View Post
    Finally, it has happened. I got a team trying to use the "Italy no competing" tactics at ruck and maul this weekend.
    Generally I was happy that I got the calls right. ( a couple of lineout non-mauls were formed and ended up in the accidental offside decision as the 9 decided to ignore my "use it" call long enough )

    A problem arose at a couple of mauls ( which were contested mauls from open-play ).
    The maul went to ground, the ball was immediately available at the back and the ball was on the ground.
    There was only 1 defender in the original, maul and he was now on the ground. The 9 has the ball at his feet and was looking around to see where he should pass to.
    The other defending backs then came around the side of the maul ( now ruck ) to block the 9's pass.
    I called it offside because I thought that when a maul collapses (legally) like this, a ruck is automatically formed. Hence offside line established. The defenders view was that there was no ruck as they chose not to compete in any ruck and hence they were perfectly entitled to walk around the collapsed maul and stand wherever they wanted. Something like "The maul has ended , Sir. ! Hence no more offside line !"

    Any advice please ?
    Easy rule of thumb for considering 'the Italians Job'

    Ruck/Maul created = New Offside line established.
    BC tackled to ground (without a teammate bound onto the BC ) = No Maul/Ruck = Tackle only & No offside line established.

    They seemed to think that their mere 'absence' at the possession contest was sufficient to deem it Tackle Only, they were wrong.

  3. #13
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    I do not see that a ruck forming from a collapsed maul can ever be allowed.

    On the formation of a maul, open play is deemed to have ended. A ruck also ends open play. 2 wrongs can't make a right.

    As such, if a maul collapses, there are only provisions to get the ball back into play if the ball is immediately available. The laws do not accommodate turning the situation into a ruck as the whistle should have been blown before that could happen.

    They deem it to be a potentially dangerous situation I thought?

    Although the clarification mentions ruck laws apply for certain conditions existing as a result of the collapse I do not see they are seeing this as meaning a ruck has formed.

    Unfortunatley for the committee they then shoot themselves in the foot:

    (a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

    Hardly helps us with our understanding and application?



  4. #14

    Referees in Scotland
    Pinky's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Edinburgh Rugby Referees Society
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    09 Apr 10
    Posts
    1,163
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    103

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    I do not see that a ruck forming from a collapsed maul can ever be allowed.

    On the formation of a maul, open play is deemed to have ended. A ruck also ends open play. 2 wrongs can't make a right.

    As such, if a maul collapses, there are only provisions to get the ball back into play if the ball is immediately available. The laws do not accommodate turning the situation into a ruck as the whistle should have been blown before that could happen.

    They deem it to be a potentially dangerous situation I thought?

    Although the clarification mentions ruck laws apply for certain conditions existing as a result of the collapse I do not see they are seeing this as meaning a ruck has formed.

    Unfortunatley for the committee they then shoot themselves in the foot:

    (a) If a maul collapses and the ball does not touch the ground the player on his feet is not obliged to release the ball or ball carrier unless the ball touches the ground and a ruck is formed.

    Hardly helps us with our understanding and application?


    ChuckieB, A ruck can form from a collapsed maul assuming the requirements for a ruck are met, and this is in the law above. So ball must be on the ground and despite there being players off their feet, if there are players on their feet closing round the ball, then there is a ruck.

    Interesting to note that it is only players who stay on their feet in the maul that are allowed to hold on. Presumably once you are off your feet you are out of the game and have to let go.

  5. #15

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    11,542
    Thanks (Received)
    86
    Likes (Received)
    1022

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    ChuckieB, A ruck can form from a collapsed maul assuming the requirements for a ruck are met, and this is in the law above. So ball must be on the ground and despite there being players off their feet, if there are players on their feet closing round the ball, then there is a ruck.
    I can't imagine ever allowing a ruck after a collapsed maul

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinky View Post
    Interesting to note that it is only players who stay on their feet in the maul that are allowed to hold on. Presumably once you are off your feet you are out of the game and have to let go.
    I don't think so:

    (c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  6. #16
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Language is important here.

    Players going to ground in a permitted way is not a "maul collapsing" or "a collapsed maul". We should be careful not to suggest it as such.

    And that is directed at the lawmakers and those clarifying the laws specifically!

    "(c) At a collapsed maul there is no obligation in Law for players to roll away unless a ruck subsequently occurs."


    So, in this case, when read on its own, the language in the OP might have just served to confuse slightly.

    "......I thought that when a maul collapses (legally) like this, a ruck is automatically formed." (I have highlighted the bold).

    but to clarify, even it is players going to ground in a maul situation, there is certainly nothing automatic about what happens next.

    In my eyes, a collapsed maul is that pile of bodies on the ground with dynamics that dictate the ref has to act in a certain way. I agree that it will it not likely end up in him being in a position to call a ruck.
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 11-04-17 at 09:04.

  7. #17
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    NRB
    Grade
    IRB level 1
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    602
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    125

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Open broken play, ball goes out wide to red 14, blue 11 attempts to tackle high and red 13 piles in to form the maul as people are still running over and getting onside. The maul collapses, red 13 rolls off to the side as red 14 places and the first support approaches. It doesn't seem too out of the ordinary, or dangerous, does it?

  8. #18
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Theseare the only clauses within the laws that adopt the terminology containing “collapse/(s)”:

    Law 17: Maul
    17.2 Joining amaul
    A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerousplay.
    Law 17: Maul
    17.6Unsuccessful end to a maul
    A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomesunplayable or collapses (not as a result of foulplay) and a scrum is ordered.
    Law 16: Ruck
    16.3 Rucking
    A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck. This is dangerousplay.
    Law 10: FoulPlay
    10.4 Dangerousplay and misconduct
    Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.”

    As such they are clear in what is not allowed and direct what must happen if it does. There is no option available that should allow play to continue.

    Separately,

    17.6 (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.”

    In this situation, the ballcarrier is referred to as having “gone to ground” and there is no reference to a collapsing of the maul. However, under these circumstances, the laws specifically allow the possibility of play developing into a new phase which, yes, could be a ruck.

    Like marmite, my recommendation is that reference to the word "collapse/(s)" is something to be used sparingly and, even then, only used in the context of the situation the laws are describing.
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 11-04-17 at 14:04.

  9. #19
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_NL View Post
    Open broken play, ball goes out wide to red 14, blue 11 attempts to tackle high and red 13 piles in to form the maul as people are still running over and getting onside. The maul collapses, red 13 rolls off to the side as red 14 places and the first support approaches. It doesn't seem too out of the ordinary, or dangerous, does it?
    So under my argument and advice, perfectly allowable in the context of a player being deemed to have gone to ground rather than as a result of the maul having been described, incorrectly in my view, as having collapsed.
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 11-04-17 at 14:04.

  10. #20
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks (Received)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    343

    Default Re: Is it always an automatic ruck when maul ends legally by going to ground ?

    You missed:

    17.5 Successful end to a maul
    A maul ends successfully when :
    the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
    the ball is on the ground
    the ball is on or over the goal line.


    (my emphasis)

    If a maul successfully ends it's play on, and if one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact close around the ball that's now on the ground, a ruck is formed.

    There was even a clarification about this.

    I'm quite puzzled how this thread has gone on for so long.

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
  •