Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

      
  1. #1
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Hi, first post here. Jus returned to reffing after a 10 year hiatus and need some guidance. Today I reffed an Under 14 game their first game of the season so trying to be as generous in spirit as the laws would allow.

    Red set up a maul. The red ball carrier goes to ground and made the ball eminently playable, BUT contrary to 16.9 blue didn’t make the effort to stay on their feet which made the ball unplayable before the red scrum half could get his hands on the ball. I awarded red a scrum given that it wasn’t their fault that the ball became unplayable and I wasn’t sure that blue deserved a penalty against them. However I am far from convinced that I made the right decision, so if someone could tell me what I should have awarded and point me to the relevant law I would be really grateful

  2. #2
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    284

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    The maul ended unsuccessfully. If it was not direct from (certain types of) Kicks it is Turnover ball.

    Red went to ground (allowed)

    Blue must "endeavor" to stay on their feet. Going off their feet is not an offence (of either the PK or Scrum kind). Deliberately collapsing the maul is.

    For me you got it wrong.

    The Matrix at the begining of the scrum law says:

    Offence:

    A maul that ends unsuccessfully.

    Where

    In the scrum zone at the point nearest to place of maul.

    Who throws in?

    The team not in possession at the start of the maul. If the referee cannot decide which team had
    possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking
    team.
    Last edited by Marc Wakeham; 3 Weeks Ago at 20:09.

  3. #3
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post
    The maul ended unsuccessfully. If it was not direct from (certain types of) Kicks it is Turnover ball. Red went to ground (allowed)Blue must "endeavor" to stay on their feet. Going off their feet is not an offence (of either the PK or Scrum kind). Deliberately collapsing the maul is.For me you got it wrong.The Matrix at the begining of the scrum law says:Offence:A maul that ends unsuccessfully.WhereIn the scrum zone at the point nearest to place of maul.Who throws in?The team not in possession at the start of the maul. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped. If neither team was moving forward, the attackingteam.
    So is it the case that although 16.9 requires blue to endeavour to stay on their feet, there is no penalty for them not doing so?

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    284

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildfordRef View Post
    So is it the case that although 16.9 requires blue to endeavour to stay on their feet, there is no penalty for them not doing so?
    They must not collapse the maul (16.11). Did they do that? NO.

    Does 16.9 include a PK sanction?

  5. #5
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post
    They must not collapse the maul (16.11). Did they do that? NO.

    Does 16.9 include a PK sanction?
    No, blue didn’t collapse the maul they (deliberately) made a ball that had been made immediately available by red unplayable by having two of their players fall on red sides of the ball so that red scrum half could no .longer get to the ball

  6. #6
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    807
    Thanks (Received)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    183

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Where they bound in and part of the maul when it went to ground? If so they can kinda fall their and stay there

  7. #7
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by Flish View Post
    Where they bound in and part of the maul when it went to ground? If so they can kinda fall their and stay there
    Yes, there were 4 or 5 blues bound in and the front two unbound and dropped between the ball and red scrum half. Since it was U14C team, the scrum half was a bit slow on the uptake and the rest of the players from the maul were all still bound together

  8. #8
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cardiff Society of Welsh Rugby Union Referees
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    05 Jan 18
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    284

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by GuildfordRef View Post
    No, blue didn’t collapse the maul they (deliberately) made a ball that had been made immediately available by red unplayable by having two of their players fall on red sides of the ball so that red scrum half could no .longer get to the ball
    Can you give a law reference which supports your actions?

  9. #9
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Thing is, at the time I thought it looked like a deliberate drop by blue I.e. no endeavour to stay on their feet, and when I discussed it with blue coach after the game he said he coaches his pack to drop over the ball to make the available ball unplayable and so win the scrum. I guess at this level of schoolboy rugby I just don’t like rewarding that level of gamesmanship!
    Last edited by GuildfordRef; 3 Weeks Ago at 21:09.

  10. #10
    Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    21 Sep 19
    Posts
    10
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Re: Maul Law 16.8 & 16.9

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post
    Can you give a law reference which supports your actions?
    Im not trying to support my actions Marc, I’m trying to find out what the right decision was and how to justify it. As I read your responses what I should have done is penalise red’s good endeavour to get to ground and make the ball available with a scrum against them because blue managed to get two big guys onto the floor between the ball and red scrum half, making no attempt to follow the instruction in law that they should try to stay on their feet, thus making an initially playable ball unplayable. If that’s the right interpretation of the law, fair enough. I just think it unfairly penalises red’s authentic endeavour to make the ball playable.

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
  •