PDA

View Full Version : Question 2 MAUL



The Fat
28-11-15, 21:11
OK.
crossref has suggested a new thread so here it is.
Following on from my last thread re stopping a PK from going over the crossbar, this one is on the maul.

QUESTION 2 MAUL

Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul. The maul then goes to ground legally, and the ball is available to be played at the back of the maul, but does not look likely to be played immediately by Team B. Which of the following statements is wrong?

A) The referee should call for Team B to "Use it!"

B) Team B has 5 seconds to use the ball after being told to use it by the referee.

C) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team B, because Team B did not take the ball into the maul initially.

D) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team A, because the ball was not used in time by Team B.


Single letter answer only please. After we get a few answers, we can go back and ask for a law reference to support your initial answer.
Cheers

Rushforth
28-11-15, 21:11
All four are "wrong".

Dickie E
28-11-15, 22:11
C is incorrect

Ian_Cook
28-11-15, 22:11
D) is incorrect

or

C) is incorrect

The Fat
28-11-15, 22:11
Seeing that I started this thread after originally putting this question in another thread, here are two other answers from that thread (just so we keep track of everyone's answers.

menace wrote: C is wrong.
Nigib wrote: What he said

So that is two votes for C

Ian_Cook
28-11-15, 22:11
Seeing that I started this thread after originally putting this question in another thread, here are two other answers from that thread (just so we keep track of everyone's answers.

menace wrote: C is wrong.
Nigib wrote: What he said

So that is two votes for C

There isn't just one answer, so it 2½ votes for C

The Fat
28-11-15, 23:11
There isn't just one answer, so it 2½ votes for C

Will discuss after we get more answers to see what the split is:hap:

Dickie E
28-11-15, 23:11
Seeing that I started this thread after originally putting this question in another thread, here are two other answers from that thread (just so we keep track of everyone's answers.

menace wrote: C is wrong.
Nigib wrote: What he said

So that is two votes for C

counting mine that is 3½ votes for C

menace
29-11-15, 02:11
D) is incorrect

or

C) is incorrect

You're a referee....you can't hedge your bets?!

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 03:11
You're a referee....you can't hedge your bets?!


What I would do in that situation is not necessarily the same as what I would give as an answer to the question.

If you asked me "What would I do?", the answer would be, I would call "use-it" and if they didn't use it within 5 seconds, I would order a scrum, and give the throw-in to Team B.

menace
29-11-15, 03:11
What I would do in that situation is not necessarily the same as what I would give as an answer to the question.

If you asked me "What would I do?", the answer would be, I would call "use-it" and if they didn't use it within 5 seconds, I would order a scrum, and give the throw-in to Team B.

Therefore you think D is wrong??? (Lets not quibble on the why yet...just that you'd call a scrum and B would feed)

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 05:11
Therefore you think D is wrong??? (Lets not quibble on the why yet...just that you'd call a scrum and B would feed)


Yes, and

Yes

But I could understand why some would consider C wrong, and in some ways, so do I!

Confused yet?

Taff
29-11-15, 05:11
I would say C was the wrong one.

RobLev
29-11-15, 10:11
OK.
crossref has suggested a new thread so here it is.
Following on from my last thread re stopping a PK from going over the crossbar, this one is on the maul.

QUESTION 2 MAUL

Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul. The maul then goes to ground legally, and the ball is available to be played at the back of the maul, but does not look likely to be played immediately by Team B. Which of the following statements is wrong?

A) The referee should call for Team B to "Use it!"

B) Team B has 5 seconds to use the ball after being told to use it by the referee.

C) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team B, because Team B did not take the ball into the maul initially.

D) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team A, because the ball was not used in time by Team B.


Single letter answer only please. After we get a few answers, we can go back and ask for a law reference to support your initial answer.
Cheers

C is wrong; D isn't completely right.

This is making an assumption as to what is meant by "goes to ground legally" which may not be correct.

Dickie E
29-11-15, 11:11
Single letter answer only please.

Looks like all those who aren't playing cloak & dagger pick C. Issue closed & time to move on? Or do we need to ask the others in a pantomime voice to share their wisdom?

Phil E
29-11-15, 11:11
What I would do in that situation is not necessarily the same as what I would give as an answer to the question.

If you asked me "What would I do?", the answer would be, I would call "use-it" and if they didn't use it within 5 seconds, I would order a scrum, and give the throw-in to Team B.

That's exactly what I would do as well............whichever answer that is??

Dickie E
29-11-15, 12:11
That's exactly what I would do as well

So team B can give you the bird and still get the scrum feed?

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 12:11
Looks like all those who aren't playing cloak & dagger pick C. Issue closed & time to move on? Or do we need to ask the others in a pantomime voice to share their wisdom?


OK, so I'll start the ball rolling

Option C is what I would do

The OP question says

"Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul."

Therefore,

Team A was in possession when the maul began

Team B was NOT in possession when the maul began


So...

Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.


However, in 2014 a contradiction was intruduced (surprise, surprise!!)

Law 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.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

So, D) is correct under Law 17.6 (g)

The problem here is that the original Law says the team in possession when the maul began will lose possession at the subsequent scrum throw-in, while the later Law says that the team in possession in the maul will lose possession at the scrum throw-in. They will not always be the same team.

IMO, the contradiction in the additional Law is an oversight by WR (12 year old proof readers strike again!!) I am 100% certain that they did not intend to change the effect of Law 17.6 (c), otherwise they surely would have changed that too.

So to resolve this issue in a practical sense, IMO the referee, faced with contradicting Laws should take the fairer option. Equity trumps Law, especially in cases where the Law is ambiguous.

Which is more equitable?

#1. Rewarding the team that successfully contests and wins the ball in a maul, or

#2. Rewarding the team that loses possession of the ball in the maul

I chose #1. Team A had their chance and lost the ball, why should the referee give them a second bite of the cherry?

menace
29-11-15, 12:11
You could equally say that team B had their chance....the ball was available, they were told to use it. But they chose to dick about and waste time. (For all intents and purposes I would say the maul was 'successfully' over so it's now up to B to do something. Yes I know 17.6 g is in the unsuccessful end to maul....I was just saying. Ball is there...maul is over)

It's a bit of a moot decision. The reality is that 99.999% of the time they are told to 'use it' - they bloody will.

Camquin
29-11-15, 12:11
Because they will here the implied "or lose it"

Also Ian's comment on law proof reading is grossly unfair to 12 year olds.

Camquin

Taff
29-11-15, 13:11
Team A had their chance and lost the ball, why should the referee give them a second bite of the cherry?
Team A didn't lose the ball, they had it taken away from them.

If anyone had a chance and blew it, surely it was Team B by not using a ball that was available. Why should Team B effectively ignore the "Use it" and get rewarded with the throw in?

RobLev
29-11-15, 15:11
OK, so I'll start the ball rolling

Option C is what I would do

The OP question says

"Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul."

Therefore,

Team A was in possession when the maul began

Team B was NOT in possession when the maul began


So...

Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.


However, in 2014 a contradiction was intruduced (surprise, surprise!!)

Law 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.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

So, D) is correct under Law 17.6 (g)

The problem here is that the original Law says the team in possession when the maul began will lose possession at the subsequent scrum throw-in, while the later Law says that the team in possession in the maul will lose possession at the scrum throw-in. They will not always be the same team.

IMO, the contradiction in the additional Law is an oversight by WR (12 year old proof readers strike again!!) I am 100% certain that they did not intend to change the effect of Law 17.6 (c), otherwise they surely would have changed that too.

So to resolve this issue in a practical sense, IMO the referee, faced with contradicting Laws should take the fairer option. Equity trumps Law, especially in cases where the Law is ambiguous.

Which is more equitable?

#1. Rewarding the team that successfully contests and wins the ball in a maul, or

#2. Rewarding the team that loses possession of the ball in the maul

I chose #1. Team A had their chance and lost the ball, why should the referee give them a second bite of the cherry?

On the other hand, the specific trumps the general. 17.6(c) covers the general case of an unsuccessful maul. There is specific provision in 17.6(g) for what happens when the ball-carrier in the maul goes to ground with the ball available (which may not be an unsuccessful maul - BC going to ground != a collapsed maul) and the team in possession fails to use it within 5 seconds of the referee's call to do so. So any contradiction is resolved in favour of 17.6(g).

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 19:11
On the other hand, the specific trumps the general. 17.6(c) covers the general case of an unsuccessful maul. There is specific provision in 17.6(g) for what happens when the ball-carrier in the maul goes to ground with the ball available (which may not be an unsuccessful maul - BC going to ground != a collapsed maul) and the team in possession fails to use it within 5 seconds of the referee's call to do so. So any contradiction is resolved in favour of 17.6(g).

I rather think you are using some legalese spin to try to justify a mistake by WR. I could equally argue that the emboldened phrase scrum following maul in 17.6 (c) applies to ALL scrums formed after ALL legally collapsed mauls, unless there is a specific, written exception that actually refers to this Law. However, I am not interested in getting into some nitpicketty legalistic pissing contest.

This is a clear oversight by the Law makers. If you you look at the 2013 Laws, 17.6 (b) was the only option available. The intent is clear; for the team taking the ball into contact to lose it in a turnover if THEY were unable to clear it. Having the ball ripped off you in the mall means that you are unable to clear it. I don't believe for one moment that whoever drafted Law 17.6(g) meant to change the intent of 17.6 (c), IMO they simply overlooked it.

As a referee, I would be happy enough that I could sell my decision to the players. A phrase you hear often from referees is.... "taken in by A, and collapsed" - turnover, B's ball". I would also be able to back it up in Law to my assessor. As an assessor, I would also be happy with that decision made in that circumstance.

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 19:11
So team B can give you the bird and still get the scrum feed?

Say what ??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/headscratch.gif

Pegleg
29-11-15, 19:11
OK, so I'll start the ball rolling

Option C is what I would do

The OP question says

"Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul."

Therefore,

Team A was in possession when the maul began

Team B was NOT in possession when the maul began


So...

Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of
foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.


However, in 2014 a contradiction was intruduced (surprise, surprise!!)

Law 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.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

So, D) is correct under Law 17.6 (g)

The problem here is that the original Law says the team in possession when the maul began will lose possession at the subsequent scrum throw-in, while the later Law says that the team in possession in the maul will lose possession at the scrum throw-in. They will not always be the same team.

IMO, the contradiction in the additional Law is an oversight by WR (12 year old proof readers strike again!!) I am 100% certain that they did not intend to change the effect of Law 17.6 (c), otherwise they surely would have changed that too.

So to resolve this issue in a practical sense, IMO the referee, faced with contradicting Laws should take the fairer option. Equity trumps Law, especially in cases where the Law is ambiguous.

Which is more equitable?

#1. Rewarding the team that successfully contests and wins the ball in a maul, or

#2. Rewarding the team that loses possession of the ball in the maul

I chose #1. Team A had their chance and lost the ball, why should the referee give them a second bite of the cherry?


Agreed.

crossref
29-11-15, 19:11
I don't really care for nitpicking legal spin.
:D :D

Pegleg
29-11-15, 19:11
On the other hand, the specific trumps the general. 17.6(c) covers the general case of an unsuccessful maul. There is specific provision in 17.6(g) for what happens when the ball-carrier in the maul goes to ground with the ball available (which may not be an unsuccessful maul - BC going to ground != a collapsed maul) and the team in possession fails to use it within 5 seconds of the referee's call to do so. So any contradiction is resolved in favour of 17.6(g).


So A take the ball in holds on to it and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in holds on to it and A gets to ground with it not immediately playable = B's scrum 17.6 (g)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and B gets to ground with it not immediately playable = A's scrum 17.6 (g)

There is little logic in suggesting that makes sense. For me B's scrum in every case.

RobLev
29-11-15, 19:11
I rather think you are using some legalese spin to try to justify a mistake by WR.

This is a clear oversight by the Law makers. If you you look at the 2013 Laws, 17.6 (b) was the only option available. The intent is clear; for the team taking the ball into contact to lose it in a turnover if THEY were unable to clear it. I don't believe for one moment that whoever drafted this Law meant to change the intent of 17.6 (c), IMO they simply overlooked it.

I don't really care for nitpicking legal spin. As a referee, I would be happy enough that I could sell my decision to the players. A phrase you hear often from referees is.... "taken in by A, and collapsed" - turnover, B's ball". I would also be able to back it up in Law to my assessor. As an assessor, I would also be happy with that decision made in that circumstance.

Would you similarly ignore 17.6(h)?

Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.

...which also contradicts 17.6(c) in a specific situation.

Furthermore, the whole of the second paragraph of 17.6(g) was inserted at the same time. If you are correct, there would be no purpose to adding the reference to "the team in possession" - the general rule provides for a turnover.

The point was surely to stop the ball being held in the "maul that has gone to ground"; if team B keep it in, then they suffer the sanction. The alternative - your alternative - is that if the ball is ripped, the ripping team can then take as long as they like to take the ball out. Do you believe that was the intention?

RobLev
29-11-15, 20:11
So A take the ball in holds on to it and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in holds on to it and A gets to ground with it not immediately playable = B's scrum 17.6 (g)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and B gets to ground with it not immediately playable = A's scrum 17.6 (g)

There is little logic in suggesting that makes sense. For me B's scrum in every case.

You're absolutely right, and that is what the Law says. But that is not the issue. In the case we're talking about, the ball is immediately playable - but B has chosen not to play it, despite having been told to do so by the referee. Ian's view has the effect that Team B can ignore the ref's instruction to "Use it", and get the scrum anyway.

OB..
29-11-15, 20:11
So A take the ball in holds on to it and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and it becomes unplayable = B's scrum 17.6 (c)

So A take the ball in holds on to it and A gets to ground with it not immediately playable = B's scrum 17.6 (g)

So A take the ball in loses it to B and B gets to ground with it not immediately playable = A's scrum 17.6 (g)

There is little logic in suggesting that makes sense. For me B's scrum in every case.Why should they all be the same when the criteria are different?

If the ball becomes unavailable and unplayable, the team that took it in loses.
If the ball is available and the team who could have played it fails to do so quickly enough, that team loses.

Seems reasonable to me.

Pegleg
29-11-15, 20:11
The point of 17.6 (h) was to discourage airial ping pong. That is why it is contrary to 17.6 (c). That is why we have the override where teams are "forced" to kick.

RobLev
29-11-15, 20:11
The point of 17.6 (h) was to discourage airial ping pong. That is why it is contrary to 17.6 (c). That is why we have the override where teams are "forced" to kick.

And the intention of 17.6(g) was to get the ball out of the maul quickly, once it's stopped/gone to ground. That is why it is contary to 17.6(c). That is why we have the override where the team in possession keeps it in the maul.

RobLev
29-11-15, 20:11
Say what ??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/headscratch.gif

I suspect he's referring to the fact that you told Team B to get the ball out of there within 5 seconds, they ignored you, and yet you're still giving them the scrum feed.

Dickie E
29-11-15, 21:11
In the case we're talking about, the ball is immediately playable - but B has chosen not to play it, despite having been told to do so by the referee. Ian's view has the effect that Team B can ignore the ref's instruction to "Use it", and get the scrum anyway.

Agree.

Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6(b) never comes into play. If the ref calls "use it" the ball can hardly be unplayable.

ChrisR
29-11-15, 21:11
Wait a minute, is the ball on the deck? Doesn't say in the OP but if that's the case then we have a ruck and ruck law applies.

Ian_Cook
29-11-15, 21:11
Would you similarly ignore 17.6(h)?

Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.

...which also contradicts 17.6(c) in a specific situation.

No because it directly refers to a specific situation as highlighted by the emboldening of "Scrum after a maul when catcher is held."


Furthermore, the whole of the second paragraph of 17.6(g) was inserted at the same time. If you are correct, there would be no purpose to adding the reference to "the team in possession" - the general rule provides for a turnover.

I argue the the paragraph is there simply to legitimise the five second rule, and the writing in of the bit about "the team in possession" is simply an oversight.


The point was surely to stop the ball being held in the "maul that has gone to ground";

Yes, but


if team B keep it in, then they suffer the sanction.

Why? You are arguing that team B should simply have stopped Team A from playing it rather than try to contest for the ball, i.e. you are encouraging negative play. You are effectively asking them them to go against a core principle of the game,. the contest for possession at all phases of the game


The alternative - your alternative - is that if the ball is ripped, the ripping team can then take as long as they like to take the ball out. Do you believe that was the intention?

A strawman. That is not what I am arguing at all. If the ball is ripped, then the ripping team has to keep the maul moving forward as per normal. If they don't or if it is available and they don't use it, they get the feed since they were not the team who took the ball into the maul in the first place.

I know that with your legal background, you would like to make this into an adversarial debate about the minutiae of the laws. All I am interested in doing is making sense of an ambiguous and contradictory Law, and coming up with a decision that I can

a] sell the players, and
b] justify in Law to my assessor

I said earlier that both C) and D) can be taken to be the correct decisions, I chose C) and equity to justify it.

YMMV

Womble
29-11-15, 22:11
Wait a minute, is the ball on the deck? Doesn't say in the OP but if that's the case then we have a ruck and ruck law applies.
A failed maul very rarely turns into a ruck ! it can happen but not very often

Taff
29-11-15, 22:11
Wait a minute, is the ball on the deck? Doesn't say in the OP but if that's the case then we have a ruck and ruck law applies.
Is it relevant?

Given that the ball is available (whether it's a ruck or a maul legally taken to ground) and Team B decide not to use it in the allotted 5 seconds (despite being asked to do so) why should they get the throw in?

I can see why whether it was a ruck or maul would be relevant if the ball was not available - but in this case it was.

RobLev
29-11-15, 23:11
...

I know that with your legal background, you would like to make this into an adversarial debate about the minutiae of the laws. All I am interested in doing is making sense of an ambiguous and contradictory Law, and coming up with a decision that I can

a] sell the players, and
b] justify in Law to my assessor

I said earlier that both C) and D) can be taken to be the correct decisions, I chose C) and equity to justify it.

YMMV

All of which relies upon the Law being "ambiguous and contradictory". It isn't. Just as 17.6(h) isn't. Both refer to specific situations, both provide for specific outcomes; if they don't apply, then the general outcome applies.

And stop making this about me and you.

ChrisR
29-11-15, 23:11
Only pointing out that all references so far have been to Law 17 and if it's a ruck (and if the ball is on the ground with players bound over it then it is a ruck) then Law 16 applies.

Taff
29-11-15, 23:11
Only pointing out that all references so far have been to Law 17 and if it's a ruck (and if the ball is on the ground with players bound over it then it is a ruck) then Law 16 applies.
Fair point, but from memory the wording is near identical for both.

To me the general principle is clear (regardless of whether the 12yr old proof reader could have worded the exact law better) if a ball is available and you don't use it within 5 seconds of being asked to, then it's a turnover ball.

RobLev
29-11-15, 23:11
...

Why? You are arguing that team B should simply have stopped Team A from playing it rather than try to contest for the ball, i.e. you are encouraging negative play. You are effectively asking them them to go against a core principle of the game,. the contest for possession at all phases of the game

...

Sorry, missed this.

No, I'm arguing that the Law requires Team B, having successfully contested for the ball, to use it. 17.6(g) precisely mirrors 16.7(c), which has exactly the same effect if the team which wins the ruck doesn't get the ball out of there.

When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.

menace
29-11-15, 23:11
Only pointing out that all references so far have been to Law 17 and if it's a ruck (and if the ball is on the ground with players bound over it then it is a ruck) then Law 16 applies.


It's just saying it's available - but even if you assume it's now a ruck the same applies ....don't use it after being told then 5 seconds later oppo will get the put in.....same same.

I suspect WR did mean every bit of 17.6 g when they bought in the 'use it' bits. I see it as an acceptable 'exception'....(just like the lineout exception).

Ian - do you ever admit you could be wrong :shrug:

Edit: I see Marauders answered someone else already....dang dial up!

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 00:11
Sorry, missed this.

No, I'm arguing that the Law requires Team B, having successfully contested for the ball, to use it. 17.6(g) precisely mirrors 16.7(c), which has exactly the same effect if the team which wins the ruck doesn't get the ball out of there.

When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.

Arguing that this is parallel to ruck law is a fallacy (False Analogy).

There is no example in ruck law of the team who took the ball into a ruck losing it because they took the ball into contact.

We will just have to agree to differ.

RobLev
30-11-15, 00:11
Arguing that this is parallel to ruck law is a fallacy (False Analogy).

There is no example in ruck law of the team who took the ball into a ruck losing it because they took the ball into contact.

We will just have to agree to differ.

It's not parallel to ruck law generally; it's parallel to the way that the batch of law changes introduced in May 2014 all said "Use it or lose it"; irrespective of how the team got possession of the ball.

Dickie E
30-11-15, 01:11
That is not what I am arguing at all. If the ball is ripped, then the ripping team has to keep the maul moving forward as per normal. If they don't or if it is available and they don't use it, they get the feed since they were not the team who took the ball into the maul in the first place.



Now that is something I totally disagree and is clearly contrary to wording & intent of the Law. A less cultured person that me would call it Bull. Shit.

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 01:11
Now that is something I totally disagree and is clearly contrary to wording & intent of the Law. A less cultured person that me would call it Bull. Shit.

Well, I disagree.

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.

Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 01:11
Ian - do you ever admit you could be wrong :shrug:

Yep, when I believe I am wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong in this case.


Edit: I see Marauders answered someone else already....dang dial up!

And you have the cheek to criticise our slow postal services!!

Dickie E
30-11-15, 01:11
Well, I disagree.

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.

Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.

Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

(c) follows on from (b) and is the sanction if (b) occurs. (b) requires the ball be "unplayable"

menace
30-11-15, 02:11
Yep, when I believe I am wrong.

I do not believe I am wrong in this case.



And you have the cheek to criticise our slow postal services!!

Except the law clearly and unequivocally states exactly what is to apply in the situation being described but you want to argue they were wrong and 'didn't mean it, those stupid 12 year olds'

I can see how you would think it was 17.6 c....but only because you didn't know 17.6g was there and trumped it.
Why not just say. 'Didn't realise that law was there...I would have got that decision wrong . Thanks for letting me know. BTW I think it's a stupid law and flies in the face of 17.6c..and this is why."


We have this awesome thing called National Broadband Network. Paid a shite load for it. One day it will work!

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 04:11
I can see how you would think it was 17.6 c....but only because you didn't know 17.6g was there and trumped it.
Why not just say. 'Didn't realise that law was there...I would have got that decision wrong . Thanks for letting me know. BTW I think it's a stupid law and flies in the face of 17.6c..and this is why."


Because I DID realise the law was there. I PMed The Fat yesterday about it straight after my post #4 BEFORE any of the discussion started about this! OK!!

Also, I reject the notion that 17.6 (g) trumps 17.6 (c).

I have seen referees apply 17.6 (c) to that exact situation at grass roots and elite level in this year's ITM Cup and Super Rugby. Its quite rare that a ball is ripped away inside a maul after the maul is formed (as in, after the referee has called "maul") end even more rare for the ball then not to be cleared. This is really only a ½ - 1% scenario at the outside, so frankly, it is not worth arguing about anyway.

menace
30-11-15, 04:11
Good...unfortunately I can't tell anything on conversations I've not seen. Ok!? So really no need to yell.

As per the <1% - we are in total agreement as per my post #19, therefore it seems odd that you're at such pains to prove you are right and the laws supposedly wrong...when it doesn't matter. :shrug:

Over and out.

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 04:11
Law 17.6 (b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

(c) follows on from (b)

I agree, it certainly does


and is the sanction if (b) occurs. (b) requires the ball be "unplayable"

No it doesn't
"A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered,

There is no requirement for the ball to be unplayable. A collapsed maul also meets the requirement for an unsuccessful end to a maul... this is what is meant by OR

In the case in the OP THE MAUL COLLAPSES!!!

A referee is quite within his rights to stop a maul, even if the ball is playable,for example, if he believes the collapse presents danger to the players.

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 05:11
Good...unfortunately I can't tell anything on conversations I've not seen. Ok!? So really no need to yell.

As per the <1% - we are in total agreement as per my post #19, therefore it seems odd that you're at such pains to prove you are right and the laws supposedly wrong...when it doesn't matter. :shrug:

Over and out.

I'm not trying to prove anything, and its not about who's right and who is wrong. I freely acknowledged earlier that both C) and D) could be taken to be right or wrong (posts #4 and #12)

All I am saying what I would do given the circumstances in the OP. (it was your post #9 that prompted my response actually)

I see a conflict in the Laws and make the best and most equitable decision I can, and one that I can sell to the players and back up in Law to my assessor. You lot are the ones whining on about my decision being right or wrong. not me.

menace
30-11-15, 05:11
Yes I acknowledge that you did say C or D.

Perhaps it's that you've not convinced quite a few of us why B should get the feed when it's clear as writ that says A get the put in - but you're not convinced with that argument. I agree that if you can sell it to the players and you're assessor then a good job has been done....that of course doesn't make it correct. I think we've all managed to sell an incorrect decision to players at some stage (easy when they don't know the laws :grin:)

You think it's equitable to give feed to B, I think it's equitable to give feed to A....and we both think that is backed by law...clearly the laws are a problem. Argument is clearly going in circles now.

Next question!

Dickie E
30-11-15, 07:11
I
In the case in the OP THE MAUL COLLAPSES!!!

A referee is quite within his rights to stop a maul, even if the ball is playable,for example, if he believes the collapse presents danger to the players.

Well, the OP actually says:
The maul then goes to ground legally, and the ball is available to be played at the back of the maul, but does not look likely to be played immediately by Team B.

In the case of a dangerous collapse, it could be argued that the referee, by blowing his whistle, has deemed the situation unplayable. But either way, the scrum feed will go to team B.

Phil E
30-11-15, 12:11
A very interesting discussion.
Got me thinking a lot.
Thanks Menace and all contributors.

.......now let's all count to 10 before the next Menace conundrum!

Rich_NL
30-11-15, 12:11
I can't see for the life of me why team B would get the feed. The argument seems to rest on team A bringing the ball into a maul that ended with an unplayable ball, which is clearly not the case.

Team B had a playable ball, they didn't play it; this goes against the principle of continuity, so team A get the feed.

Taff
30-11-15, 13:11
I can't see for the life of me why team B would get the feed. The argument seems to rest on team A bringing the ball into a maul that ended with an unplayable ball, which is clearly not the case. Team B had a playable ball, they didn't play it; this goes against the principle of continuity, so team A get the feed.
Exactly my logic too. Luckily it's an academic discussion only, because in reality as soon as Team B hear "use it " ... they will.

menace
30-11-15, 14:11
A very interesting discussion.
Got me thinking a lot.
Thanks Menace and all contributors.

.......now let's all count to 10 before the next Menace conundrum!

I can't take credit for the question....that goes to Fat. (He's the one that throws the grenade and runs!:biggrin:)

Pinky
30-11-15, 14:11
Well, I disagree.

Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began.

Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.

But Ian, that bit of law applies to an unsuccessful end to a maul. A b/c going off his feet is not a collapse, nor an unsuccessful end if the ball is available to be played immediately. Also the second para of 17.6 (g) is also applied to a maul that is on its feet and stops in the "reasonable amount of time" the ref allows for the ball to come out. In both these circumstances, if the ball is available to be played and is not played, I would award the scrum to the team not in possession regardless of whoever took the ball into the maul in the first place.

Taff
30-11-15, 15:11
... Law 17.6 (c) .... Its clear, its unequivocal and it is not contravened anywhere in the Law, except in the specified exception, when the ball is caught direct from an opponent's kick.
When you bear in mind other laws, I just reckon that what the 12 yr old said - isn't what he meant. The law reads as though they had not considered the possibility of possession being lost in the maul. Or they assumed that if possession was lost, the ball would be chucked out asap and therefore we would have a successful end to the maul.

OB..
30-11-15, 16:11
Also, I reject the notion that 17.6 (g) trumps 17.6 (c).
17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?

didds
30-11-15, 16:11
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds

talbazar
30-11-15, 16:11
17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?

I must confess I haven't read the whole of the 7 pages... But:
If the ball is on the ground and available, it's not a maul anymore but a ruck and 16.7.(c) may apply.
So I guess 17.6.(g) may apply in the same way: when the ball is clearly won but not used by the team in possession.

16.7.(c) When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.

Doesn't that make sense?

Pierre.

Womble
30-11-15, 16:11
" if the ball is available to be played and is not played, I would award the scrum to the team not in possession regardless of whoever took the ball into the maul in the first place"

Agree with pinky

OB..
30-11-15, 17:11
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
diddsSo you are happy that Team B can with impunity ignore the call to "use it"?

RobLev
30-11-15, 17:11
Why complicate matters and use laws that aren't written? Rather than second guess what the 12 year old may or may not have meant?

Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds

"Laws that aren't written"? What's 17.6(g) then:

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.

When the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

If the intention was as you suggest, that final section need not have been written; but it was, so why not apply it?

didds
30-11-15, 17:11
So you are happy that Team B can with impunity ignore the call to "use it"?

rather I am saying that the call of "use it" has no basis.

Its bascially a situation that isn;t adequately covered in law. At best it requires shoe horning other laws to make "something" work. It doesn;t happen that very often, and in reality I reckon any ref coud sell the decsion on the FoP. As for an assessment, as there is no actual law in place covering it I would hope an asessor's position would be looking for an ability to sell the decision. I fully appreciate that you have a far better vision of whether that is true or correct or not of course OB.

Of course, I see that the obvious counter to my first response would be "so you'd let the team not using it just sit there all day". My suggestion to that would be to just blow for unplayable (no one wants to pl;ay it) and eitrher award a turnover ball scrum, or a scrum to team going forward.


All this based on my ujderstandiong of stuff debated here befopre and laws

- UIOLI maul
- ball on floor with body from maul doesnt; equal a ruck, but an (almost unsuccessful) end to a maul.
- there is no "use it" call for mauls.

the basic caveat I'd place on that is the ball on floor but no bodies from a mul now becomes a ruck (AIUI from these forums) and then ruck law with "use it" could be applied.

Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds

crossref
30-11-15, 18:11
Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds

exactly - so I can't quite understand why it's raised so much passion.

and when it does happen I am sure that every single one of us would have completely forgotten what this thread said, and would no doubt make a sensible call on the field, that the players would go along with.

RobLev
30-11-15, 18:11
rather I am saying that the call of "use it" has no basis.

Its bascially a situation that isn;t adequately covered in law. At best it requires shoe horning other laws to make "something" work. It doesn;t happen that very often, and in reality I reckon any ref coud sell the decsion on the FoP. As for an assessment, as there is no actual law in place covering it I would hope an asessor's position would be looking for an ability to sell the decision. I fully appreciate that you have a far better vision of whether that is true or correct or not of course OB.

Of course, I see that the obvious counter to my first response would be "so you'd let the team not using it just sit there all day". My suggestion to that would be to just blow for unplayable (no one wants to pl;ay it) and eitrher award a turnover ball scrum, or a scrum to team going forward.


All this based on my ujderstandiong of stuff debated here befopre and laws

- UIOLI maul
- ball on floor with body from maul doesnt; equal a ruck, but an (almost unsuccessful) end to a maul.
- there is no "use it" call for mauls.

the basic caveat I'd place on that is the ball on floor but no bodies from a mul now becomes a ruck (AIUI from these forums) and then ruck law with "use it" could be applied.

Q: when was the last time the rest of us saw this scenario?

didds

Didds: 17.6(g)very clearly provides a legal basis for the call of "Use it". Why do you say otherwise?

Ian_Cook
30-11-15, 19:11
But Ian, that bit of law [17.6 (c)] applies to an unsuccessful end to a maul.

Everything under 17.6, from (a) to (h) relates to what happens when a maul ends unsuccessfully - that's what the title of the clause is....

"LAW 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL"

There are three, and only three criteria for when a maul ends successfully.

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.

A call of "use it" is not one of them! The 'use it" call only results in a successful end to the maul if the ball actually comes out, not just when it becomes available. If the "use it" scenario was considered a successful end to a maul, it would be part of 17.5 and there would not be a scrum awarded after it unless some other infringement had occurred (e.g. knock-on by the SH)

I consider the failure of a team to use the available ball no different than their failure to make the ball available in the first place. The end result should be the same - the ball is turned over to the team that did not take the ball into the maul, otherwise, the team that lost the ball benefits by their incompetence/lack of skill.


17.6 (g) [...] the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.
Under what circumstances would you action this bit of law?

When possession of the ball had not changed once the maul had formed, because I don't believe the Law drafter considered 17.6 (c), or the possibility that the team in possession might not be the team that took that ball into the maul, when they drafted this Law.


When you bear in mind other laws, I just reckon that what the 12 yr old said - isn't what he meant. The law reads as though they had not considered the possibility of possession being lost in the maul. Or they assumed that if possession was lost, the ball would be chucked out asap and therefore we would have a successful end to the maul.

THIS!


Its the team that takes the ball into a maul's responsibility to get it out. They didn't do that. If they are so poor as to actually lose the ball in that maul that's their problem. Don't get isolated, and have better in contact skills.

Turnover ball.
didds

100% agree. That is where I am coming from, reward excellence not mediocrity!

OB..
30-11-15, 23:11
Ian - on the one hand you argue that we must follow what the law says in 17.6 (c), and then you argue we shoud not follow what it says in 17.6 (g) because you don't think that is what was meant.

As I have said many times, I think the laws need to be interpreted sensibly in terms of the overall benefit to the game. In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.

Didds - selling your decision to the players is indeed one of the skills a referee needs, but selling the wrong decision (if it is indeed wrong) rather spoils that. If a referee has to think on his feet at an unusual situation, I would give him credit for a sensible approach, even if we agreed in the debrief that it was wrong. It would be a learning point, but not a significant criticism.

didds
01-12-15, 00:12
Didds: 17.6(g)very clearly provides a legal basis for the call of "Use it". Why do you say otherwise?

true! doh!

Dickie E
01-12-15, 01:12
In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.



Totally agree. If the referee never gets to the point of saying "use it" because the ball is unplayable or there is a safety issue then scrum feed to team not taking ball into maul applies.

The Fat
01-12-15, 02:12
I can't take credit for the question....that goes to Fat. (He's the one that throws the grenade and runs!:biggrin:)

Haha. That made me chuckle.
Have been sitting back watching proceedings with interest.
I was confident that it would create some discussion, but I didn't think it would get to 8 pages!!! But then I thought, "Leggings", and suddenly 8 pages transforms into a quick chat.
Will post my thoughts re the OP tonight along with the correct answer and a very interesting stat on the number of ref's who get the answer wrong under exam conditions.
Thanks to everyone for participating.
My next thread should get to a conclusion a bit quicker than this one.

Ian_Cook
01-12-15, 02:12
Ian - on the one hand you argue that we must follow what the law says in 17.6 (c), and then you argue we shoud not follow what it says in 17.6 (g) because you don't think that is what was meant.

I argue that the Law as it stood previously applied to all cases where a Maul ended unsuccessfully, except 17.6 (h) where a particular set of circumstances regarding how the maul was formed lead to a different result.

The only essential difference between 17.6 (c) and 17.6 (g) with regards to who gets the ball is who had the ball in their possession at the time the maul was formed. If there was no change of possession then the outcome of the two Laws would be the same.

I believe the failure of the drafter of 17-6 (g) to recognise the provision for who took the ball in, is an oversight,. Its not as if this sort of thing hasn't happened before (the PK/FK mark in goal & 5m cock-up. the SH offside Law cock-up after the ELVs were formalised, and of course the famous conflict between Law20.2 (j) "stationary and parallel" and Law 20.5 "no delay".. the latter of which we (guess what) completely ignore because (guess what) its wrong!!


As I have said many times, I think the laws need to be interpreted sensibly in terms of the overall benefit to the game. In this case, it makes no sense to me for a team to be entitled to ignore the instruction to "use it" and then benefit from the award of a scrum.

And to me, it makes no sense for a team whose contact skills are so lacking that they are unable to retain their own ball in the maul, to then be given the ball back - once you lose it, you don't get to use it. The whole point of 17.6 (c) is to make the team taking the ball in the maul responsible for retaining the ball or making it available; I do not believe the Law drafters would intentionally subvert the intent of this existing Law.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just saying what I would do in that situation and how I would justify it to the players and the assessor.

Pinky
01-12-15, 03:12
[QUOTE=Ian_Cook;308848]Everything under 17.6, from (a) to (h) relates to what happens when a maul ends unsuccessfully - that's what the title of the clause is....

"LAW 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL"

Ian there are plenty of places in the law book where the clause titles are not the full story. 17.6 d, e and g need not relate to unsuccessful ends. For me, the unlabelled paragraph after 17 g relates to all circumstances where the referee thinks the ball is available, but the opportunity to continue to maul is no longer available. It is clear in that para that the consequence of not using the ball is determined not by who took the ball into the maul, but by who has possession to use it.

Pinky
01-12-15, 03:12
[QUOTE=didds;308842]rather I am saying that the call of "use it" has no basis.

Don't think elite refs agree. Joubert says "use it, once" if a maul stops. That annoys me!

The Fat
01-12-15, 08:12
OK.
The good news is that during the exam, I got this question correct.
The bad news is that because of a f@#% up in putting the exam together, the system recognises a different answer as being correct (the irony of which will become apparent later on) and therefore my recorded score shows that I am dumber than I actually am:wink:

According to the brains trust at the ARU, the correct answer is C (which is the statement that is wrong).

QUESTION 2 MAUL

Team A takes the ball into a maul. Team B "rips" the ball away from Team A within the maul. The maul then goes to ground legally, and the ball is available to be played at the back of the maul, but does not look likely to be played immediately by Team B. Which of the following statements is wrong?

A) The referee should call for Team B to "Use it!"

B) Team B has 5 seconds to use the ball after being told to use it by the referee.

C) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team B, because Team B did not take the ball into the maul initially.

D) If Team B does not use the ball within 5 seconds after being told to use it, the referee awards a scrum to Team A, because the ball was not used in time by Team B.


Take note any Aussie refs doing your L2 accreditation, it's in the exam.

An interesting statistic is that 83% of the referees who have completed the exam answered (D).
"Ahhhaaaa!" I hear the supporters of answer (D) exclaim, but don't get too excited, what the stats don't reveal is how many of that 83% didn't cotton onto the "Use it" call and the associated 5 seconds having been added to the LoTG and they just went for the team that didn't originally take the ball into the maul.

Basically, the referee has given Team B a directive that they have chosen to ignore. The turn over scrum against the team that fails to use the ball is consistent with the "Use it" call and time frame in other phases of the game.

Personally, I believe that the way the law is written could lead some/many to consider 17.6(g) a contradiction of the norm and 17.6(c).
This could have been avoided by making and listing 17.6(g) as an "Exception" to 17.6(c).
However, close scrutiny of 17.6(g) shows that the wording is quite specific as to who MUST act following the referee's direction to "Use it".

crossref
01-12-15, 10:12
TBH I am not sure that's a very good question for a Law exam. It's a bit tricksy, I wonder how much that really helps the ARU sort the good refs from the not so good.

I mean in practice : has anyone EVER had a team fail to obey a command to USE IT, within 5 seconds? It just doesn't happen. This whole discussion is about something that is never going to happen on the field.

I suspect it was set by the kind of ref who enjoys delivering the occasional 'gotcha' to the players....

Ian_Cook
01-12-15, 10:12
Personally, I believe that the way the law is written could lead some/many to consider 17.6(g) a contradiction of the norm and 17.6(c).

This could have been avoided by making and listing 17.6(g) as an "Exception" to 17.6(c).
However, close scrutiny of 17.6(g) shows that the wording is quite specific as to who MUST act following the referee's direction to "Use it".

THIS! If 83% of referees get it "wrong" then that is a clear indication that the two Laws are contradictory and badly worded

Listing it the way you suggest or even with its own subheading (as I have below) would be an indication to everyone reading it that the drafter understood its implications for 17.6 (c). The fact that they didn't list it that way tells me that they did not check the rest of the Law first to see what impact it would have.

If it had been listed like this....

17.6 (g) Scrum after a maul where the ball is available. 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. When the ball is available to be played the referee will call “Use it!” after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and, notwithstanding Law 17.6 (c), the team not in possession of the ball is awarded the throw-in.

... then C) would be the obvious and only correct choice.

That they didn't do something like this is just bloody typical of the WR law drafters.

The Fat
01-12-15, 11:12
TBH I am not sure that's a very good question for a Law exam. It's a bit tricksy, I wonder how much that really helps the ARU sort the good refs from the not so good.

I mean in practice : has anyone EVER had a team fail to obey a command to USE IT, within 5 seconds? It just doesn't happen. This whole discussion is about something that is never going to happen on the field.

I suspect it was set by the kind of ref who enjoys delivering the occasional 'gotcha' to the players....

I do agree with you and especially the bit I have made bold.
The whole approach of the "wrong statement" being the correct answer messes with my brain when you have a 90% pass mark.
You want to be tested on your knowledge of the laws in relatively quick situations. You don't get 5 minutes to read/assess a situation on the field. Why word questions in tricky ways in an exam situation?

crossref
01-12-15, 11:12
The whole approach of the "wrong statement" being the correct answer messes with my brain when you have a 90% pass mark.


I agree with that as as well, wholeheartedly -- it's a referee Law exam not a bloody IQ test.

menace
01-12-15, 11:12
THIS! If 83% of referees get it "wrong" then that is a clear indication that the two Laws are contradictory and badly worded
.
To a degree...but probably more likely a great proportion couldn't be arsed reading the laws (and it's an open book exam!). :wink:




If it had been listed like this....

17.6 (g) Scrum after a maul where the ball is available. .

... then C) would be the obvious and only correct choice.

That they didn't do something like this is just bloody typical of the WR law drafters.

I get your point about a sub heading and agree...just not this because a scrum after a maul that appears to be successfully ended cause it's available sounds.....odd.

The Fat
01-12-15, 11:12
To a degree...but probably more likely a great proportion couldn't be arsed reading the laws (and it's an open book exam!). :wink:


Correct.
I also suspect that many of them didn't read past 17.6(c)