Who gets scrum after maul pushed into in-goal ?

[Taff]

Correct - you cannot penalise collapsing maul or scrum if it is in-goal. A "Maul" that goes in-goal is fiarly commonly collapsed, as the ball carrier tries to score. A scrum to be judged as ended due to going in-goal, is when the ball crosses the line. Then you can collpase it - but to what benefit? Better to get a hand to the ball (try or make it dead).

OK, we know that logically the defending team shouldn't and wouldn't want to collapse a "scrum" or "maul" once it goes in-goal, but I think CTPEs point was what happens if they do it anyway? You can't give a PK for an offence which doesn't exist, because the scrum and maul finished as soon as the ball was over the goal line.

My logic is if collapsing the maul is dangerous play on the FoP (and don't forget that the IRB toyed with the idea of allowing a maul to be collapsed just 3 or 4 years ago) then the exact same action in-goal is also dangerous play. Different offence - but the same sanction.

[FlipFlop]

Then everytime a maul goes into in-goal and the attackers collapse it (as they always will) - you penalise it, rather than award the try?

[OB..]

When a maul goes into in-goal, the defenders are expecting the attackers to try and ground the ball, which may mean collapsing the ex-maul. Collapsing is no longer a specific 17.2 (e) offence, so you are back to Law 10 to judge dangerous play.

[talbazar]

Then everytime a maul goes into in-goal and the attackers collapse it (as they always will) - you penalise it, rather than award the try?

I guess 99% of the time in that situation, it's not exactly collapsing. The ball carrier would go to ground the score the try. So we are not in the same momentum as someone else pulling a leg up or a jersey down to have the entire group of players on the deck...
My 2 cents.
Pierre.

[Davet]

If it's not a maul how can you ping for collapsing a maul?

Ball carrier will almost always drop to the ground, if he makes it with the ball under him then its a try (or touchdown if its a defender), if he doesn't make it down then its held up - and whether "he" is an attacker or a defender it's held up and we have a 5m scrum attacking ball.

Don't dilly around - if the ball is not grounded very quickly then call held up. Prolonging it to see what happens just creates flashpoints and safety issues. Act quickly.

[OB..]

13. — Maul in Goal. When a player holding theball is mauled by one or more of the opposite side outside goal, and carried inside goal by the scrummage, then only those who are touching the ball with their hands may continue in the maul inside goal, and when a player has once released his hold of the ball, he may not again join in the maul, and if he attempt to do so, may be dragged out by the opposite side. (The object of such maul being, of course, to touch the ball down.)

From the Rules of 1866.

[The Fat]

If it's not a maul how can you ping for collapsing a maul?

Ball carrier will almost always drop to the ground, if he makes it with the ball under him then its a try (or touchdown if its a defender), if he doesn't make it down then its held up - and whether "he" is an attacker or a defender it's held up and we have a 5m scrum attacking ball.

Don't dilly around - if the ball is not grounded very quickly then call held up. Prolonging it to see what happens just creates flashpoints and safety issues. Act quickly.

Agree with Davet's comments above and that is how we are taught to manage such situations.

Ball crosses goal line, look for grounding. Don't allow prolonged wrestling and if not grounded quickly then the call of held up is made. Simple.

[Dixie]

When a maul goes into in-goal, the defenders are expecting the attackers to try and ground the ball, which may mean collapsing the ex-maul. Collapsing is no longer a specific 17.2 (e) offence, so you are back to Law 10 to judge dangerous play.

Check again OB. As mentioned on the previous page, nothing in law 10 deals with a collapsed maul-like thing in in-goal.

[OB..]

Check again OB. As mentioned on the previous page, nothing in law 10 deals with a collapsed maul-like thing in in-goal.

I didn't claim it did. I merely said you can use Law 10 to deal with unspecified dangerous play.