Law Question Thread

I know there is a law forum, but it seems to get under used.

So I thought I would create a specific Law thread for the Perth Metro supporters/players/coaches/refs.

There are enough refs on here and it saves hijacking other threads into law clarifications.

So if you have a question, post it here and we'll see if we can enlighten you. However what we will tell you is only what the law is, and how we are told to referee it. Whether you or we agree with it is somewhat irrelevant, we don't make the laws.

I reserve the right to bitch and moan about the refs like any true rugby lover!

That being said, thanks for giving me the opportunity to ask the question about all this!

He's been doing it all day Sir!

Question: In an earlier thread you mentioned if players in a maul go to ground - say collapsed maul - and one player from each team contesting, it becomes a ruck.

Why then in so many circumstances you hear a ref call out "it's a maul" when ball carrier is held up, then maul collapses and tackler can effecyively smother the ball which results in ref blowing it up and giving possesion to defending team. So much of the time, you still have players at the the fringes of this collapsed maul on their feet so it is then a ruck and tackler must roll away??? should he not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hansie

Question: In an earlier thread you mentioned if players in a maul go to ground - say collapsed maul - and one player from each team contesting, it becomes a ruck.

Why then in so many circumstances you hear a ref call out "it's a maul" when ball carrier is held up, then maul collapses and tackler can effecyively smother the ball which results in ref blowing it up and giving possesion to defending team. So much of the time, you still have players at the the fringes of this collapsed maul on their feet so it is then a ruck and tackler must roll away??? should he not?

---

Hansie, I know this has been discussed many times, and the IRB even issued a clarification in 2011/2012.

If a maul collapses (legally), and the ball gets to ground, then it becomes a ruck and ruck law applies I.e. players must move away and release ball. If maul collapses and ball doesn't get to ground, it is deemed a collapsed maul - if one of the players has remained holding the ball and is on feet, then person holding ball and on ground must release (penalty). Anybody laying on the ball carrier in a collapsed maul (not a ruck) does not have to roll - it is scrum turnover to team not in possession at commencement of maul. Some refs will incorrectly tell players go roll in this instance - remember if ball is on ground then it is a ruck and they do have to roll. Ireland use this maul / scrum turnover defence well as other teams are now doing it. Hope this clarifies
Posted via Mobile Device

Purfectly, and yes I had the Irish defensive strategy in mind.

I do like the 5 second use or lose it law at rucks, but am waiting with baited breath for the time I will see it getting used more regularly than the one occassion, I think the Reds were pinged in attack.

If I was to be critical of referee consistency I would like to point to the lack of use of yellow cards in the red zone.

Frankly I think in all upper grade matches, Prems through to S15 and test matches, refs should include in their pre-match chat with front rowers, teams and captain, that second PK infringement in Red zone will automatically lead to yellow card and every PK thereafter.

This may mean a team losing 2 or even 3 players, but people have paid good money for S15 and test matches to watch a fast moving, free flowing game with lots of points being scored. Whilst we are a game we are also now entertainment as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hansie

Purfectly, and yes I had the Irish defensive strategy in mind.

I do like the 5 second use or lose it law at rucks, but am waiting with baited breath for the time I will see it getting used more regularly than the one occassion, I think the Reds were pinged in attack.

If I was to be critical of referee consistency I would like to point to the lack of use of yellow cards in the red zone.

Frankly I think in all upper grade matches, Prems through to S15 and test matches, refs should include in their pre-match chat with front rowers, teams and captain, that second PK infringement in Red zone will automatically lead to yellow card and every PK thereafter.

This may mean a team losing 2 or even 3 players, but people have paid good money for S15 and test matches to watch a fast moving, free flowing game with lots of points being scored. Whilst we are a game we are also now entertainment as well.

---

The Brumbies wouldnt have any players left on the field if this was the case.

OK Refs, riddle me this.

Ball is near the goal line, the attacking team are running the whole pick n drive smash it into the tryline strategy, the defense are turning the ball runner back into the pile of bodies remaining from the previous ruck. You see it all the time.

Let's say the defense runs the attacker into this pile of bodies and he ends up on top of it, with his mate pushing him forward (as is typically the case in this instance) and several tacklers pushing him back (again, very typical) the ball is off the ground, being held up by the dogpile and at least one player from either team is bound to the ball carrier (who is usually by now lying on a pile of about four blokes)

Ruck or Maul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GIGS20

OK Refs, riddle me this.

Ball is near the goal line, the attacking team are running the whole pick n drive smash it into the tryline strategy, the defense are turning the ball runner back into the pile of bodies remaining from the previous ruck. You see it all the time.

Let's say the defense runs the attacker into this pile of bodies and he ends up on top of it, with his mate pushing him forward (as is typically the case in this instance) and several tacklers pushing him back (again, very typical) the ball is off the ground, being held up by the dogpile and at least one player from either team is bound to the ball carrier (who is usually by now lying on a pile of about four blokes)

Ruck or Maul?

---

Sorry GIGS, but Law 15 Tackle says in part

Quote:

---

15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.

---

If, in your scenario, the ball carrier is held as he lands on this dogpile then it be a tackle.

I concur with Ecky (thanks Ecky)

If prolonged wrestling then occurs then I'd be looking to award scrum to team going forward (which by your description Gigs 'could' be argued to be the tacklers), however if there's doubt about who's moving forward, scrum 'attacking' team
Posted via Mobile Device

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAFFA

The Brumbies wouldnt have any players left on the field if this was the case.

---

They would only do it once or twice. Actually neither would the AB's.

My old coach used to say "if you're holding the ball you're in a maul, if you're in the muck you're in a ruck".
Posted via Mobile Device

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RumourMonger

My mouth waters at the prospect of being in a ruck with Hansie lying on the ground and all over the ball below me! You'd have no chance of rolling away then!

---

As long as it isn't a collapsed maul :)
Posted via Mobile Device