Force v Lions

[GAFFA]

The thing that gets me is there is nothing in the rules that say you must release the ball and ball carrier once a maul collapses eg a tackle. If the ball is in the middle of a maul with 10 bodies on top sure its not coming out but when it's there right in top and the half back is yanking it trying ti play the ball there should be some rule making the defense release is it can be played.
Posted via Mobile Device

[zimeric]

this is the key rule that the ref was making his decision on "(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."

however: he could quite easily have applied this rule: "A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick"
or less likely
"a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving
away from it. Sanction: Penalty kick"

[Burgs]

...assumeingly (is that a word??)...

Assumingly
Assumedly

[GIGS20]

this is the key rule that the ref was making his decision on "(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."

however: he could quite easily have applied this rule: "A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick"
or less likely
"a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving
away from it. Sanction: Penalty kick"

Or how about no player may play the ball whilst on the ground.

But really, after the first one, or defense t e second, you'd think they'd adjust their body height
Posted via Mobile Device

[stejwill]

The thing that gets me is there is nothing in the rules that say you must release the ball and ball carrier once a maul collapses eg a tackle. If the ball is in the middle of a maul with 10 bodies on top sure its not coming out but when it's there right in top and the half back is yanking it trying ti play the ball there should be some rule making the defense release is it can be played.
Posted via Mobile Device

Isn't the point here that it had happened before 4 or 5 times so why didn't the Force realise that was the ref's interpretation and play to it?
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

Biggest bummer of the game for me was umpiring - thought it was shocking at times.

Refereeing!

The thing that gets me is there is nothing in the rules that say you must release the ball and ball carrier once a maul collapses eg a tackle.

Laws!

this is the key rule that the ref was making his decision on

The key law!

or less likely
"a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving
away from it. Sanction: Penalty kick"

Well, yes, except it wasn't a tackle, so the tackle law just doesn't come into it.

...and hear hear to stejwill (except to point out it's not really the ref's interpretation, but rather it's the actual application of the actual law)

[brokendown gunfighter]

I wondered how long it would take for you to be all over this Ecky

[GIGS20]

I was Hoping you'd comment on my point Ecky. Does the mauling law override the law about supporting your own weight when playing the ball. At least three of those collapsed mauls were taken down legally by the player in possession gaining the ground, but then the defenders seemed to dive on the ball and wrap themselves around it. Clearly on one occasion, the arm that was holding the ball in the pile (unsure whether to call it a ruck, a maul or something else) belonged to a lions player lying on his back underneath the force player who took the ball in.

Is the law clear? Is there room for interpretation? The ref was certainly consistent with his applicant of this aspect as the force got one or two back late in the match for the same reason, but it made for a stodgy, boring game of rugby and would be a law which deserves looking at.

[GAFFA]

Refereeing!



Laws!



The key law!



Well, yes, except it wasn't a tackle, so the tackle law just doesn't come into it.

...and hear hear to stejwill (except to point out it's not really the ref's interpretation, but rather it's the actual application of the actual law)

Lol my bad
Posted via Mobile Device

[stejwill]

(except to point out it's not really the ref's interpretation, but rather it's the actual application of the actual law)

Point taken. They were even more stupid then.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

I was Hoping you'd comment on my point Ecky. Does the mauling law override the law about supporting your own weight when playing the ball. At least three of those collapsed mauls were taken down legally by the player in possession gaining the ground, but then the defenders seemed to dive on the ball and wrap themselves around it. Clearly on one occasion, the arm that was holding the ball in the pile (unsure whether to call it a ruck, a maul or something else) belonged to a lions player lying on his back underneath the force player who took the ball in.

Is the law clear? Is there room for interpretation? The ref was certainly consistent with his applicant of this aspect as the force got one or two back late in the match for the same reason, but it made for a stodgy, boring game of rugby and would be a law which deserves looking at.

When a maul forms it's the maul law that applies. That's it. End of story. Fini.

There are a lot of mauls that collapse (legally, of course) where the players seem to think it then turns to ruck law, or sometimes if the ball carrier is brought to ground and held that it becomes a tackle.

It doesn't. It was a maul. the maul must end successfully (by the ball coming out of it so play may continue) or the ref awards a scrum to the team who didn't start the maul.

The maul law is very clear and there in no need for interpretation due to its clarity. It may be that some refs don't referee it very well (none that I've seen recently), but it's really very clear. Knowledge of what constitutes a maul and perhaps identifying it for the players whose knowledge of such things is less than they think is paramount for the ref.

Herein lies the tactical decision-making of either team. If the player carrying the ball doesn't secure it well then the opposition will latch onto it so it can't come out, knowing they'll get the scrum feed. The player carrying it must have support, or be really, really strong in order to progress things in a maul and control it to the extent that when Sir calls for it to come out, it can come out.

[Sprogrugby]

Thank god for Ecky - this is one of the simplest yet most misunderstood areas of law.

I do have to add a caveat though - such was the confusion of this area that a clarification was sought from IRB as to who had to do what at a collapsed maul - answer is pretty much as Ecky said - if a defender has managed to wrap the ball carrier up, they do not have to roll or release them. Their reward is the scrum put in, so attacking team needs to be better at their job.

Difficulty comes when the ball actually touches the ground (not held between players off the ground) - IRB now state that this is now a ruck (sorry Ecky), and ruck law applies i.e. players must release and move away from ball.

Finally, if a ball carrier goes to ground in a collapsed maul and somebody on their feet has a hold of the ball also, the original ball carrier must make it available i.e. release it to man on feet, or risk penalty. Alternatively, a simple scrum awarded to other team for not making it available but without committing offence.

There are refs that struggle with this one, so it's no surprise supporters, coaches and players get confused.

[GIGS20]

Ecky, was that an answer to my question about on the ground.....is that legal in a maul?

[Sprogrugby]

Sorry Gigs, I got carried away.

If a defender is under the ball carrier and they are both on the ground in a collapsed maul, the defender does not have to release the ball carrier and therefore the ball - it is then a collapsed maul and scrum should go to defenders side

[palitu]

i thought that the ref was fine for that call, however i thought that a lot of the 'mauls' were actually rucks, and we were moving forward. However i had no sound, so if he call maul, then unfortunately he was right