|
|
 |
[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
Awcomeonref!
|
Wed, 17 September 08 11:16 GMT
|
Thanks folks, you've made it much clearer.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 16 September 08 23:39 GMT
|
<<I have always considered the maul turned to a ruck scenario, when the mauling side place the ball on the ground, or when a player takes the ball to ground, if not used immediately and the ball is not immediately available, to be an unsuccesful end to a maul and therefore ball is turned over to the opposition with a scrum.>>
Agree with OB that a ruck could only follow a maul if the ball alone hit the deck. Otherwise, the player with the ball (who alone is entitled to go to ground in the maul) who gets it to ground would create a ruck, and the unsuccessful end would result in a put-in to the side going forward. But as we know, use it or lose it applies to the unsuccessful maul in such circumstances. So best not to think in terms of the ruck.
The ELV has a rather more complex effect on the maul. If a defending (red) player pulls down a member of the ball-carrier's team (blue), but other reds remain bound to or caught in the maul - play on, as the maul persists. If as a result of the red pull down, there are no more red players engaged in the maul - maul is successfully ended, preventive call of "use it!" required to stave off an obstruction PK. If the maul is in danger of trundling over pulled down players or puller-down - whistle for a safety stoppage, scrum to the side moving forward.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 16 September 08 15:02 GMT
|
Under the old laws, a player could turn a maul into a ruck by letting the ball alone go to ground, as long as it did not go forward.
However if the ball carrier went to ground, it was still a maul. If the ball was immediately available you could have a successful end; otherwise it was unsuccessful and a turnover.
The ELV adds a new criterion for the successful end to a maul:
ELV 17.5 (b) A player may pull a maul to the ground providing that player does so by pulling another player in the maul down from the shoulders to the hips.
Presumably if he merely pulls down one player (not the ball carrier) then he has only pulled a player down, not the maul.
If he pulls the ball carrier down, I see no reason why the previous ruling should not obtain.
|
|
|
Awcomeonref!
|
Tue, 16 September 08 13:48 GMT
|
Can I just seek a bit of clarification about the ending of a maul, particularly when the maul has been pulled down as allowable by the ELV's.
Law 17.5 - Succesful end to a maul -
"A maul ends succesfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul. A maul ends succesfully when the ball is on the ground, or is on or over the goal line.".
I have always considered the maul turned to a ruck scenario, when the mauling side place the ball on the ground, or when a player takes the ball to ground, if not used immediately and the ball is not immediately available, to be an unsuccesful end to a maul and therefore ball is turned over to the opposition with a scrum.I had a "discussion" with the skipper of one of the teams I reffed this weekend (level 8), who said that I was wrong and it should not have been a turnover and perhaps I would like to read the ELV's carefully. I stuck by the decision and continued as I have always done, turning over thes "unsuccesful" mauls. Could I just have a definitive opinion on this? Refs I have spoken to in my society agree with my viewpoint.
I suspect that this as been covered previously, but I can't find it any of the previous threads.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
