• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

[Maul] After Maul Collapse. Can opposition play it with hands when off feet? Bath v Glos

C

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
I had a situation in an end-of-season game. Maul collapsed. Opposition player then ( off-feet) changed his bind and moved his hands onto the ball ( which was otherwise available ). He was clearly expecting that I would award him the turnover but I adjudged that his act was tantamount to playing the ball when off-feet so I penalised him and explained that he cannot go for the ball once he was part of the collapsed maul . Different if he had wrapped it up BEFORE going to ground.

Do we think Toby Falatau here has acted legally ?
What would you have given ?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Ce11YwxsGNH5VdvIVKR5kkWD3EUPFHD
 
Nah, I wouldn’t allow that, if he was fully on the ball when it went to ground he can stay on it, or get up with it, but for me that’s playing the ball on the ground. I’d like to think I would have blown for turnover scrum before he had a chance to infringe mind.
 
He should have blown earlier, I think, he was kind of waiting to see if the ball would become immediately available
 
Nah, playing the ball off his feet, not having it. Ref could have blown up slightly earlier but given that he didn't (and we're only talking a second or so) Falatau has no right to continue to play whilst on the ground.
 
Admittedly I had to watch it a few times but ,for me, I see the mai
ul collapse, the ball is on the ground and the Gloucester player is on his feet trying to play it . It looks available . Then Toby F interferes with the 'half' trying to play the ball. Hence I would penalise Toby F. The confusion often comes with players knowing that a maul is different from a ruck in that they don't have to roll away.
 
I think Law clarification 2 2011 attempts an answer to this. ARU asked:
[TEXTAREA]When a maul collapses, are players who go to ground able to interfere with the ball as it is being made available while they are still off their feet? If not, what is the sanction and what is the basis in Law?”
[/TEXTAREA]
[LAWS]If this occurs Law 17 has not been applied because the ball has not been made available immediately and the referee should have stopped the game and awarded a scrum or a penalty sanction dependent on the actions of players before. [/LAWS]Then Law 17 is now Law 16 Maul

So WR would like the referee to blow earlier too. Given that the ref didn’t blow immediately, how about [LAWS]Law 9.7a.
A player must not:
Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
[/LAWS]He knows he is off his feet, yet intentionally prevents his opponent from playing the ball. Probably with the intention of winning the scrum, so why reward him for infringing ?
 
Last edited:
Because his infringement is moot, the maul was already over and the ref should have peeped .

It's actually a really good learning point, I think, as soon as the mail goes down if the ball is not immediately available best to peep .
 
There is an audible chime on the video when the maul is over. The red original ball carrier at the chime has both knees on the ground.
 
crossref said:
Because his infringement is moot, the maul was already over and the ref should have peeped .

It's actually a really good learning point, I think, as soon as the mail goes down if the ball is not immediately available best to peep .
Click to expand...
So first infringement? Collapsed maul, ball not playable.
 
I'm with the ref. Ball not C&O available, turnover scrum.

If "immediately" roughly means the amount of time it takes to say "immediately", that ball takes too long - if it was a tackled player holding a ball that long, you'd blow it up.

And my feeling is that if you're going to be that generous to promote game continuity, you should give Faletau a warning rather than spring a gotcha on him.
 
I can't see the video ATM, my work PC won't let me open it. But if a player is off his/her feet, he/she should know that he/she is not on their feet, they can't play the the call. So, there isn't really a gotcha moment??
 
Arabcheif said:
I can't see the video ATM, my work PC won't let me open it. But if a player is off his/her feet, he/she should know that he/she is not on their feet, they can't play the the call. So, there isn't really a gotcha moment??
Click to expand...

You need to see the video really, in orde to comment on the video :-)
 
Arabcheif said:
I can't see the video ATM, my work PC won't let me open it. But if a player is off his/her feet, he/she should know that he/she is not on their feet, they can't play the the call. So, there isn't really a gotcha moment??
Click to expand...

Then you go back for the scrum turnover, and don't override it with the penalty against - that would be the gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top