• 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

Dropped ball in maul

Dickie E

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Yesterday's game.
Black had a solid rolling maul trundling towards Red goal line.
Numpty ball carrier in middle of Black maul loses possession and ball goes straight down to ground. He reaches down and picks it up again. What's the call?
1. Play on, no material impact?
2. Scrum Red?
3. Call "use it" or accidental offside?
4. Penalty Red, hands in ruck? or
5. Pemalty Red, truck & trailer?
 
Assuming no knock on...
The maul is over, successfully: 16.16.b
The conditions for forming a ruck have been met: 15.2

And yet I'm hesitating about the penalty. Are yoiu really really sure that didn't go forward a bit?
 
SimonSmith said:
Assuming no knock on...
The maul is over, successfully: 16.16.b
The conditions for forming a ruck have been met: 15.2

And yet I'm hesitating about the penalty. Are yoiu really really sure that didn't go forward a bit?
Click to expand...
Begs the question can a maul actually develop into a ruck directly? I'm inclined to rule unsuccessful end to a maul the moment black picked the ball back up, and award a scrum to red, but does feel odd.
 
jdeagro said:
Begs the question can a maul actually develop into a ruck directly? I'm inclined to rule unsuccessful end to a maul the moment black picked the ball back up, and award a scrum to red, but does feel odd.
Click to expand...
Law says as soon as ball hits ground maul has ended successfully.
FWIW I penalised for hands in ruck but now not 100% sure. No compaints from anyone. Maybe a scrum would have been kinder
 
Dickie E said:
Law says as soon as ball hits ground maul has ended successfully.
FWIW I penalised for hands in ruck but now not 100% sure. No compaints from anyone. Maybe a scrum would have been kinder
Click to expand...
Ah cheers, you're right, interesting. Then I'd agree with Simon's and your assessment.
 
I would go with 5 penalty red truck and trailer, maul was over and ball carrier now has created new maul with blockers in front of him
 
I'm thinking a knock on would be the easiest to sell and probably the expected outcome even if not 100% accurate.
Scrum is probably the fairest result.
 
Agree that knock on is easiest sell to everyone.
If not a knock on, then I’m calling for them to play it away immediately and penalty for obstruction if they don’t.
No ruck has formed so you calling hands in the ruck is incorrect penalty for me, although the outcome is the same as penalizing for obstruction.
 
Locke said:
Agree that knock on is easiest sell to everyone.
If not a knock on, then I’m calling for them to play it away immediately and penalty for obstruction if they don’t.
No ruck has formed so you calling hands in the ruck is incorrect penalty for me, although the outcome is the same as penalizing for obstruction.
Click to expand...
Why hasn’t a ruck formed?
 
I can understand the concept of ‘easiest’ call to make, particularly is several things happen at more or less the same time. When I am reviewing a referee I am looking for the ‘correct’ decision.
 
Balones said:
I can understand the concept of ‘easiest’ call to make, particularly is several things happen at more or less the same time. When I am reviewing a referee I am looking for the ‘correct’ decision.
Click to expand...
Me too ....but I'm also looking for a referee with empathy who can make a quick decision in an almost impossible situation and get on with the game.
These types of scenarios can get very messy very quickly....much like knowing when a ball is unplayable at a ruck.
 
I’d think accidental knock-on is the most likely outcome, not just the simplest. They slipped/dropped the ball while the maul is moving forward. In my mind, at some point that ball is going forward - either off the former BC if they’re facing forward, or the player behind them if they’re facing the back of the soon-to-be-over maul.

If no knock-on then I’d say you can say with confidence “…at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground” so by definition we now have a ruck formed and I think you’re spot on for hands in the ruck. But I’d never even considered a maul to ruck scenario before today, so if I’d seen this on the pitch I’d have been clueless.
 
Volun-selected said:
But I’d never even considered a maul to ruck scenario before today, so if I’d seen this on the pitch I’d have been clueless.
Click to expand...
Hah same, which is why I was contemplating if you can even have one directly as opposed to an unsuccessful end to a maul. But as mentioned earlier, it does fit the definition of a ruck lol.
 
I can see a penalty for hands in the ruck, a scrum for a knock-on, a scrum for accidental offside, or a penalty for deliberate offside once the ball has been picked up.

The discussion afterwards would have been interesting -perhaps the easy call (knock-on = first offence) for the first time it happened would be simplest for everyone, but I would love to hear the refs thinking.
 
Dickie determined that the dropping of the ball did not meet knock-on criteria. Therefore we move on to the next possible offence. Ball on floor, bodies over in contact. equals ruck. = no hands allowed.

Releasing the ball to the floor is not automatically a knock-on.
 
Also, don't see how accidental offside is even possible in this scenario. I know of no way a ball carrier can put themselves offsides accidentally.
 
jdeagro said:
I suppose both, but was thinking in the latter, particularly after the ball was dropped not forwards.
Click to expand...
consider a SH who goes for a run from scrum base, only to inadvertently run into his flanker who is disengaging from the scrum. If that has a material impact (eg blocking a would-be tackler), that would be accidental offside. Doesn't happen every game, but isn't rare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top