PDA

View Full Version : Length of time for ball in scrum?



redhanded
23-02-15, 11:02
A question from a non-ref... in the Ulster v Treviso Pro12 game weekend before last, several scrums took over 20 seconds to complete, the longest taking 27 seconds.

The Treviso scrum half put the ball in but the Treviso hooker didn't hook, so the ball just sat there in the middle of the scrum. Both sides were evenly matched so the scrum didn't move, until eventually after 20 seconds or more, one or other side got so knackered that the scrum moved and the ball could be played. I've never played front row but I assume the Treviso hooker didn't hook because of the pressure they were under and they didn't want to get pushed off the ball.

Can a ref instruct a team to "use it" when the ball is just sitting in the middle of a static scrum and if so, how long do they wait?

Phil E
23-02-15, 12:02
He can say "Use It" if the ball is at the back of the scrum, and the scrum is stationary.
But there's little point saying "Use It" if its sat in the middle of the tunnel. Who is he saying it to, how can they use it?
It should be a reset, as below.

20.4
(e)
When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
(f)
When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

redhanded
23-02-15, 12:02
Gotcha, thanks. So the stationary scrums should really have resulted in a turnover and reset.

Phil E
23-02-15, 13:02
Gotcha, thanks. So the stationary scrums should really have resulted in a turnover and reset.

Reset, yes.

Turnover? Not in your scenario, since neither team had possession. Reset, same put in.

OB..
23-02-15, 13:02
Has anybody ever seen or used the turnover provisions Phil lists?
I have heard "use it" when the ball was being held at the base of a scrum for too long, but I don't recall any turnovers.

(At least the ball stationary in the tunnel proves it was thrown in straight!)

Dixie
23-02-15, 16:02
Turnover? Not in your scenario, since neither team had possession. Reset, same put in. Interesting point, raised by the OP's very valid question and Phil E's perfectly accurate initial response.

So at the start of the scrum, one #9 clearly has possession. He's feeding a scrum that we characterise as "his team's scrum". SO when Blue 9 has the put-in, we say it is a Blue scrum. Is not possession then theirs to lose, so that when the ball sits in the middle of the scrum, they have not yet lost it. That would mean that a turnover would, in fact, apply - which seems to me to be the most appropriate outcome of failing to hook your own ball when you have all the available advantages.

buff
23-02-15, 16:02
I think possession means someone has to have the ball in their feet. In the case of a wheeled scrum, 20.11(b) indicates that the team not in possession at the wheel gets the next put-in. In this case, possession refers to actual possession, not the put in, does it not? The team that did not put in but steals and is then wheeled loses the put-in for the reset.

crossref
23-02-15, 17:02
it's quite an unusual scenario, isn't it? Its hard to imagine the scrum remaining stationary, with ball not moving, long enough for you to need to call a holt.
If you do, I agree with Dixie, the team who put it in must be the ones held to be in possession, unless and until the other team get it.

Browner
23-02-15, 17:02
Agree, possession is yours until your opposition take it into/gain their possession.

Similarly, It's the standard default position for Ruck or Maul if 'possession' doubts exist.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
23-02-15, 17:02
Has anybody ever seen or used the turnover provisions Phil lists?
I have heard "use it" when the ball was being held at the base of a scrum for too long, but I don't recall any turnovers.



A few years ago I recall George Clancy(?) in the Amlin Final shouting use it to Stade Francais (v Harlequins) at the last play of the game. SF were looking for a PK and match winning chance. SF did play it and ballsed it up. Michael Cheika was quite animated at the end. How revved up would he have been if GC had just gone peep "turnover" - "oh Full Time peep peep peeeeeeeeeeeeeep!"?

Cheika's thrombo was derived from the assertion that GC had not called use it at a scrum all game until the 79.999999th minute.

chrismtl
23-02-15, 17:02
I would argue that as soon as the ball leaves the scrum halves hands and until the ball is hooked that neither team is in possession. To say that the team who puts the ball in is considered in possession would mean that the scrum half should have no obligation to put the ball in straight to allow for a fair contest to both teams. Why should it only be the feeders team that is responsible for trying to hook? The point of a straight feed is to allow both teams a chance to win the ball. Based on that I would say that the ball is not in possession of either team while it is still in the tunnel therefore reset, same team to put in. It might happen a few times, but eventually someone will try to hook to ball.

Dixie
23-02-15, 17:02
I think possession means someone has to have the ball in their feet. In the case of a wheeled scrum, 20.11(b) indicates that the team not in possession at the wheel gets the next put-in. In this case, possession refers to actual possession, not the put in, does it not? The team that did not put in but steals and is then wheeled loses the put-in for the reset. And this is a very good point. Law 20.11(b) covers the turnover in the wheel:

b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.

The idea that neither team might win possession seems to scupper my original view that possession is there to be lost. I concede the point.:clap: :clap:

Phil E
23-02-15, 18:02
I concede the point.:clap: :clap:

:Looser::Looser::Looser::Looser::wink:

Dixie
23-02-15, 20:02
:Looser::Looser::Looser::Looser::wink:

4 times looser - that's pretty loose!

Browner
04-08-15, 01:08
Has anybody ever seen or used the turnover provisions Phil lists?
I have heard "use it" when the ball was being held at the base of a scrum for too long, but I don't recall any turnovers.

(At least the ball stationary in the tunnel proves it was thrown in straight!)

Bump......

Stuck in the tunnel ..... http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/08/scrum-nerds-will-just-love-this-clip-of.html

Pegleg
04-08-15, 07:08
With sides reluctant to hook, (and I listend to an RFU Championship level scrum coach last season tell an audience that thay did not want to hook because it was putting his pack under too much risk of being shunted. So he was devising ways, basically, to keep the "hit" involved.) I guess the issues of the scrum are still far from being resolved.


Hookers will not hook a "proper" feed.

So

SHs feed crookedly

AND

Refs turn a blind eye.


The hit will be back and "full on" inside 3 seasons unless "we" (WR) sort it out.