PDA

View Full Version : Confusion over throw-in after wheeled scrum



Cutco
19-02-08, 20:02
Team A is awarded a scrum. Team A's scrum half throws in the ball, but Team B's hooker legally hooks the ball back. As the ball reaches Team B's 8-man, the scrum wheels past 90.

This happened to me in a match not long ago. I awarded a scrum to Team A. After the match I checked my trusty law book but could only find this:

20.11 (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 wins possession, it is thrown in by the team who previously threw in.

The wording doesn't give much to what constitutes "winning possession." Is possession won after the hook, when it reaches the 8-man's foot, or when the ball leaves the scrum?

I stand by my decision in that Team B had won the ball with the hook, but allowed what was now their scrum to be wheeled. I was wondering if anyone knew if the iRB had any rulings on this or had any thoughts on this.

didds
19-02-08, 21:02
you were bang on

Dixie
19-02-08, 22:02
I take it that a side that has control of the abll in the scrum, wherever inside the scrum it may be situated, is in possession. It follows that a side being driven backwards rapidly, for example, with the ball bobbling about in uncontrolled fashion between the legs of the 2nd and front rows, is not in possession of the ball. Throw-in to the side originally throwing in.

This is a good question, as I doubt we have uniform approaches to this question of possession. Let's see where the thread takes us ....

SimonSmith
19-02-08, 22:02
I take it that a side that has control of the abll in the scrum, wherever inside the scrum it may be situated, is in possession. It follows that a side being driven backwards rapidly, for example, with the ball bobbling about in uncontrolled fashion between the legs of the 2nd and front rows, is not in possession of the ball. Throw-in to the side originally throwing in.
Possession doesn not necessarily mean in control of. I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Cutco - seems to be an easy one, that. What gave rise to your question?

PeterH
19-02-08, 23:02
bob on cutco
but it does cause some amazement in players and speccies

Cutco
19-02-08, 23:02
I thought it was pretty easy decision as well, but when I awarded the scrum to Team A, both sides looked confused and of course Team B's sideline erupted. Like I said I turned to the Law book to double check, but found that 20.11 (b) was not the end all I hoped it would be. I've brought this up with several Ref's senior to myself and have found they have had split views. I'm really just hoping to find a common consensus on this ruling either way.

OB..
20-02-08, 00:02
There is a formal definition of possession:
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.

I think the problem arises from the shorthand phrase "turnover ball" which people take to mean that the side that threw it in loses it. They are wrong; you were right.

Dickie E
20-02-08, 04:02
Agree that Cutco was right.

In our U19 laws the team that first fed the ball would do so agian in this scenarion

Dixie
20-02-08, 09:02
I take it that a side that has control of the ball in the scrum, wherever inside the scrum it may be situated, is in possession. It follows that a side being driven backwards rapidly, for example, with the ball bobbling about in uncontrolled fashion between the legs of the 2nd and front rows, is not in possession of the ball. Throw-in to the side originally throwing in.


Possession does not necessarily mean in control of. I'm not sure I follow your logic.


There is a formal definition of possession:
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.

Given this exchange, how should we treat the situation given at the top, where the ball is uncontrolled, but in a team's half of the scrum?

beckett50
20-02-08, 09:02
They have it, and have - at some stage - had control in order to win it.:D

cymrubach
20-02-08, 10:02
Dixie, if you take your logic and follow it through, not that I would as I agree with everybody else on here. you state that if the ball is bobbling about between the front row and second row so the team was not in "control" then ask yourself who last had possesion and control, surely the scrum half who put the ball in so therefore the outcome would be the same whichever side the ball was bobbling about in...:biggrin:

KML1
20-02-08, 11:02
The original decision was the right one, but here's a thought for you: Why did it then wheel?

Whenever this has happened in my games, Im thinking of penalising the team that 'lost' the posession. OK, you have to spot something before you do so, but consider "why" as it starts to go - as you would in a normally-won scrum.

Dixie
20-02-08, 12:02
Dixie, if you take your logic and follow it through, not that I would as I agree with everybody else on here. you state that if the ball is bobbling about between the front row and second row so the team was not in "control" then ask yourself who last had possesion and control, surely the scrum half who put the ball in so therefore the outcome would be the same whichever side the ball was bobbling about in...:biggrin:
Cymyubach, this sounds like an effort to avoid engaging with the question, as the answer might damage your preconceptions. The law concedes the possibility that neither side had possession, which means in your logic that neither SH ever put the ball in. Which puts your games into the realms of the twilight zone - a place I'd rather mine were never in!

Incidentally, I don't think anyone else on here except Beckett50 has answered the question, so you are indeed in agreement with them ...

Beckett50 - red put the ball in, blue go for an 8-man shove. Red never strike the ball into the 2nd row. Blue's hooker, advancing, kicks the ball (as in the ball hits his legs and goes forward) into the Red half of the scrum. Red are going back at a rate of knots. Scrum wheels 91 degrees. Who gets the put-in?

OB..
20-02-08, 13:02
Law 20.11 does not mention control, only possession.

In Dixie's example, the ball is in Red possession, so Blue get the throw-in (subject, or course, to the highly pertinent comment by KML1).

cymrubach
20-02-08, 14:02
Cymyubach, this sounds like an effort to avoid engaging with the question, as the answer might damage your preconceptions. The law concedes the possibility that neither side had possession, which means in your logic that neither SH ever put the ball in. Which puts your games into the realms of the twilight zone - a place I'd rather mine were never in!

Incidentally, I don't think anyone else on here except Beckett50 has answered the question, so you are indeed in agreement with them ...

Dixie, not sure where your coming from here, I did engage your question where you stated that the ball was bobbling about in the 2nd row and no team had possession.... (which I disagree with because the ball is in the possession of the team with the ball in the 2nd row) but you were the one who said no side had possession at that point, so I just pointed out that if you take the law as stated, the team that was last in possession would therefore be the team of the SH who put the ball in.

The question has been ablely answered by a number of submitters including Cutco himself, who made the correct decision and was agreed with by Didds, SS, KML1, newboy and beckett.

Think you should go back to the post before you offend :wink: me with your twilight comment.

Dixie
20-02-08, 23:02
There is a formal definition of possession:
Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamís possession.


Law 20.11 does not mention control, only possession.

OB, sometimes I wonder whether you are winding us all up! First you point out that the definition of possession is that a team has the ball in its control; then you argue that control is irrelevant in a law that uses the word possession. You are clearly a lawyer, and perhaps also a statistician.:)

The definition gives as an example of control having the ball in your side of a scrum. While that ball will clearly be under control in most cases, it is not always so. My question remains; if the ball is in oyur half of the scrum but not in your control, which bit of the definition of possession applies? The active passage (which requires control) or the explanation of the active passage, which would define an out-of-control scrum as being in control?

But I sense no willingness to engage with the question, and am happy to let it drop, as people are clearly bored with it.

chopper15
20-02-08, 23:02
But I sense no willingness to engage with the question, and am happy to let it drop, as people are clearly bored with it.



Hang on ,Dixie, I know the feeling only too well!

I'll have a read and see if I can contribute.

OB..
21-02-08, 01:02
Sorry Dixie - I was in too much of a hurry. My point was that control in the normal sense of being able to control the ball is not necessary since the law says having it in your half of the scrum is all that is required for possession. What matters is possession rather than actual control. Law 20.11 specifies possession.

cymrubach
21-02-08, 10:02
Sorry Dixie - I was in too much of a hurry. My point was that control in the normal sense of being able to control the ball is not necessary since the law says having it in your half of the scrum is all that is required for possession. What matters is possession rather than actual control. Law 20.11 specifies possession.

OB, my point exactly in my previous posts....

I was only suggesting to Dixie, that if, in his opinion, neither side were in possession because HE felt neither side were in control (his words) because the ball was bobbling about, then logic should dictate to him that the last team who had possession (and control) were the team of the SH who put the ball into the scrum. Certainly not an idea I would subscribe to as a referee but would accept as an argument put forward if I was assessing someone who argued that logic.... I would however, put them right in terms of the law. :nono:

didds
21-02-08, 22:02
Given this exchange, how should we treat the situation given at the top, where the ball is uncontrolled, but in a team's half of the scrum?

Easy.

"the ball in one half of a scrum"

So the side of the scrum in which the ball is in has possession.

No matter as to whether they have it under control - gthe law doesn;t require it.

didds

didds
21-02-08, 22:02
The original decision was the right one, but here's a thought for you: Why did it then wheel?

Whenever this has happened in my games, Im thinking of penalising the team that 'lost' the posession.


why so?

wheeling is not illegal in the LotG (only in U19 variations) - so why would a wheel neccesarily be a cause for penalty?

The METHOD of wheeling MIGHT be illegal (pulling not pushing), but totally legal wheels are very possible.

didds

OB..
22-02-08, 00:02
KML1 has to be more cynical than us! He will be looking very carefully at the reason for the wheel.

At our level, it happens through loss of concentration. The scrum is so pleased to have won one against the head, that it forgets to push.

ex-lucy
22-02-08, 10:02
At our level, it happens through loss of concentration. The scrum is so pleased to have won one against the head, that it forgets to push.
whoa ! there are many reasons for wheels.... lack of concentration i would say is one of the fewer in number. That is a pretty definitive statement but is merely an assertion. You, OB, have a duty of care, as you are Yoda on matters of law, to be careful with your assertions. ;-)
a scrum is a dynamic entity with 16 people pushing and shoving at diff levels of force and direction ...

dave_clark
22-02-08, 12:02
a scrum is a dynamic entity with 16 people pushing and shoving at diff levels of force and direction ...

12 people surely? well, i never felt a second row pushing...

OB..
22-02-08, 12:02
ex-lucy - you take me too seriously.

tim White
22-02-08, 12:02
Quote:
Originally Posted by ex-lucy
a scrum is a dynamic entity with 16 people pushing and shoving at diff levels of force and direction ...

If you'd said 30 people that would describe some of my recent games;)