PDA

View Full Version : Penalty try from driving scrum?



Brian Ravenhill
10-10-05, 12:10
Reds defending a 5m scrum, 15 meters from touch. Blues dominant in scrum all afternoon. Steady drizzle all game on longish grass makes underfoot conditions a little slippery.

Blues throw ball in, steady them selves when ball is resting with No.8 then drive straight, red tight head loses footing and scrum collapses 2m from line.

Re-set scrum, blues throw ball in, steady them selves when ball is resting with No.8 then drive, 3m out scrum wheels to 45degrees, 1m out front rows disengage, blues continue on straight with ball at No.8 with red back row pushing against them, blue front row now over goal line, red scrum half goes to his knees and picks up the ball from blue No.8ís feet.

Penalty try to blue! For red scrum half taking ball out of scrum.

Any problem with that, was it still a scrum as reds had disengaged? Was it still a scrum as blue props had crossed goal line? Was red scrum half allowed to play the ball on his knees? Was red scrum half allowed to play the ball if he had remained on his feet?

Davet
10-10-05, 13:10
The Laws provide the criteria for the scrum being over. Disengaged front rows is not one. I assume the ball had not crossed the goal-line. ball No8's feet, scrum driving on steadily, scrum half is guilty of playing the ball in the scrum.

I would have no difficulty with the Penalty try.

madref
10-10-05, 14:10
Can't have a scrum in goal so nothing wrong with what scrum half did.

David

22.6 A scrum or ruck can only take place in the field of play. Therefore, if a scrum or ruck is pushed accross the goal line, a defending player may legally ground the ball as soon as the ball reaches or crosses the goal line. This results in a touch down.

Brian Ravenhill
10-10-05, 14:10
Only the front row of blue had crossed the goal line, the ball was at No.8's feet and still in play

madref
10-10-05, 15:10
Ok You are correct

Scrum was not over as ball had not crossed line, should read the info better lol.

Anyway if number 8 had picked up on a 45 degree wheeled scrum is he not off-side? as he is not the hindmost player any more flanker is ! (other thread).

David

Account Deleted
10-10-05, 15:10
Anyway if number 8 had picked up on a 45 degree wheeled scrum is he not off-side? as he is not the hindmost player any more flanker is ! (other thread).

David

I don't think so.

re the original Does it depend how quickly things happen? as the front rows are no longer binding correctly should you be dealing with that rather thna the later offence by the SH?

OB..
10-10-05, 16:10
Brian - Law 20.3 (a) All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum.
When the front rows disengaged, you no longer had the required ingredients for a scrum. Your decision if that was grounds for a penalty, a penalty try or just another reset (or even an unlikely penalty against Blue!).

It is possible to argue that the scrum had failed, so there was no scrum for Red scrum half to put his hands in, but that is your decision, not his until the ball touches the goal-line. If the gap between the two events was longish, you may have contributed to the uncertainty. However, until you whistle, he should assume it is still a scrum. I would agree with a penalty try for intentional offending.

And if I see it happen, I shall quote your decision as a precedent :D

CornishPiskie
10-10-05, 16:10
I have to agree with OB!
From what you said Brian, it seemed like the scrum half new what he was doing and was hoping for a reset scrum or at worst a penalty. I have been in a similar situation and gave the same decision. The scrum half admitted after the match he was hoping at worst for a penalty but knew a penalty try was correct. Good decision!

madref
10-10-05, 17:10
Hi All

More I analyse this , why are they standing up.

Usually happens for

1. Weak front row as in strength
2. One of the front row injured
3. Inexperience front row (all of these can't hold the pressure)
4. Attacking side boring in
5. Attacking side lifting


Having been a well behaved front row in my past. When refereeing I ask myself why are they standing up!

David

I do not think I would have given a PT

ex-lucy
10-10-05, 17:10
was the scrum half carded ?
Personally, as soon as i saw the red front row disengage i would have blown for a penalty to blue. On third occasion (this was the second, yes?) i probably would have gone under the posts.

Simon Griffiths
10-10-05, 18:10
As ex-lucy says, for disengaging it should be a penalty anyway (all the binding laws come into play), however I would have given a PT anyway - sounds like it prevented a probable try, therefore under the posts.

As for the actions you mention Brian, I'd go along with your decision (ignoring the front-rows here), cynical play that also probably prevented a try.

madref
10-10-05, 18:10
I COULD make most front rows stand up if the referee was not on the ball lol

I used to love a ref who gave penalties for this, I must have got 10 - 15 yellow cards for my side for this tactic. Not sure about a PT more interested in pushing then lol

Anyway it is easy to bore in or push up and make the hooker stand if a referee is not used to what is going on. Also had a couple of punches when ref not spotted it that usually stopped me lol

Not saying I condone this in anyway but you need to be aware of what can happen with us props lol

David

jboulet4648
10-10-05, 20:10
From Brians explanation, it seems Blues Scrum was dominant and could have their way with the Red scrum.

It seems the precedent of Blue scrum driving Red was going on the whole match to the point of this occurence. If red coincidently disengaged twice within 5M as Blue was driving scrum forward, I would have given the penalty try for disengaging, not red SH playing the ball when he shouldn't....although that one works as well.....

I also ask, was there a yellow card to accompany the Penalty Try?

didds
11-10-05, 21:10
seems OK to me. PT correct call.

the scrum isn't over just because the oppo have disengaged. (happy to be told differently!)

THis actually ahppened to me once - oppo opack completely disengaged at a scrum and we were heading for the line - maybe 2m away by now - and the ref blew for a rescrum - I was livid! (Internally of course!)

didds

didds
11-10-05, 21:10
... but he hadn't picked up at that stage...

didds

didds
11-10-05, 21:10
OB =- I stand corrected! (see my other post).

Does this then mean that a defense against a driven scrum would be to totally disnegage?

That could really be considered dangerous play so a PK copuld be awarded... so maybe in the OP the award of a PT is for dangerpouis play for disengaging?

cheers!

didds

madref
12-10-05, 09:10
Hello All

You are all keen to give a penalty try when it could be the attacking side that has made the defending side stand!!

David

CornishPiskie
12-10-05, 11:10
Madref, Being an ex-hooker(level 5) myself I'm sure we have made many an opposition front row stand and squeal in our time, but if blue have been dominant throughout and as Brian said "driving straight" I would presume it was not an obvious upward motion. He also said "red disengaged". I can't remember seeing many penalties given against any scrum that is dominant and are driving "straight". I see what you are getting at but I don't believe we can reward for negative play and red seemed negative in this situation. Can't remember if Brian said what level this game was, but if it was 7 or higher you would expect well drilled reasonably strong front rows. Or am I just being optomistic?

Davet
12-10-05, 13:10
The Law covers 3 explicit ways in which the scrum can end. Disengagment by one of the front rows is not a reason for the scrum ending. It is a penalisable offence, but presumably the ref can play advantage if safety is not compromised, and allow the other pack to continue driving. (in this case - very close to the line - then a try looks very likely; the scrum half's hands in early then brings the PT)

Its the same principle as a maul. The law states the conditions required for a maul to begin, and says how it ends. To begin there must be the ball carrier and a team mate, bound with an opposition player. However if the opposition disengage from the maul, that does not fulfill the criteria required for the maul to end - so any attempt by them to come round the back or to claim obstruction would be unsuccessful. The maul is still in existence.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but it is a strict interpretation of the relevant Law, and that interpretation prevents attempts by the opposition to effectively kill a maul they are losing by simply leaving it. For them to do that and then claim a penalty for obstruction would be adding injury to insult. If they know that leaving the maul simply allows it to move more easily and rapidly then they are encouraged to resist it properly - by mauling back, crabbing it to touch, etc.

OB..
12-10-05, 14:10
Dave - I am afraid I disagree very strongly with that point of view. In neither case, scrum and maul, does the law say that those are the ONLY cases in which the scrum or maul ends. For example, in both cases they can end with a penalty but that is not mentioned. In a maul, if two players break though the middle and the one at the back has the ball, that is ruled a "truck and trailer". It is NOT a continuing maul.

As to the scrum, surely 20.1 (f) is clear enough:
Number of players: eight. A scrum MUST have eight players from each team. [my capitals]
If you don't have eight players (subject to allowed variations) bound together, you do not have a scrum.

I see no point in insisting on a counter-intuitive interpretation unless it is carefully spelt out (as in the case of a pseudo-tackler), or is for some reason essential (throw forward). In this case the natural interpretation surely makes more sense and is NOT precluded by the wording of the laws.

Davet
12-10-05, 16:10
OB
If two player break through the maul then I will grant you obstruction if the one in front is blocking access to the ball carrier. This is different from the situation where the opposition break contact deliberately.

Would you allow players in a maul to unbind, and then come in from the "back" once all had unbound?

If they are allowed to unbind and end the maul then we have the end of mauling as we know it. Some may like that, there are those who want to eliminate the grunt of forward effort as far as possible - but I think that mauling is an integral part of the game I have played for 40 years.

Just because a thing must have certain conditions before it can start that does not imply those conditions must apply throughout its life. the Law is simple and straightforward, and says very claerly what is required to end a maul. Why read between the lines to try to find further ways?

If you say that the maul ends when the opposition unbind then you have a recipe for chaos - so why not simply assume that the Law means what it says, no more and no less. Why impose sophistry on simple words to come up with an interpretation which is actually bad for the game?

OB..
12-10-05, 18:10
Would you allow players in a maul to unbind, and then come in from the "back" once all had unbound?
Yes. However there is a caveat: it is quite difficult to withdraw ALL players because the opposition is holding on to some of them, so you will almost certainly collapse the maul. But theoretically, I would allow it.


If they are allowed to unbind and end the maul then we have the end of mauling as we know it.
No.


Just because a thing must have certain conditions before it can start that does not imply those conditions must apply throughout its life.
The definition includes the following: "A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball-carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved are on their feet and moving towards a goal-line."
That is the static part of the definition, but using it means that if one part of the requirements is missing, then we have no maul.


the Law is simple and straightforward, and says very claerly what is required to end a maul.
No, it doesn't. As I pointed out, it can end with a penalty, but that is not mentioned. Nor is a lineout if it goes into touch. A maul can also end if the ball carrier lets the ball go to ground, when it becomes a ruck. Everybody knows these end a maul, but there is nothing in 17.5 or 17.6 about them.


why not simply assume that the Law means what it says, no more and no less.
I do. I claim that you are reading more into it than is justified. You are claiming that it lists the ONLY ways in which a maul can end. But it does NOT say that.

Mike Whittaker
12-10-05, 22:10
Sorry, I sneezed and was unsighted. Let's take that scrum again.. and if you front rows disengage I'll penalise!

Ricampbell
15-10-05, 20:10
Madref,

Is one of the times when you cant play advantage when the front row goes up or down (I am assuming disengaging means that he stood up)? If so then I done think you can play on.

Ross

OB..
16-10-05, 01:10
Law 8.3 (e) Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.

In this case it was standing up, which does not seem to me to be the same.

Mike Whittaker
16-10-05, 08:10
Law 8.3 (e) Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.

In this case it was standing up, which does not seem to me to be the same.

This is clearly one of those cases where the intent of the law has to be recognised. In one word "Safety" - it overrides all other considerations.

If a player in the front row stands up there may well be a safety issue, and whilst a pica dot precision approach to the laws is of academic interest I would suggest that any ref not up to at least Group level would in such a circumstance blow up directly. And in doing that the law is definitely on your side!

Ricampbell
16-10-05, 08:10
I'm with you on this one Mike as all the front rows who i speak to say that they would prefer to go down than go up. Also the guy who is forced to stand up, what is his likely action going to be? My guess is something that may cause a bot more trouble.

Ross