PDA

View Full Version : Advantage at collapsed Scrum?



Account Deleted
27-11-05, 22:11
In the Wales V Australia game, at the scrum before the Penalty Try, why did the ref give advantage following Australias collapse of a scrum? Also Why did he allow Australia to play on after a scrum went down (from which they scored their third try)?

Can any one explain? Given that the ref clearly indicated that he saw the scrums go down on both cases.

Mat 04
27-11-05, 23:11
Only Tony Spreadbury knows that I think....but a lot of people are asking those exact same questions.....who gives a stuff anyway, I like Tony Spreadbury, very strict with holding on, which I beleive makes fora more exciting game.

Account Deleted
28-11-05, 08:11
I do!

Safety is paramount.

If any of the players had been injured on Saturday TS would not have had a leg to stand on in any court case. He clearly ignores Law 8 let alone Law 20.

Just as you comments re a certain Scottish ref recently Why do top refs ignore the (non-discressionary) Laws re scrum collapses and pop-ups?

Are you saying that because TS lets the game flow and is a "bit of fun" with his comments it's all right to ignore safety?

Glyndwr
28-11-05, 09:11
I think the very first Australian scrum was popped and he allowed it to continue.

He was at least consistent.

However, in this aspect, I think he was consistently wrong.

Simon Thomas
28-11-05, 11:11
Yet again we have inconsistent application of the Laws for International / Premiership / Super14 rugby compared to grass-roots Community Rugby.
The IRB and RFU referee guidelines and briefings are very different to what a Group, Federation or Society Referee should follow.
Also it may be the case that based on those protocols an IRB referee is indemnified from liability ? Any court case would be related to 3rd party liability for insurance purposes - with professional players and professional referees matters may be different - does anyone know ?
Especially in the scrum following Vowles and Wilbraham cases, any Society referee is expected to blow immediately for collapses, 'FR pops', or any other safety related issue. If watched by an Advisor and I played advantage after a collapsed scrum at levels 7 downwards, I would expect to be 'hauled over the coals' and a safety question raised over my refereeing.

Account Deleted
28-11-05, 12:11
I am told that, here in Wales at least, at ALL levels there is NO discretion regarding Laws 20.3 (h) and (i) or 8.3 (d) & (e)

Wert Twacky
28-11-05, 18:11
I thought TS got it pretty much right on Saturday with the scrums. Remembering that what we are all watching is miles away from what we referee at the weekend - If the front rows have gone down, but the ball is readily available and the scrum half just needs a kick up the arse to play it, AND the official is happy there is no safety concern, why not tell the SH to play it?
Who wants re-set after re-set after re-set? It was obvious Aus were going to struggle like hell up front, and considering what happened when they went uncontested againt England, why play into their hands and bin a prop? The penalty try has to be considered surely?

Account Deleted
28-11-05, 18:11
I thought TS got it pretty much right on Saturday with the scrums. Remembering that what we are all watching is miles away from what we referee at the weekend - If the front rows have gone down, but the ball is readily available and the scrum half just needs a kick up the arse to play it, AND the official is happy there is no safety concern, why not tell the SH to play it?
Who wants re-set after re-set after re-set? It was obvious Aus were going to struggle like hell up front, and considering what happened when they went uncontested againt England, why play into their hands and bin a prop? The penalty try has to be considered surely?

So TS could tell running away from a scrum that the crumpled prop was ok could he? The Law allows no leeway Advantage must not be played.

No arguments about the PT at all re read what has been said.

Also no need to re-set. Ping the offender.

A question for you. Why do you think that the laws allow no leeway here and are written as MUST not should or may but MUST?

GazMaz
28-11-05, 23:11
Got to say having been bent double looking at the second row on numerous occasions in my playing time (I won't call it a career), that I appreciated the quick LOUD decisive whistle people knew to stop and no need to rush as that could make it worse, lucky I was a supple hooker, well that's what they all say I suppose.:D


SAFETY is paramount at whatever level.

Account Deleted
15-03-06, 08:03
A top English official, in the "Elite Referees unitt" has emailed me this reply:

"...Please be assured the safety of all players shall remain the Rugby Football Unions number one priority, and as such all match officials operating with the Elite Referee Unit receive regular ongoing specialist training with regard to the complex area of the scrum.

Our match officials are clearly aware of their responsibility to administer the “Laws of the Game” without any form of compromise especially in relationship to the scrum, where there is potentially a greater risk of injury compared to other phases of rugby.

The Elite Referee Unit is determined that their officials – particularly at the highest level – do not potentially put our players at risk of injury by failing to manage the game correctly or themselves through possible litigious actions.

Your comments are taken very seriously and are much appreciated; we shall continue to ensure “The Laws of the Game” are respectfully administered in a highly professional custom...."

Clearly TS and most others are ignoring the clear instructions from the top. It is also clear that there is NO indemnity against litigation.

I really hope no one is indured by a top ref failing in this duty of care. I also hope that any ref who ignores it can live with any fallout.