What I know about wheeling

[Phil E]

the only possible offence you can pk a dangerous wheel for is pulling

Surely if it's a dangerous wheel, you can PK them for dangerous play?

Of course when a scrum is "whip wheeled" the flankers will always be unbound, usually running to the side and pulling it round by one hand, so that's a PK straight away.

[Marauder]

Picked up the following from PlanetRugby about six weeks ago. Not quite about wheeling but what does it tell us? Two whiny coaches or is there something in it?

“Saracens boss Mark McCall and his Ospreys counterpart Sean Holley have both expressed their frustration at the state of officiating around scrums.
McCall was the happier of the two coaches after seeing his team claim a 16-13 Heineken Cup win at the Liberty Stadium on Friday but the duo were singing from the same hymn sheet with regards to the set piece.
Referee Jerome Garces showed yellow cards to Ospreys prop Paul James and Saracens hooker Schalk Brits for scrum separate offences - much to the bemusement of the six international forwards in the respective front rows - and awarded a steady stream of penalties and free-kicks at the set-piece in a tit-for-tat fashion, disrupting the rhythm of a brutal contest.
Wales prop James was sin-binned just before the interval for failing to bind, while former Springbok Brits' yellow card was handed out for an early engagement.
"Schalk's sin-binning was the first time I have seen someone sin-binned for early engagement. The scrums were carnage tonight," said McCall.
"In the old days you used to practice scrum moves but coaches have stopped doing that as there is a free-kick or penalty at every scrum so there is no need for those moves." “

[Simon Thomas]

Sorry to keep banging on about this gents, but "ping" him for what exactly?

One or more of 20.1, 20.3 and/or 20.8 (g)

[Marauder]

Simon, I don’t think that answers Taff’s question. In fact, it demonstrates how loosely the laws can be applied such that it’s a mystery and a crap shoot as to what is happening.

[OB..]

Referee Jerome Garces showed yellow cards to Ospreys prop Paul James and Saracens hooker Schalk Brits for scrum separate offences - much to the bemusement of the six international forwards in the respective front rows - and awarded a steady stream of penalties and free-kicks at the set-piece in a tit-for-tat fashion, disrupting the rhythm of a brutal contest.

That sort of journalism irritates me. Forwards always make a point of looking bemused when they are penalised. How does the author know it was "tit-for-tat" - is he not simply acknowledging that he himself was not able to see it from the touchline? Or perhaps he just does not know the signals?

An assessor would have to substantiate such claims. Unfortunately journalists do not.

[Simon Thomas]

Simon, I don’t think that answers Taff’s question. In fact, it demonstrates how loosely the laws can be applied such that it’s a mystery and a crap shoot as to what is happening.

The Law is a framework under which we apply clear and obvious decisions using experience, judgement and many hours of referee training & coaching, At higher levels the referees apply the agreed interpretation protocols, and are regualarly assessed against them.

Here is an extract from RFU Level 5 Protocols :

Wheeled Scrum
• Referees to ensure that the scrum is square and stationary prior to the throw in.
• If a scrum wheels quickly on its fulcrum, the referee must be absolutely convinced it is as a result of an illegal/unsafe wheel. Teams who do this are liable to penalty.
• A scrum will not be “turned over” unless the front row wheels more than 90 degrees.

If one or more of the laws I listed has been broken, if clear & obvious and with a material outcome, the referee should penalise accordingly and consider additional sanctions if necessary. No mystery for me on a Sunday afternoon when refffing, nor the referees I watch each Saturday.

I fully agree that Elite scrums are often poorly refereed in the interests of showbiz rugby, but that is not the case in Levels 3-9 in my experience.

[Marauder]

From Simon’s post, an extract from RFU Level 5 Protocols :

“• If a scrum wheels quickly on its fulcrum, the referee must be absolutely convinced it is as a result of an illegal/unsafe wheel. Teams who do this are liable to penalty.”

And the point being is: What defines an “illegal/unsafe” wheel?

[Taff]

Here is an extract from RFU Level 5 Protocols :

Wheeled Scrum
• Referees to ensure that the scrum is square and stationary prior to the throw in (My bold)
• If a scrum wheels quickly (my bold) on its fulcrum, the referee must be absolutely convinced it is as a result of an illegal/unsafe wheel. Teams who do this are liable to penalty.
• A scrum will not be “turned over” unless the front row wheels more than 90 degrees.

If one or more of the laws I listed has been broken, if clear & obvious and with a material outcome, the referee should penalise accordingly ...

That's exactly how I thought it was meant to work, so how do we explain PKs being given when scrums get wheeled gently (ie not "whipped" round) and when all the props feet are "in a position to shove", and the arms raised and twisted secondary signal.

I'm not trying to be aukward; I'm just trying to make sense of something we all see but just doesn't seem to fit in with the lawbook.

[Davet]

so how do we explain PKs being given when scrums get wheeled gently (ie not "whipped" round) and when all the props feet are "in a position to shove", and the arms raised and twisted secondary signal.

Dunno

Unless it's a binding issue

[Phil E]

the arms raised and twisted secondary signal.

Well that sounds like the signal for gone past 90?
Can you tell us the signal number from the law book?