Penalty try from scrum offence before the ball is put in.

[didds]

If you can say, before the engage, that a try will probably be scored from the scrum, then IMO you have misunderstood probability. Is it possible that the SH might feed crookedly? That the hooker might be FK'd for foot up? That the hooker might mistime the strike and kick the ball into the opponent's side? That the channelling may be incorrect, leading the ball to squirt out the side? That the #8 might fumble the ball at the base? That the oppo pack might stop the drive before the line? That the oppo pack might be less strong on one side than the other, leading to a natural but unintentional wheel such that the drive moves the scrum laterally? That the oppo hooker may finally get lucky and take one against the head?

All these things are possible outcomes of the scrum,

whilst I have no problem with the general concept that a PT can;t be awarded cos the defenders don;t enagge willingly etc, nevertheless I am not sure that Dixie's posts is generally spot on in a more general manner... He's identified that the PT must be because of a "probable" try - then says that all those actions may be "possible" .

MANY of those actions may be POSSIBLE at a more conventional attempt at a push over try... but if/when a shunting scrum is collapsed for a PT, the number 8 might knock on/ball might squirt out/oppo may disrupt the control still etc etc etc concerns are disregarded, and the PT still awarded.

Innit?

didds

[All The Time Ref]

whilst I have no problem with the general concept that a PT can;t be awarded cos the defenders don;t enagge willingly etc, nevertheless I am not sure that Dixie's posts is generally spot on in a more general manner... He's identified that the PT must be because of a "probable" try - then says that all those actions may be "possible" .

MANY of those actions may be POSSIBLE at a more conventional attempt at a push over try... but if/when a shunting scrum is collapsed for a PT, the number 8 might knock on/ball might squirt out/oppo may disrupt the control still etc etc etc concerns are disregarded, and the PT still awarded.

Innit?

didds

That's more my take. A huge call, with so many issues to consider. However, it can't be100% ruled out. given thegeneral rarity of PTs then this type must be extreemly rare.

The point at discussion elsewhere was the basic premiss of awarding a PT when the ball is not in play. One example given was a quick penalty 5 metres out where there is no defender between the mark and the try line and the offender (still on the ground after the offence) trips the player trying to take the tap to prevent the score.

[Dixie]

Didds, OB and I have a long-standing difference of opinion with regard to the definition of "probability" as regards PT. IMO, an event is "probable" if it has a >50% chance of occurring. OB considers that standard to be too low.

What is certain is that once the engage has occurred, the feed has gone unsanctioned, the hook has been successful, the channelling has got the ball to where it needs to be, and the drive has started and proceeded in a straight direction towards the line, the number of things that could possibly go wrong has diminished very significantly compared to the moment before the referee said Engage. There is therefore a much more significant possibility of a try - and that degree of possibility may even go beyond OB's threshold.

[Davet]

I cannot see a PT from a scrum before the ball has been put in, I cannot see a try being sufficiently probable.

YC and if necessary go to uncontested - man off may apply as well, and frankly this is the sort of situation man off was designed to assist with.

[PaulDG]

I cannot see a PT from a scrum before the ball has been put in, I cannot see a try being sufficiently probable.

I can - if the defenders know they're going to get stuffed and they also know they're going to be PT'd if they bring the scrum down once the ball is in, they'll do the damage before the ball comes in.

But they're doing it precisely because they calculate the try is "probable".

YC and if necessary go to uncontested - man off may apply as well, and frankly this is the sort of situation man off was designed to assist with.

Depending on the timing in the game and the nature of the difference in the teams that may well not be "equitable" nor "just".

Even with a man or two down, the defending side may have better backs who can mostly keep the non-offending side out. The non-offenders in this scenario may only have one area where they dominate - the scrum.

Forcing that scrum to be uncontested could play right into the offender's hands.

[All The Time Ref]

Of course not everyone uses "man off".

So could we agree on: Highly unlikely, but a small possibility (however remote).

[Davet]

I can - if the defenders know they're going to get stuffed and they also know they're going to be PT'd if they bring the scrum down once the ball is in, they'll do the damage before the ball comes in.

But they're doing it precisely because they calculate the try is "probable".

They may, and they may be mistaken to do so.

IF the ball is fed straight; IF the hooker doesn't mess the strike; IF the locks don't kick it back through; IF the ball is channelled to the 8's feet without squirting out; If the 8 keeps control while the scrum drives 5m; IF the defending 9 doesn't get his hand on first when the ball is on/over the goal-line - THEN a try is probable. But there are a lot of "ifs".

IF we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs - IF we had any eggs.

[Davet]

So could we agree on: Highly unlikely, but a small possibility (however remote).

Yes.

Perfect definition and clearly indicates a try is not PROBABLE.

[Marauder]

There seems to be a general assumption that the weaker scrum is engaging in deliberate foul play. If one scrum is dominant and the scrum is collapsing then I'd have to start considering other factors. A case was made that the weaker scrum "knew" the push-over was on so they collapsed at the engage. In my experience a front row under that much pressure is NOT thinking tactically, they're just trying to survive.

Awarding a PT in this scenario smacks of grandstanding.

[Davet]

You may also want to talke aclose look at why the dominant scrum IS dominant... just need to be sure that they are not using a little skullduggery. I've seen refs get conned....