[Scrum] 5m Scrum Penalty and Penalty try

[Camquin]

Can I double check the requirements for awarding a PT after one or more scrum penalties?

I do not believe the number of scrum penalties afftects the PT decision - but may lead to yellow cards. this in turn may lead to uncontested scrums.

I believe there needs to be evidence that the scrum was moving towards the line - rather than standing up or collapsing - before it is probable that the attacking scrum would drive over for the try.

Is this a reasonable approach?

 

[didds]

sounds reasonable to me. - this is why we see (elite) scrums collpsing on enegagement (eg somebody thinks they don't have the positioning they want)


didds

 

[tim White]

Unless you believe that standing up or collapsing was the way the defenders were trying to prevent the score i.e. was their thinking that they will concede a try unless they infringe AND the referee was of the same mind.

 

[Shelflife]

Youre bang on camquin, you can effectively have 10 pens or more in a row without a penalty try even entering your head.

If they keep infringing then you go to YCs and then RCs if it continues.

You can go to PT on the first scrum if you believe that a try would probably have been scored but for the infringement.

 

[Balones]

I’ve seen the incident referred to in the OP. The matter of a PT would certainly come up in the after match debrief.
In terms of the incident in isolation I could support the referee not going for the penalty try because the first scrum went sideways, (YC - L/H) the second went sideways slightly and more or less up on the spot with an AR call that indicated the new L/H (the original T/H) may have been at fault, and lastly the third one saw the scrum nudge forward and the T/H slip to ground. (YC) The scrum was more or less in in the same position as it started; at best half a metre nearer the line. The ground was quite soft and not secure underfoot during the match so it could be said that perhaps the second YC was a big harsh. It certainly looked accidental. There was no clear opportunity to score a try by going forward in any of the scrums. Hence some sympathy towards not going for a PT. The second YC unfortunately resulted in uncontested scrums. If another scrum had also gone to a penalty offence then I would have expected a PT regardless of whether there had been forward movement.

However, these incidents should not be seen in isolation. Prior to this incident (only about a minute before) there were a series of scrums in a very similar situation with the same side which was under pressure giving away three similar penalties. This could have been taken into account because they had had a warning at this set of scrums as well. So there could be deemed prior negativity by the side in question. For this reason I would have supported the referee going for a PT on the second occasion.

Not an easy decision for the referee, especially if you take into account the score at the time. A PT would have given the lead to the attacking side with very little time left. Was the referee going to let the players decide the game rather like Mr Barnes did in the France/Wales game a few years ago? I would have liked to have discussed the game with the referee but I have no doubt that he will be discussing/reflecting on this game and the particular incidents in question in some detail in his review.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Can I double check the requirements for awarding a PT after one or more scrum penalties?

I do not believe the number of scrum penalties afftects the PT decision - but may lead to yellow cards. this in turn may lead to uncontested scrums.

I believe there needs to be evidence that the scrum was moving towards the line - rather than standing up or collapsing - before it is probable that the attacking scrum would drive over for the try.

Is this a reasonable approach?

Did the collapse prevent a "probably try"? Is the criteria for all penalty tries. 5 metre scrums do not change that.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Did the collapse prevent a "probably try"? Is the criteria for all penalty tries. 5 metre scrums do not change that.

That would have to depend on whether the referee felt that the attacking scrum had a) the ability and b) the dominance to drive over the 7-8m needed for their 8 to reach the line. I had a game where weaker pack would regularly concede small distances while taking their medicine (1-2m), but I never felt or witnessed tat the attacking scrum had sufficient dominance to drive the weaker pack much further, in fact the opposite, more than a couple of metres and the rather rotund attacking front rower would lose form and fall over or slip and bring his side down.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

In that case you would not award a PT.

 

[Balones]

Can I double check the requirements for awarding a PT after one or more scrum penalties?

I do not believe the number of scrum penalties afftects the PT decision - but may lead to yellow cards. this in turn may lead to uncontested scrums.

I believe there needs to be evidence that the scrum was moving towards the line - rather than standing up or collapsing - before it is probable that the attacking scrum would drive over for the try.

Is this a reasonable approach?

I assume the opposition supporters were unhappy with the decision to not award a PT?

 

[Zebra1922]

I assume the opposition supporters were unhappy with the decision to not award a PT?

Supporters are always unhappy when they don’t get a decision they want.

 

[DocY]

As others have implied: you can't award a PT for repeated infringements and you don't need repeated infringements to award a PT.

It seems to be one of those common misconceptions, though (a referee in the Pro14 gave one a few years ago when the ball hadn't even been thrown in!).

It can raise an interesting problem about YCs and uncontested scrums, though. Last play of the game, defending team four points up repeatedly infringing before the scrum moves.
Going to uncontested scrums would undoubtedly benefit the infringing team, but more or less than being a player down? Do you base your decision to give a YC on whether another FR can come on?
Food for thought.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Card and card again etc. A 3 or 4 man advantage should see a try for the backs!

 

[Camquin]

I am not sure the non-offending team had any backs, or if they did whether they knew what a rugby ball was.
They lost the game by butchering an overlap when the pass went to the receiving players face rather than the midrift with the line in sight.

In the reverse fixture they went a man down to a red, sacrificed a back for a forward and still won the game through controlling the ball up front playing close to the break down andbattering their way forward.