Another first.

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Yesterday's game.

Two PT from scrums and a PoT.:wow:

Did I mention one team had a very dominant scrum?

One spectator encouraged his side to concede a try wide out rather than fragment and concede 7pts :biggrin:

One of the PTs left me with some initial doubts.

White were making their way to the line (again) from a 5m scrum and red back row had come off and the rest was fragmenting - I had called advantage and stuck my arm out when back row came off. I should have gone under the posts when they were a metre or two out I think but I let it carry on until it was just short of the line. White 8 went to pick it up and knocked on!!! I still went under the posts but felt a bit concerned I'd ballsed it up. Red Captain mentioned it as we kicked off again but seemed resigned to it.

Have I got it right?

Maybe should have awarded the PT sooner?

 

[ChrisR]

My first question in these situations is: Did the foul play (unbinding from scrum) prevent a probable try?

If White are advancing and Red scrum is disintegrating but not interfering with white playing the ball then you're missing the critical element for a PT.

You can award the PK to White for Red unbinding or deem it not material (since White are driving in) and award a Red scrum for the knock-on.

PS. WTF is PoT? Pile of Trash?

 

[OB..]

If you are playing advantage for a penalty offence, you surely do not cancel it for a scrum infringement?

If you judged that the penalty offence prevented a probable try, then advantage can only be over if they actually score.

 

[Browner]

One of the PTs left me with some initial doubts.

White were making their way to the line (again) from a 5m scrum and red back row had come off and the rest was fragmenting - I had called advantage and stuck my arm out when back row came off.

Reading this, my first thought was ....... What was it about the back row breaking off that immediately justifies a PT being awarded?

( yes yes yes, I know the elite boys always do !!!)

The only thing I can imagine is that white were now going forward too fast ( then slow down white!). Which meant that the 8 now struggled to control a faster bobbling ball.

Sounds like ....advantage, shame not taken = PK , to me.

 

[Taff]

...PS. WTF is PoT? Pile of Trash?

My best guess is Push Over Try.

... White were making their way to the line (again) from a 5m scrum and red back row had come off and the rest was fragmenting - I had called advantage and stuck my arm out when back row came off. I should have gone under the posts when they were a metre or two out I think but I let it carry on until it was just short of the line. White 8 went to pick it up and knocked on!!! I still went under the posts but felt a bit concerned I'd ballsed it up.

You were playing advantage. They didn't get an advantage. I can't see the problem.

 

[OB..]

I presume the back row players broke off in order to stay on the try line. If they had then prevented the #8 from scoring, would that not have been a PT?

 

[Browner]

I presume the back row players broke off in order to stay on the try line. If they had then prevented the #8 from scoring, would that not have been a PT?

Yes preventing the 8 might've,

I had called advantage and stuck my arm out when back row came off.I should have gone under the posts when they were a metre or two out I think

but its premature to give a PT 'before' the no8 is affected by these unbound players.

No8s are capable of knocking on without interference from an offside player.

 

[OB..]

Yes preventing the 8 might've, but its premature to give a PT 'before' the no8 is affected by these unbound players.

No8s are capable of knocking on without interference from an offside player.

... But are perhaps more likely to do so when faced with pressure from illegal defenders? At some point their illegality becomes highly material in terms of scoring. The tipping point is a matter of judgement.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

In terms of the comments above, especially OB..'s (as always perceptive yet concise) and the lack of detail which would only be available if you actually saw what I saw is there any outright opposition to the premise of the PT after the knock on by #8?

I think the OB.. post above distills my mindset very well - the #8 was trying to ground the ball "surrounded" by opposition forwards.

Thanks for the comments all.

 

[FlipFlop]

When the players break off, the scrum becomes much harder to control going forward. 8 v 8 rarely goes forward fast, but 8 v 6 or 5 will go forward fast. This makes control at the base harder, so increases the chance of a knock-on when picking up, or losing control at the base by the #8.

If the #8 has shown good control at the base in other scrums, then as soon as a 5m scrum fragments, when going forward in a controlled fashion, then I only care about if an actual try is scored, if not then it is most likely to be a PT.

 

[ChrisR]

In terms of the comments above, especially OB..'s (as always perceptive yet concise) and the lack of detail which would only be available if you actually saw what I saw is there any outright opposition to the premise of the PT after the knock on by #8?

I think the OB.. post above distills my mindset very well - the #8 was trying to ground the ball "surrounded" by opposition forwards.

Thanks for the comments all.

The bold, above, is the crux.

Just unbinding would be insufficient for a PT. I really don't buy into the idea that the attacking scrum speeding up is cause for a PT.

If a player unbinds and attempts to play the ball (before the ball is in-goal) then C & O and a PT.

If the scrum goes forward then collapses so that it can't be driven into goal then probable PT. Unless Castrogiovanni is TH for the attacking team coz then you know who dropped the front row.

In the OP the scrum is being driven into goal, PK advantage is on, defenders unbind and pose a threat to ground the ball .... OK, PT for me too.

 

[Dickie E]

There was a view offered some time ago (primarily by OB iirc) that if a tackle occurs close to the goal line then the regular tackle protocol of "tackler release" doesn't/shouldn't apply as it would be effectively committing suicide.

Shouldn't the same logic apply if a scrum is about to go over the goal line?

 

[ChrisR]

There was a view offered some time ago (primarily by OB iirc) that if a tackle occurs close to the goal line then the regular tackle protocol of "tackler release" doesn't/shouldn't apply as it would be effectively committing suicide.

Shouldn't the same logic apply if a scrum is about to go over the goal line?

In the tackle scenario the point was that the protocol of tackler releasing first should not apply as that would allow the BC to reach out and score. The Law doesn't require either to release first. How does that logic apply to the scrum driven into goal?

 

[RobLev]

In the tackle scenario the point was that the protocol of tackler releasing first should not apply as that would allow the BC to reach out and score. The Law doesn't require either to release first. How does that logic apply to the scrum driven into goal?

At risk of resurrecting that thread - the so-called "protocol" is an interpretation - the only one that can make sense - of the Law; and the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches disagree with you. See the illustrative video.

 

[OB..]

At risk of resurrecting that thread - the so-called "protocol" is an interpretation - the only one that can make sense - of the Law; and the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches disagree with you. See the illustrative video.

The protocol makes good sense in midfield. The video referred to does not deal with the situation close to the goal line, which was the whole point of the argument.

The scrum problem, of course, is totally different.

 

[Dickie E]

The scrum problem, of course, is totally different.

Why? By gun or knife, suicide is still suicide

 

[OB..]

Why? By gun or knife, suicide is still suicide

I don't understand your point. What protocol governs breaking early from a scrum?

 

[Dickie E]

I don't understand your point. What protocol governs breaking early from a scrum?

Hmm & OK.

You've postulated a kind of twilight zone for a tackle within a metre of the goal line where the tackler doesn't need to comply with law and release & roll as this would be suicidal.

I'm wondering if the same logic can be applied to a scrum.

And if not, why not?

 

[OB..]

Hmm & OK.

You've postulated a kind of twilight zone for a tackle within a metre of the goal line where the tackler doesn't need to comply with law and release & roll as this would be suicidal.

No. I have pointed out that the law requires BOTH players to act immediately in a tackle, whereas the general protocol is to require the tackler to release first. That situation does not arise with a scrum.

 

[RobLev]

Hmm & OK.

You've postulated a kind of twilight zone for a tackle within a metre of the goal line where the tackler doesn't need to comply with law and release & roll as this would be suicidal.

I'm wondering if the same logic can be applied to a scrum.

And if not, why not?

The crux of the argument in the other thread was that OB doesn't think it is law that the tackler release first; he thinks it is merely a protocol, that can be changed for different positions on the field. My argument is that the IRB clarified the position in the link I gave, to the eff4ct that release by the tackler first was a matter of compliance with the Law, and so would not be applied differently depending on field position. I depend on the wording at that link that:

[LAWS]It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.[/LAWS]

and:

[LAWS]1 All areas of the tackle law to be strictly applied[/LAWS]

with the accompanying video making clear (notwithstanding OB's view above) that that strict application of the Law required the tackler to release first. That (IMHO) leaves no room for application of a "protocol" permitting the tackled player to deviate from strict compliance with the Law close to the goal-line.

If I have misrepresented OB's view, he will say so, and I will apologise.