Australia v Argentina

[Dixpat]

I would like to have comment on the last play of the game

Argentina were awarded a scrum approx. 5 metres from the Wallabies goal line - they needed a converted try to draw game

The final hooter sounded before the scrum was set nevertheless the scrum was allowed to form

After "setting" the Argentinian half put the ball into the scrum only to be free kicked because the ref had not told him to do so

As a consequence the Wallabies kicked to touch and ended the game

The ref was relying [I assume] on law 20.5

Throwing the ball into the scrum
No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball from the side of the scrum first chosen.

My reading of the law is that there is nothing in the law to say he must wait for the ref's instruction to fed. He is obliged to fed without delay and also to do so if instructed by the ref

Where is he obliged to wait for the ref to tell him to do so

 

[Daftmedic]

They should of gone for the quick pen to then get the pen try

 

[crossref]

Dixpat its not in the laws, but if is a protocol the irb put in place s year ago .. SH can't put the ball in until the referee says so.

I suspect that the argrntinian had done it before and been warned?

 

[Dixpat]

Dixpat its not in the laws, but if is a protocol the irb put in place s year ago .. SH can't put the ball in until the referee says so.

I suspect that the argrntinian had done it before and been warned?

Are you referring to

LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL

(g)

The referee will call "crouch" and then "bind". The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop must bind. A loose-head prop must bind on the opposing tight-head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight-head prop’s jersey on the back or side. A tight-head prop must bind on the opposing loose-head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose-head prop and gripping the loose-head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back or side. The props must not grip the opponent’s chest, arm, sleeve or collar. Following a pause, the referee will then call "set" when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then engage. The “set” call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready. The sanction for any infringement will be a free kick.

If so it says nothing about when to put the ball in

 

[crossref]

Yes, the irb introduced that and then almost immediately decided that the referee should control the put in , and cascaded one of their "secret emails". Initially the referee was told to say 'yes 9' but after about three months of that we were told not to speak but to make a non verbal signal, a tap on the back
I don't know why the irb don't document this stuff on their website so that everyone could see it.
There is a culture in rugby that prefers to relay cascading emails and dislikes notices on the website.

 

[The Fat]

As far as I'm aware, there is no sanction for the SH throwing the ball in before the ref tells him. Would it not have been more equitable to blow and reset the scrum?
I thought it was a harsh call and a dud way to end a Test match.

 

[crossref]

I agree there is no sanction specified, but common sense says it must be a free kick.
Harsh?
I am guessing it wasn't the first time, he'd already had the warning...

 

[RobLev]

I would like to have comment on the last play of the game

Argentina were awarded a scrum approx. 5 metres from the Wallabies goal line - they needed a converted try to draw game

The final hooter sounded before the scrum was set nevertheless the scrum was allowed to form

After "setting" the Argentinian half put the ball into the scrum only to be free kicked because the ref had not told him to do so

As a consequence the Wallabies kicked to touch and ended the game

The ref was relying [I assume] on law 20.5

Throwing the ball into the scrum
No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee. The scrum half must throw in the ball from the side of the scrum first chosen.

My reading of the law is that there is nothing in the law to say he must wait for the ref's instruction to fed. He is obliged to fed without delay and also to do so if instructed by the ref

Where is he obliged to wait for the ref to tell him to do so

Or perhaps on 20.1(j):

[LAWS] Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in. [/LAWS]

The ref is waiting until the scrum is stationary and parallel before telling the SH he can feed; if the SH feeds early, then the scrum is presumably not yet SnP. FK is the sanction.

 

[ChrisR]

Are you sure it was for an early feed or did the Argentinians have an early shove on?

 

[Dickie E]

Are you sure it was for an early feed or did the Argentinians have an early shove on?

I'd like to see it again. Through beer goggles I vaguely remember it as a not straight feed.

 

[menace]

Are you sure it was for an early feed or did the Argentinians have an early shove on?

I think both, but definitely Jackson said over the mic - " 9 put it in before i told him" (or something similar)

I think he would have sold it better if he used the early shove for the FK.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'd like to see it again. Through beer goggles I vaguely remember it as a not straight feed.

You must have been wearing your "around the corner" beer goggles.

The scrum feed was on the far side of the scrum from the camera, and no reverse angle was shown, so the feed wasn't visible!

 

[Ian_Cook]

As far as I'm aware, there is no sanction for the SH throwing the ball in before the ref tells him. Would it not have been more equitable to blow and reset the scrum?
I thought it was a harsh call and a dud way to end a Test match.

I agree there is no sanction specified, but common sense says it must be a free kick.
Harsh?
I am guessing it wasn't the first time, he'd already had the warning...

So, he can just make it up himself if it isn't in the Laws, and that's OK?

 

[OB..]

Pre-match the referee told the scrum half about the protocol, presumably. Therefore he is in breach of 10.4 (s)

All players must respect the authority of the referee....

The sanction for that is a PK, but since the Law Amendment says

The sanction for any infringement will be a free kick.

I reckon a FK is fair enough.

 

[The Fat]

I'm sticking with my first instinct.

"PEEP! 9, wait until I give you the signal. Reset gents".

 

[chbg]

That's what I did today in the first minute of a Colts Friendly. I don't think that equates to the 79th minute of an international.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Pre-match the referee told the scrum half about the protocol, presumably. Therefore he is in breach of 10.4 (s)
The sanction for that is a PK, but since the Law Amendment says I reckon a FK is fair enough.

Except that putting the ball in before being told to is not listed as an infringement in 20.2 (g) Law Amendment Trial, which only talks about the engagement and does not mention the throw in.

 

[Dixpat]

Pre-match the referee told the scrum half about the protocol, presumably. Therefore he is in breach of 10.4 (s)
All players must respect the authority of the referee..
The sanction for that is a PK, but since the Law Amendment says I reckon a FK is fair enough.

I think it is a long bow to draw that putting the ball into a scrum before the ref has "authorised" the no 9 to do so is not respecting the authority of the ref and in breach of 10.4 (s)

 

[menace]

This incident and the confusion over what it should or should not have been, is yet another reason I would advocate letting the SH decide when the ball can go in without the need for a bum slap or finger point. (I think it's worked for us just fine here in ARU land with the little boys, I'm sure the big boys could handle it!)

Ps if you watch quite a few of the test, I'm pretty sure the referees are giving the ok and effectively forcing the ball to go in when the scrum is not settled at all. I think they're contributing to the squint feeds because the scrum is still not stable. I was convinced GJ was randomly giving the signal in this game and didn't really have an idea or control over it (and probably contributed a bit to the messy scrums)

 

[Ian_Cook]

if you watch quite a few of the tests, I'm pretty sure the referees are giving the ok and effectively forcing the ball to go in when the scrum is not settled at all. I think they're contributing to the squint feeds because the scrum is still not stable. I was convinced GJ was randomly giving the signal in this game and didn't really have an idea or control over it (and probably contributed a bit to the messy scrums)

I agree, they're trying to get it in quickly to get on with it. IMO this causes more trouble that waiting.

Also, I see a lot of "jostling" and twisting going on before the throw-in. I think we are seeing the reappearance of FR forwards trying to get the upper hand before the ball is put in to give them an advantage when the shove comes on. Its time referees were instructed to penalise any FR forward who does anything other stand passively and bound waiting for the ball to be thrown in.

Crouch
Touch
Set

Stand still - NO pushing, NO pulling, NO turning, NO twisting.

Then the ball goes in....

If you can pack steadily and in a stable fashion against a scrum-machine, you can do it against a live opposing scrum. I see it an grass-roots level; I see no reason why it cannot happen at elite level.