Chiefs vs. Highlanders - 2nd Penalty Try

[talbazar]

Hi All,

Highlights of the game HERE.

The weird Yellow Card is discussed HERE.

I'm interested in the 2 Penalty Tries on scrums...

First one, at about 3:20 in the highlights above
Clear dominance from the Chiefs (in Black), the full Highlanders Scrum (in Green) collapses.
C&O, no problem with me here, I reckon it's a good call.

The law states that a players committing an infringement that leads to a PT should be at least YC'ed.
In this case, Nick Briant may have thought he can't decently YC the whole front row or can't identify the culprit with certainty.
Fair enough, no YC for this one is to me acceptable against the law.

Note: NB doesn't give any secondary signal on the PT :wow:

Second one, at about 4:45 in the highlights
What's the infringement here leading to a PT?
The scrum wheels more than 90 degrees and then collapses (after the whistle actually).
So either NB sees Green LHP doing something illegal in order to wheel that scrum, and then the LHP must receive a YC.
But as NB doesn't give a YC nor does he give a secondary signal (again), I really don't see any infringement,
To me (and from the point of view given by the only camera on that action), green collectively hold the scrum together and manage to wheel it pass 90 degrees.
Scrum, Green put in, and congrats to the green scrum to managing that pressure so well!

I'd like to see your thoughts,
Cheers,
Pierre.

Note: We all have opinions about the "PT = YC" law. My question is more on how NB applied the law rather than the law itself.

 

[beckett50]

The way I see it, the second row walk round in an attempt to disrupt the drive.

Good spot - not that it was that hard - and fair decision. IMO

 

[Phil E]

P

The law states that a players committing an infringement that leads to a PT should be at least YC'ed.

Not necessarily. Clarification 9 2004 may apply.

 

[crossref]

Clarification 9 of 2004 tells you you must judge the players intention

 

[talbazar]

The way I see it, the second row walk round in an attempt to disrupt the drive.

Good spot - not that it was that hard - and fair decision. IMO

Of course Green try to disrupt the drive... They're working to avoid conceding a try.
My point is: was anything illegal in the way they've done so?

 

[The Fat]

The law states that a players committing an infringement that leads to a PT should be at least YC'ed.

If you believe the whole defending scrum collapses as a unit, who do you YC?

 

[Browner]

If you believe the whole defending scrum collapses as a unit, who do you YC?

I believe the tendency is always to look at the THP 1st. :shrug:

 

[Browner]

In the clip at 4:45, does green LHP drop his knee to the ground, can't be sure but i thought I saw that.

The elite guys invariably reward the team acheiving 'go forward' .

 

[OB..]

Clarification 9 of 2004 tells you you must judge the players intention

At a quick count the word "intentionally" occurs 34 times in the Laws. Apparently judging intent is a normal expectation.

 

[RobLev]

If you believe the whole defending scrum collapses as a unit, who do you YC?

All of them? :wow:

 

[talbazar]

If you believe the whole defending scrum collapses as a unit, who do you YC?

As I said in my initial post: I'm ok with not YC'ing anyone when the whole scrum collapses. That's what I believe NB did on the first PT

In the clip at 4:45, does green LHP drop his knee to the ground, can't be sure but i thought I saw that.

It does look like Green LHP drop his knee, but that's even before introduction. That's not where the PT lies (at least I hope so).

The elite guys invariably reward the team acheiving 'go forward' .

I've got no problem to reward dominance.
If it's legal.
And if the opposition is doing something illegal.
My issue with the second PT is that I don't anything illegal on the Green scrum. They're under tremendous pressure and it looks from the angle given to us that they are holding it together.

 

[ChrisR]

I get the first one but not the second.

Walking around? Law reference please.

 

[OB..]

Walking around? Law reference please.

The usual response to that is to refer to 20.2 about being in a position to make a forward shove.

Of course not all matters are specified in law - many are conventional, such as allowing the scrum half to dig the ball out of a ruck. Everybody allows it. "Do you have a law reference?"

 

[ChrisR]

OB, just my usual complaint about how wheeling has been abolished without a law change. You can still comply with 20.2 and wheel by crabbing.:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

 

[OB..]

OB, just my usual complaint about how wheeling has been abolished without a law change. You can still comply with 20.2 and wheel by crabbing.:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

The argument is that if you are walking sideways, you are not pushing forward. Wheeling seems to be allowed still if one team is also going forward, but not if the scrum is just spinning.

 

[talbazar]

The usual response to that is to refer to 20.2 about being in a position to make a forward shove.

Of course not all matters are specified in law - many are conventional, such as allowing the scrum half to dig the ball out of a ruck. Everybody allows it. "Do you have a law reference?"

20.2 starts by "when the scrum has formed". To me it doesn't t mean that it has the remain that way for the whole scrum. But English is not my mother tongue.

As for the SH digging in the rucks, I'd call 6.A.4.(a) :biggrin:


My concern is about fairness on the OP's game:
1. Green are greeting hammered in scrums
2. They happen to infringe to avoid a try and get a PT (1st one)
3. As a team, when they get in the same kind of situation and risk, they manage to find a way to resist without infringing (2nd one).
--> I reckon they should be rewarded, not receive a PT.

My 2 cents.
Pierre.

 

[MattyP]

In the first incident, I would have gone YC for 6 green - he turns his hips out and ends up driving into the opposition front row at a right angle. That in itself will collapse a scrum. The front rows have a hard enough job as it is - and the refs adjudicating them - without this sort of illegal and extremely dangerous participation from flankers.

 

[OB..]

20.2 starts by "when the scrum has formed". To me it doesn't t mean that it has the remain that way for the whole scrum. But English is not my mother tongue.

As I have said before, verbal arguments are rarely the best way to go if the wording of the law is insufficient in some way. The current interpretation seems to be that if you are shoving forward that is legal, but if you pull back or step sideways it is illegal. I think that makes sense.

As for the SH digging in the rucks, I'd call 6.A.4.(a) :biggrin:

"during the game". In other words the only realistic way to run things is to accept the referee's rulings, but that does not mean the referee always makes the correct decision.

 

[talbazar]

OB..

I hear you. And I agree on both your statement above (the forward shove vs. sideways & the fact the the refs doesn't always make the right decisions).

I just find it unfair for the second PT. And be extension, it's promoting dangerous play. Let me explain:
Stepping into Green FR's shoes (and forwards generally speaking). You get hammered in the scrum, you infringe, you get PT against you. Next scrum, your pull your socks up and despite being hammered again, you find a legal* way of countering the massive scrum in front of you.
You still get a PT.
Next scrum, you'll make sure you infringe and hurt the opposition as much as possible. You don't want to go back the whole afternoon, do you? So if anything you do, the Ref PK you, might as well make sure you get something in return and try to stop the bleeding...

*legal: Yeah, I know. This is the point of contention here... But what we are saying by putting this wheeling "outlaw" is that there is no legal way to counter a dominant scrum. And I reckon that goes against the spirit of the game, the safety and fair contest we are supposed to promote as referees.

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[OB..]

But what we are saying by putting this wheeling "outlaw" is that there is no legal way to counter a dominant scrum. And I reckon that goes against the spirit of the game, the safety and fair contest we are supposed to promote as referees.

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

Many years ago I was at an England v Ireland match in freezing cold weather. England had a 5m scrum and the Ireland pack could not get sufficient grip on the hard ground to resist their shove. They went backwards at a steady speed and England scored a pushover try.

You don't think a dominant scrum should be allowed to do that?