Chiefs vs. Highlanders - 2nd Penalty Try

[OB..]

I have just looked up the history of wheeling. Before 1988 it was not mentioned. You had to have 5 (not 8) in the scrum at all times. Wheeling as an attacking weapon allowed the back row to run off with the ball, but the opposing back row could also break off in defence. From 1988 you were not allowed to wheel beyond 90, but it was merely a reset, not a turnover.

From 1996, all 8 were required to remain in the scrum until it was over, but it still couldn't wheel beyond 90.

In 2003 the wheel turnover was introduced (as an ELV). From being an attacking weapon it now became a defensive weapon.

 

[Browner]

I get talbazars point, if the significantly weaker scrum has no prospect of defence then undercurrent elite mindset they can only give away a series of PKs which lead to a series of YCs ......which lead .....!!

Defending using a orchestrated wheel is either lawful or it isnt, current "go forward" PKing shouldnt be the only outcome.

 

[OB..]

I get talbazars point, if the significantly weaker scrum has no prospect of defence then undercurrent elite mindset they can only give away a series of PKs which lead to a series of YCs ......which lead .....!!

Why do we have an obligation to protect a weaker scrum? If they are trying to stay legal they may well give away a try. isn't that what rugby is about - the better team winning? When did giving away PKs become a valid defensive tactic?

 

[Browner]

Why do we have an obligation to protect a weaker scrum? If they are trying to stay legal they may well give away a try. isn't that what rugby is about - the better team winning? When did giving away PKs become a valid defensive tactic?

Oops ..... I thought I'd written

if the significantly weaker scrum has no prospect of defence then undercurrent elite referee decision mindset he'll award a series of PKs which lead to a series of YCs ......which lead .....!!

Im agreeing with with talbazar that PK seems to the only result of a defensively wheeled scrum for elite refs , wrongly in our opinion.

 

[ChrisR]

The problem is exacerbated by the turnover rewarding the defending team. Without the turnover the scrum would be reset at the 5m.

Who should have ascendancy? The more powerful scrum or the more skillful scrum? As the more skillful scrum attempts to wheel their opponents can crab into their wheel to keep it straight. But they don't because that skill has been replaced by the dubious PK.

 

[talbazar]

Loving that discussion guys.

I'm more and more torn about this.
I'm fully with OB.. on the best team winning, and as a ref, I've got no problem PK'ing (or Even PT) for infringement in the scrum.

My initial point (highlighted by Browner) is that I'd like the game to give an option to a weaker (physically) team by executing a (difficult) lawful tactic.
Keep in mind in that example, the odds of wheeling that scrum without infringing are really small. And I believe it requires a hell of technique to pull it off properly... So it's everything but an easy way out.

My current mindset for these kind of tactics is something along the line of "if you've been practicing enough as a team and manage to pull it off with out infringing, I'll reward the hard work you've put in during training, either I like it or not. But if you infringe, there'll be no mercy"

Again, a ideal (utopia?) of fair contest where hard team work and practice can potentially give a legal fighting chance to a weaker team.

I'm an idealistic :biggrin:

Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is a simple tactic that the weaker scrum can employ when being pushed back near their own line and that is to compete as best they can and if they give up a try, at least the conversion might not be right in front of the posts.

 

[didds]

All of them? :wow:

2ndary Q (and very hypothetical!): IF a ref did YC the entire pack... can a game continue?

that would leave 8 on the pitch (assuming no other cards, full squad available etc).

Which would be presumably a 5 man pack, a scrum half and 2 others. Potentially uncontested scrums in all likelihood?

didds

 

[didds]

actually OB reminded me its no longer 5 in the scruym etc ... presumably they would have to play 6 in the scrum with a scrumhalf on their own put in, and 7 in the scrum on the oppo fior the game to continue (I repeat - this IS hypothetical).

Meanwhile - would the #8 be YCd for a collapsed scrummage ever?


didds

 

[didds]

The weaker scrum DOES have a legally difficlut option - a legal wheel. Push harder one side, but everyones pushes stright/spines in line etc.

Or as Ian says, end up cionding the try but not under the posts and withj no YCs into the bargain.

The siltation at the top level is exacerbated by sides scdrummaging for PKs rather than possession after a simp0le restart, and refs lookiug to PK anything as a result.

Just before CBT came in, England played Argentina and in something like 70 minutes there had been no scrum Pks or resets, just ball in and away... it can be done it sems but only if both packs/sides want to. I guess - without condoning it - PKs and YCs are "better outcomes" for teams.

didds

 

[Browner]

Meanwhile - would the #8 be YCd for a collapsed scrummage ever?

Yes.
retreating scrum and he drops to ground thereby collapsing his own retreating players 4,5....then 1,2,3......

Would be Rare, but hypothetically why not, its still dangerous.

 

[didds]

fair does Browner

didds

 

[Phil E]

Meanwhile - would the #8 be YCd for a collapsed scrummage ever?

Ball at No 8s feet.
He bends down to pick it up.
Scrum gets driven backwards, ball is now under 2nd rows feet.
He dives in to try and retrieve it (salvage the situation).
They all fall over him.
Scrum goes down.

Any number of offences right there.

 

[talbazar]

The weaker scrum DOES have a legally difficlut option - a legal wheel. Push harder one side, but everyones pushes stright/spines in line etc.
didds

Didds, that's not physically possible. If there isn't any side step at any point, you'll end up breaking the binds and having 2 rows of disconnected players.
For a wheel to happen, there must be side stepping... Pure physics.

So are we saying that every wheeled scrum must be penalised?
I don't believe so.
Furthermore the reason (I believe) there's a turn over when a scrum is wheeled is to force the dominant side to control their push. Safety concern here...

So,
Wheeled scrum in the middle of the park, scrum turn around.
Wheeled scrum 5m out PT.
:holysheep:

I know, playing devil's advocate here. But still, the "side step" argument doesn't hold, sorry!

Pierre.

 

[Browner]

Wheeling clockwise is natural consequence of scrum formation, caused by the weight/forces/positioning 'bias' of both sets of FR.
So much so, that wheeling anticlockwise rare ( not impossible) so law has to accept (allow) that wheeling will happen.

The elite referee 'go forward=PK' interpretation affects community rugby negatively IMO.

 

[didds]

Didds, that's not physically possible. If there isn't any side step at any point, you'll end up breaking the binds and having 2 rows of disconnected players.
For a wheel to happen, there must be side stepping... Pure physics..

Well, this depends on what you interpret as "pushing straight" and your leeway etc.

If you want pushing straight to be parallel to the touchlines then I'd agree that you could never have a legal wheel- I do not accept that that is what the lawmakers ever intended. . But you'd better be happy to penalise any side that gets a wobble on.

If you interpret pushing straight meaning pusg#shing perpendicular to the line of the front rows then clearly a wheeel can be legally done. Some sideways force may be inevitable as it is currently in order to keep any wobble on course., but the majority of the force will still be perpendicular to the line of the FR.

IN essence I am not awarer that the laws of pushing and wheeling have really changed at all since I played (which only finished less than 10 yewars ago) and wheeling was readily, if not easily, achieved in the manner I have described above.

???/

didds

 

[didds]

Wheeled scrum in the middle of the park, scrum turn around.
Wheeled scrum 5m out PT.

well, frankly that is just a plain bollocks approach.

I know, playing devil's advocate here. But still, the "side step" argument doesn't hold, sorry!

I never said wheeling had to use sidestep. In an overly simplistic example its one side pushing harder than another.


didds

 

[Crucial]

Didds, that's not physically possible. If there isn't any side step at any point, you'll end up breaking the binds and having 2 rows of disconnected players.
For a wheel to happen, there must be side stepping... Pure physics.

I don't profess to have a physics education but I do know that if I walk with one leg nailed to the floor I will go around in circles.

 

[Crucial]

To explain my quick quip above, what I mean is that if, for example, the TH remains steady he creates a pivot point. The rest of the scrum players aren't necessarily stepping around to create a wheel the could be pushing forward and stepping with momentum.

 

[talbazar]

well, frankly that is just a plain bollocks approach.
didds

That's exactly my point, I should have used the :sarc::sarc::sarc: mark...
Sorry for not being so clear.

I don't profess to have a physics education but I do know that if I walk with one leg nailed to the floor I will go around in circles.

You are damn right here. You will.
What about the guy tightly bound next to you?
What about the guy behind you?

To explain my quick quip above, what I mean is that if, for example, the TH remains steady he creates a pivot point. The rest of the scrum players aren't necessarily stepping around to create a wheel the could be pushing forward and stepping with momentum.

Yes, I get that.
THP creates a pivot... And then, left second row moves sideways to keep the scrum formation more or less in its "normal" shape...

In the OP, the green LHP creates that pivot by resisting the pressure more than the rest of his scrum. And the second row have to side step to keep the scrum formation.
Physics...

Pierre.