Infringement Before A Scrum Is Completed - Where is the mark?

[jdeagro]

Hi,

I recently heard some chatter about that if an infringement occurs during a scrum, although players usually take the PK or FK somewhere around where their 8-man's feet were, the actual mark is where the original mark for the scrum was.

Is this true? If so, can the PK or FK be taken at the original mark where the scrum was?

Also if true, can a QT be taken where the mark for the scrum was?

Thanks,
-Jon

 

[Dickie E]

yes, the correct place for the penalty is at the mark for the scrum. A quick tap (or any kick) can be taken at that point but the area is usually full of disengaging forwards. Hence the propensity for QTs to be taken in line with and behind the mark.

 

[Taff]

Don't forget Jdeagro that the PK or FK can be taken "at the mark, or anywhere behind the mark on a line though it"

As Dickie says, the No8s feet is realistically the furthest forward they can physically go if they want a quick tap and run.

 

[crossref]

you will notice that if a PK is awarded and they kick for posts or for the corner, they will indeed take the kick from the mark of the scrum.

quick taps are taken by the #8, behind the mark in order to be, well, quick,

 

[jdeagro]

Well the reason I was really wondering, is if for example say Team A engages early on Team B during the scrum, and the referee awards a FK to Team B. Since Team B's scrumhalf will most likely be holding the ball still, it would make the most sense for him to take the QT at the original mark of the scrum then?

To put it into context, I play for a USA college rugby team, and I believe I usually witnessed the scrum half would throw the ball back to the 8-man to take the QT. (Possibly out of belief that the mark was at the 8-man.) Wouldn't it make most sense for the scum half to just take the QT right at the original mark for the scrum? I would suspect that even with the retreating players from Team A, it might entice those retreating players to react (before they've gone back 10m) and tackle the scrum half who took the QT at the mark thus beneficially resulting in a PK for Team B.

 

[crossref]

The mark for the scrum is between the two hookers, not very accessible to stand on !

 

[jdeagro]

I mean, if I was the scrum half, I would just run into the tunnel and take the QT and try to either run through the retreating forwards of the other team if their was enough space (with the possibility of one of them trying to tackle me thus resulting in a PK) or if they were still really bunched up, I would just run the half a meter back out the tunnel and go around the opposing retreating forwards (who I would be able to outrun even if they weren't on the backpetal, and there would probably be a good gap of space behind them to take the ball up-field.) Granted it is a little unorthodox, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Either way, is there somewhere in the laws I could reference to prove that the mark for the PK or FK is at the original mark for the scrum, if I was explaining it to someone else?

 

[MrQeu]

@jdeagro You could do it, but only if there are no players in the area. As there would be -those lazy forwards sometimes do take ages to stand up from the ground - the common place that is free of bodies is at the back.

 

[Account Deleted]

I mean, if I was the scrum half, I would just run into the tunnel and take the QT and try to either run through the retreating forwards of the other team if their was enough space (with the possibility of one of them trying to tackle me thus resulting in a PK) or if they were still really bunched up, I would just run the half a meter back out the tunnel and go around the opposing retreating forwards (who I would be able to outrun even if they weren't on the backpetal, and there would probably be a good gap of space behind them to take the ball up-field.) Granted it is a little unorthodox, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

Either way, is there somewhere in the laws I could reference to prove that the mark for the PK or FK is at the original mark for the scrum, if I was explaining it to someone else?

I would not give a PK if you ran from the middle of the tunnel into the opposition scrum. Any attempted tackle would be contrived by you and instinctive on their part.

 

[jdeagro]

I would not give a PK if you ran from the middle of the tunnel into the opposition scrum. Any attempted tackle would be contrived by you and instinctive on their part.

Maybe I'm just thinking too much like a player and not like a referee, but from my experience playing in my level of rugby, I've seen the referee ping players acting instinctively to tackle someone taking a QT. As the law states, it's not any infringement if they aren't back 10m yet and the player who took the QT runs into them, but it is their responsibility to not actively interfere with the player who took the QT until they've gone back the 10m.

Unless it could result in some kind of danger from the scum half taking that QT, I think it would be good to see the forwards have to retreat back on the hop, as a result of cheeky quick play.

 

[Davet]

They do have to retreat, running as the do so, and they must not give in to instinct and tackle you before they have got 10m back from the mark, but - as you note - you must not run deliberately into contact with them.

Which brings up nicely the other point - the mark is where the mark for the scrum was, so if the 9 passes to the 8 who taps and goes opposition players 10m back from where he tapped cannot tackle him - they must be 10m back from where the scrum mark was - about 2 or 3 metres behind where their backs offside line was at the scrum (which was 5m back from the base of the scrum, which was probably 2m ish deep from mark between hookers to back of their 8's feet)

 

[Account Deleted]

Maybe I'm just thinking too much like a player and not like a referee, but from my experience playing in my level of rugby, I've seen the referee ping players acting instinctively to tackle someone taking a QT. As the law states, it's not any infringement if they aren't back 10m yet and the player who took the QT runs into them, but it is their responsibility to not actively interfere with the player who took the QT until they've gone back the 10m.

Unless it could result in some kind of danger from the scum half taking that QT, I think it would be good to see the forwards have to retreat back on the hop, as a result of cheeky quick play.

You can't "contrive" an offence. Running into a player deliberately is contriving an offence and not a "cheeky chappie".

 

[Davet]

Quite - the cheeky chappy scrum half would seek to find the space between the retreating forwards safe in the knowledge that they can't grab him. What he can't do is run straight at the pie eater and then throw his hands up in disgust when he bounces 3 feet backwards.

 

[jdeagro]

Quite - the cheeky chappy scrum half would seek to find the space between the retreating forwards safe in the knowledge that they can't grab him. What he can't do is run straight at the pie eater and then throw his hands up in disgust when he bounces 3 feet backwards.

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that the scrum half should seek a penalty by running into the retreating opposition forwards, rather just that if he was quick and smart could run through or around those forwards and in the worst case they did try to stop him, the resulting PK would be beneficial to that scum half's team anyway. (I do realize now that my follow up question was in the perspective of a player rather than a referee lol.)

 

[Dickie E]

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that the scrum half should seek a penalty by running into the retreating opposition forwards, rather just that if he was quick and smart could run through or around those forwards and in the worst case they did try to stop him, the resulting PK would be beneficial to that scum half's team anyway. (I do realize now that my follow up question was in the perspective of a player rather than a referee lol.)

I'd suggest the tried & proven technique of slinging ball to #8 to take QT would result in a better outcome.