Law 20.10(d) what do you do after 5 seconds

[Phil E]

Laws@RFU have just confirmed that it should be a re-set scrum, turnover ball.

It is hoped that the match official will have a management strategy to deal with such situations. If we have not been able to manage the situation and the scrum is clearly stationary with the ball clearly at the number 8’s feet for the prescribed time, then it would be a turn over scrum.

That's what Craig M-K said at the Staffordshire Training Day.
But it should be managed and should never get to the re-set + turnover.

 

[TheBFG]

I agree, think it's aimed at "showbiz" rugby, not the real stuff we look after :wink:

 

[crossref]

I don't think I have ever seen any team, at any level from RWC to Merit table 12, ever ignore, for five long seconds, a call to 'use it'.

(In fact the opposite : quite oftne they behave as though the requirement is 'immediately' and rush it)

 

[Simon Thomas]

However, in this new era of the #9 no longer under pressure at the base of the scrum the chances of the ball not being used are very slim - and that is another soap box that needs to be brought out although I suspect SimonT has already been on it for some time

Indeed Beckett - the fun of the pocket has gone, but I see plenty of opportunity for pressure at the scrum base for a thinking defensive #9 - after all it is still meant to be a contest.

No excuse for not 'using it', when told.

Clear advice and interpretation at last Sunday's SWG-SEG meeting in Newbury - MANAGE IT, don't bring attention to yourself by having to blow after 5 seconds.

Quiet word to #8 / #9 first to get them to use it, then go public with bigger call if you get no compliance.

If you do blow, the sanction as with maul - turnover scrum to side not in possession, so if a team won it against the head, bad luck.
A secondary shove is not 'using it' so check before a public 'use it' call, that the secondary is not just about to come.

 

[TheBFG]

agree, but we all know coaches are always looking to get one over on the ref/laws etc. So if you have side winning by a score and a dominant scrum as the time runs out, without this clarification you could have a stand off where it's held and without a sanction there's nothing we could do :chin: So this clears that up nicely, here's hoping it's announced though!

 

[OB..]

That's what Craig M-K said at the Staffordshire Training Day.
But it should be managed and should never get to the re-set + turnover.

So did Claire Daniels at our meeting Tuesday.

 

[DocY]

That's what Craig M-K said at the Staffordshire Training Day.
But it should be managed and should never get to the re-set + turnover.

Absolutely, but TBH, it does sound a bit like they're making excuses for the poor wording. Management without any potential penalty (used in the more general sense of the word) is a bit toothless.

 

[Phil E]

So did Claire Daniels at our meeting Tuesday.

Do we have some consistency in refereeing :biggrin::biggrin:

Absolutely, but TBH, it does sound a bit like they're making excuses for the poor wording. Management without any potential penalty (used in the more general sense of the word) is a bit toothless.

There is a potential penalty, but with good management you should not have to use it. Like a lot of (preventative) refereeing.

 

[DocY]

There is a potential penalty, but with good management you should not have to use it. Like a lot of (preventative) refereeing.

Indeed. Perhaps I was being cynical, but it sounded as if the idea was "we didn't need to specify a sanction because we expect referees to manage it"

 

[Camquin]

I think it is more likely that they failed to notice they had not specified the sanction - as it is the same as at a maul.
Except it is closer to a ruck.

But of course they expect us to manage it, just as we manage mauls.

Mauls do get turned over - because the side not in possession can get their hands round the ball carrier. That is harder at a scrum, so I would expect the side in possession will want to do something rather than lose the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So, I have a question.. what does "turnover scrum" actually mean?

Blue v Gold.

Scenario 1: Blue throw in, and win the heel, but don't use the ball after 5 seconds with the ball at the No. 8's feet. Turnover scrum will mean Gold have the throw in. Fair enough.

Scenario 2: Blue throw in, and Gold win the heel against the throw-in, but don't use the ball after 5 seconds with the ball at the No. 8 's feet. Turnover scrum means what?

a: Gold have the throw-in because the ball was turned over from Blue having the feed?
b: Blue have the throw-in because the ball was turned over from Gold having the ball?


Here is the reason I ask

[LAWS]20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(a) After an infringement, the team that did not cause the infringement throws in the ball.

(b) Scrum after ruck. Refer to Law 16.7.

(c) Scrum after maul. Refer to Law 17.6.

(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

(e) When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

(f) When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again. If a scrum has to be reformed for any other reason not covered in this Law the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.[/LAWS]

So, what is a "stoppage"? Its not defined in Law, and the only thing I can ascertain is that it seems to be any reason for setting a scrum other than an infringement; this is implied by the open sentence of (d). If so, then the meaning of "stoppage" becomes important because it will determine who gets the throw-in.

For example, in (e) above, is the "stoppage" the place where the play stopped that caused the scrum to be ordered in the first place; as implied by (d), or is it where the scrum itself stopped. One will mean that Blue feeds the new scrum, the other could mean that Gold will feed the new scrum.

 

[ChrisR]

Turnover to me means the put goes to the team not in possession. Which, naturally, is different to the new ruling on scrums going thru 90 where the put goes back to the original feed.