[Scrum] Law check - scrum turnover

[didds]

Well I disagree with that ref, how can being offside at a scrum or line out 'not be material'? Anyone who is offside gets an unfair advantage and cut down the options available to the attacking team.

.

I was merely a club TJ,.... "fair enough" is that he bothered to tell me why. I wasn't in a position to have a learned debate over materiality...

didds

 

[OB..]

By picking the ball up (mythically) W-E pushed the boundary of what was conventionally accepted - and in the end he extended it.

The best evidence we have is that whatever William Webb Ellis (not hyphenated) did or did not do, he did not change the game. The change started gradually in the 1830s, by which time he was long forgotten.

 

[Last_20]

The offside that is penalised less often is that of the attacking team encroaching within 5m before the ball is out of the scrum

 

[Zebra1922]

The offside that is penalised less often is that of the attacking team encroaching within 5m before the ball is out of the scrum

Not surprising unless you have a team of three. You might get chance to take quick glance behind you but there are so many other things to look for and prioritise this is one I’m not too concerned about.

 

[Phil E]

Well I disagree with that ref, how can being offside at a scrum or line out 'not be material'? Anyone who is offside gets an unfair advantage and cut down the options available to the attacking team.

This is one of my pet hates and I reff this very strictly.

Scrum on the touchline 5m line. Centre of the pitch.
The attacking teams No 8 picks the ball up from his feet and goes down the blind side.

The defending winger on the far side of the pitch is 1m offside as the No 8 goes blind.

Tell me how his offside is material to the play and affects the game? Yes he needs to be told so he knows you have seen him, but penalising this is not helping the game is it?

 

[didds]

Scrum on the touchline 5m line. Centre of the pitch.
The attacking teams No 8 picks the ball up from his feet and goes down the blind side.

The defending winger on the far side of the pitch is 1m offside as the No 8 goes blind.

Tell me how his offside is material to the play and affects the game? Yes he needs to be told so he knows you have seen him, but penalising this is not helping the game is it?

I suppose the answer to that is another question...

if 1m offside here is not material, what distance IS material? 2m offside? 4m offside?

And the obvious straight answer is - yes its material in that #8 has probably lost 1m of territory, which may make the rest of the defenders' jobs to get back onside at the subsequent ruck/tackle more difficult, thus enabling the attack to be more effective?

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I suppose the answer to that is another question...

if 1m offside here is not material, what distance IS material? 2m offside? 4m offside?

And the obvious straight answer is - yes its material in that #8 has probably lost 1m of territory, which may make the rest of the defenders' jobs to get back onside at the subsequent ruck/tackle more difficult, thus enabling the attack to be more effective?

didds

I'm note sure how the 8 has lost 1m territory to a player 40 metres away on the other side of the pitch. You'll need t oexp,lain that one to me. Ofcourse if the defenders job is made hard by the winger being offside surly the defenders have lost out by the offence so we may conclude that The attackers have not been adversely affected by the the defenders error.

 

[Phil E]

I often wonder about the materiality of offsides when a defender pushes too far forward and goes offside.
He leaves a gap in the line which the attacker then runs through as a direct result of the defender pushing too far up the field.

Was there an offence? Yes.
Did it close the space for the attackers? Yes.

Would the attackers prefer the penalty to the massive line break (level of game is important here)? No!

We can warn the defender, or we can play advantage, but there are times when closing the space actually helps the other team.

 

[didds]

ah sorry - I missed the "far side" bit!

LOL

maybe he is a sniper? ;-)

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The best evidence we have is that whatever William Webb Ellis (not hyphenated) did or did not do, he did not change the game. The change started gradually in the 1830s, by which time he was long forgotten.

WWE has yet to be contacted for his refutation? IMO he is hiding something.

 

[OB..]

WWE has yet to be contacted for his refutation? IMO he is hiding something.

There is no evidence that he took any interest in the game after he left Rugby School in 1825. When he died in Menton, France, in 1872, he probably had no idea that the RFU had been founded the previous year.

 

[Nigib]

Not surprising unless you have a team of three. You might get chance to take quick glance behind you but there are so many other things to look for and prioritise this is one I’m not too concerned about.

If you are team of one, suggest you stay mostly blindside for scrums so you can scan the backs as well as the scrums. They can see you, and you can not only shout a warning, but also wave them back with a hand. PK if they offend, and they have no excuse.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

WWE has yet to be contacted for his refutation? IMO he is hiding something.

My post was in jest

There is no evidence that he took any interest in the game after he left Rugby School in 1825. When he died in Menton, France, in 1872, he probably had no idea that the RFU had been founded the previous year.

Perhaps the following is best for a different thread. But because of your facts, nothing could be more appropriate than the WWE trophy for such a fractious game. We take the game too seriously perhaps the WWE myth/ trophy is the perfect reminder our folly.

 

[Zebra1922]

If you are team of one, suggest you stay mostly blindside for scrums so you can scan the backs as well as the scrums. They can see you, and you can not only shout a warning, but also wave them back with a hand. PK if they offend, and they have no excuse.

you need to speak to my referee coaches who generally state you should be on the put in side and follow the ball round. Non put in side only if there is a problem at that side of the scrum. If you are towards a touchline this clearly makes it difficult to see both backlines, as you follow the ball back if it stays in the scrum you can ultimately get to the blindside and then see both backlines, but if they play it early the backs are behind you, at best you might see one set but not the other. Usual story as a referee, there is only much you can see and the players will take advantage of this.

My main wish is that team coaches would understand more that there will always be things you miss (and that occasionally, just occasionally they might be wrong about the offence they claim they saw from 70 yards away when you were right there and saw nothing!)

 

[Dickie E]

you need to speak to my referee coaches who generally state you should be on the put in side and follow the ball round.

Why do they state that? What is the advantage of being on the put in side?

 

[menace]

Why do they state that? What is the advantage of being on the put in side?

So you can better pick up and penalise all those crooked feeds! :wink:

 

[crossref]

Why do they state that? What is the advantage of being on the put in side?

So you can see the ball coming straight out

 

[Dickie E]

So you can better pick up and penalise all those crooked feeds! :wink:

well, you actually can't. You'll see squint feeds better from the non-feed side without trying to look through the bodies of 2 SHs

 

[Dickie E]

So you can see the ball coming straight out

its as likely to come out at either end

 

[crossref]

its as likely to come out at either end

Do you think ? I would say 90% of the straight out is back the way it came ?