[Law] Sco v Eng - Scrum back?

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Can't see this one has been asked about?

But did I see the ref have a bit of a brain fart? Farrell misses pen to left of posts, Hogg takes 22 and kicks it into Eng in-goal, Ford makes it dead (straight away) and ref give an Eng 22 :chin:
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
15,606
Post Likes
1,874
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Yes I noticed that.
Should have been a scrum back surely?
Unless the ref thought it wasn't "without delay"?

[LAWS]Law 12
17. If a 22-metre drop-out reaches the opponents’ in-goal without touching any player and
an opponent grounds the ball without delay or it goes into touch-in-goal or on or over
the dead-ball line, the non-kicking team has the option of having the kick retaken or a
scrum.[/LAWS]
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
I am not sure that Ford was completely certain what the Law was either
 

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
:wow: international player not knowing laws #HaskellvIta
 

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
496
Post Likes
54
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
My thoughts were same. The 'without delay' qualifier is interesting. I denied the scrum option last season to a player who decided to wait and draw the oppo into approaching him. Then he fake touched down before actually touching down. Perfectly legal, if not slightly incendiary to his oppos. I told him it wasn't immediate so he gets only the 22 DO option. He was convinced I was wrong.
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
There was also a "not 5" at the lineout and the scrum wasn't 15m in from the Touch Line :wtf:
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389

Well, we have discussed a few times now whether it's a FK or a scrum.

The answr, of course , is that opponent catching ball inside 5m is a FK , but team mate catching ball inside 5m is a scrum/lineout option

(18.25 and 18.23.b respectively)

This was a teamate , right ? So the scrum was correct (I assume he actually offered an option and scrum chosen)
 
Last edited:

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,288
Post Likes
265
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Well, we have discussed a few times now whether it's a FK or a scrum.

The answr, of course , is that opponent catching ball inside 5m is a FK , but team mate catching ball inside 5m is a scrum/lineout option

(18.25 and 18.23.b respectively)

This was a teamate , right ? So the scrum was correct (I assume he actually offered an option and scrum chosen)

I'm aware what law says it should be....
But my question was why you thought it was interesting that it wasn’t a FK!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
I'm aware what law says it should be....
But my question was why you thought it was interesting that it wasn’t a FK!

Well
1 because we discuss it quite often over the years and
2 yes, because it was one of the changes they made in the 2017 rewrite: prior to 2017 the sanction for a player of either team catching the ball inside 5m was a FK. In 2017 they changed the Law so this only applied to an opponent.

It was reassuring to see the current Law applied
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,017
Post Likes
1,110
I don't agree with your assessment of the Law.

  • The ball must:
    • Be thrown in straight along the mark of touch; and
    • Reach the five-metre line before it hits the ground or is played.
    • Be thrown in without delay once the lineout is formed. [COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Sanction: [/COLOR][COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Free-kick.[/COLOR]
  • The thrower must not pretend to throw the ball. [COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Sanction: [/COLOR][COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Free-kick.[/COLOR]
  • Opposition players must not block the throw. [COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Sanction: [/COLOR][COLOR=#2C8626 !important]Free-kick.
  • The section about the throw being blocked is clearly separate from the requirement that it travel 5m.
  • I think the rewrite means, inadvertently or not, that any failure of throw to go 5m is a scrum.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,613
Post Likes
282
However, I bet the first offence was

18.22
The player throwing in the ball stands on the mark of touch with both feet outside the field of play. The thrower must not step into the field of play until the ball has been thrown. Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum.

But that may as well be struck out as it is never enforced. Though 18.4.d is enforced at a quick throw.
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
I don't agree with your assessment of the Law.


  • The section about the throw being blocked is clearly separate from the requirement that it travel 5m.
  • I think the rewrite means, inadvertently or not, that any failure of throw to go 5m is a scrum.

Not 5m is an option - lineout or scrum
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,604
Post Likes
574
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
In oz land, we don't prescribe (currently...but who knows next week) to the same offence having different sanctions. FK every time.
I just completed our online exam (For my 4 yearly reaccrediation) and this was one of the law questions asked (actual exam answer attached).

Screenshot_20200211-133514_Samsung Internet.jpg

But it certainly is refreshing to see that universally we continue to apply WR laws our own way! :sarc::sarc: :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
In oz land, we don't prescribe (currently...but who knows next week) to the same offence having different sanctions. FK every time.
I just completed our online exam (For my 4 yearly reaccrediation) and this was one of the law questions asked (actual exam answer attached).

View attachment 3967

But it certainly is refreshing to see that universally we continue to apply WR laws our own way! :sarc::sarc: :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

I think what's happened there is that they set the exam prior to 2017 and haven't updated it (either because they haven't noticed the change, or haven't accepted the change. I wonder which)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
I'm aware what law says it should be....
But my question was why you thought it was interesting that it wasn’t a FK!

I think the responses since have illustrated why it's interesting !

Simon Smith and Treadmore think it's always an option

Menace and the ARU thinks it's always a FK

You and I think it's an option when a team mate catches the ball, but a FK when the opponent does it

So we are completely divided !
 
Last edited:

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
Yes, when a team mate catches it 18?23.b
Not when an opponent catches it 18.25

18.23b does not mention team mate (or opponent).

18.25 does not mention anything about 5m (nor catching). Just for fun, there is no sanction given in the (Android) Laws app for 18.25!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,147
Post Likes
2,389
18.23b does not mention team mate (or opponent).

18.25 does not mention anything about 5m (nor catching). Just for fun, there is no sanction given in the (Android) Laws app for 18.25!

18.25 has the sanction listed on the website (FK) . It is indeed missing from the app, a bug in the app. Not the only one
 
Top