Scrum Penalty Try.

[Andy P]

5m attacking scrum for red. Can't see what happens after a big drive to line but is pulled back for a new red scrum.
Scrum re-sets, ball in and wheels in favour of red i.e red 8 is going open and closer to the line and black backrow away from the ball. Before the ball comes back the ref blows and awards a penalty try for wheeling.

As it was the score made no difference to the game and the ref made a decision to penalise, not a lot you can do. There had been no issues with scrum prior to this.

It seemed like a rather quick move to a PT. Would it seem reasonable to award a PT at that point or would you play penalty advantage and see if red score or just play on. I would have played on but now am not sure how I would manage in future.

 

[Davet]

I assume this was U19; since at senior level wheeling is not an offence.

If the defenders wheeled deliberately then that's a Penalty offence; if that offence prevented a probable try then it's a PT.

What advantage can be gained that is greater than a PT - even if Red scored following advantage then it would probably be in a worse position, so the PT would be awarded anyway. In other words if you are going to award a PT there is absolutely no point in playing advantage.

Given that there was a Penalty offence 5m from the line how could you just play on?

 

[crossref]

can't be U19 as the first scrum they attempted a drive to the line, which you can't do at U19 anyway (maximum travel 1.5m)

 

[Andy P]

2nd XV Cup Game.
The from a defensive point of view, the wheel improved the chances of scoring a try, red had control of the ball and were under no pressure. I guess I'm asking if you take away the actual decision, would you go straight to a penalty try. The first scrum finished without any warnings being given to black so I am assuming there was no wrong doing seen be the referee.

I can fully understand if the scrum was being disrupted on a number of occasions and/or the black scrum was deliberately trying to disadvantage the red back row but defensively you wouldn't wheel to make the attack easier.

 

[Dixie]

2nd XV Cup Game.

Is wheeling an offence in the adult game in Scotland? In England, we'd have no reason to award a PK, let alone a PT, in the circumstances described. It didn't sound like a defensive whip-wheel, which would be the only reason to PK. However, let's assume that it was a whip wheel.

These tend to rotate around the centre point of the scrum at the time of formation - in other words, the scrum goes nowhere but round. If that were the case, I don't think I could support a PT, irrespective of the past history. Is a 5m scrum "probably" going to result in a try? IMO, the answer to that can only be No. A scrum that has advanced 3m and is then disrupted, there is a different dynamic at play. But with a whip-wheel rotating around a point on the 5m line - no way. The need there is to issue cards rather than award a dodgy PT - but with the #8 moving closer to the line and the oppo back row out of the way, I'd hope that there might be a pickup and score as a precurser to my card action, so I'd wait to see if it can be rescued before going 90.

 

[Davet]

I guess I'm asking if you take away the actual decision, would you go straight to a penalty try.

A PT is not awarded for repeat offences, but for an offence that prevents a probable try.

As mentioned above, if that is the case then a PT is awarded on the first such occasion, the ref has no need to "speak" to the offenders first.

If the ref is clear in his mind that a PT is required then there is no point in playing advantage.

From the description I am unsure if there was or was not an offence, but the ref was a lot closer than I am, and I can't second guess that. But assuming he felt it was a PT offence then he would have no reason not to award it immediately.

 

[crossref]

If the ref is clear in his mind that a PT is required then there is no point in playing advantage.
.

yes but what nags at me is that a PT makes the ref the centre of attention, but if after a short advantage they score anyway, then the centre of attention becomes the players again, and one of them gets his name on the score sheet, to boot.

Isn't that reason enough to play on sometimes - (yes of course if it's close and the try is a 5 pointer in the corner whereas the PT is a 7 pointer in the middle, that's different)

not certain about this - -just a thought floated.

 

[PaulDG]

Scrum re-sets, ball in and wheels in favour of red i.e red 8 is going open and closer to the line and black backrow away from the ball. Before the ball comes back the ref blows and awards a penalty try for wheeling.

Best guess.. Ref saw/believed Black was in the process of attempting to whip-wheel back again to recover from red's wheeling for their advantage. In the circumstances, ref believed this was potentially dangerous - so stop it and penalise it.

As red looked very likely to score, that should be a PT. Which it was.

Would it seem reasonable to award a PT at that point or would you play penalty advantage and see if red score or just play on.

From your description, red looked likely to score so I think most of us would simply let them do it. However, if perhaps unseen by you, Black were up to something that could bring the scrum down dangerously then that has to be stopped ASAP. If that's what happened, PT.

 

[Davet]

Crossref - its a thought, but not one I favour.

The ref is sometimes the centre of attention whatever he wants - awarding that last minute PK that changes the game result... etc.
I know you are not saying that playing an advantage when faced with a PT is "bottling" it, but if you know it's a PT then all you are doing is wasting time to virtually no purpose - in an attempt to hide from the limelight. Stand straight, believe in your decision and make it without fear or favour. Be matter of fact about, don't make the grand gestures just do it and move on - would be my advice.

 

[aggie ref]

It didn't sound like a defensive whip-wheel, which would be the only reason to PK. However, let's assume that it was a whip wheel.

A whip wheel is a penalty offense? What Law is that?

 

[OB..]

Crossref - its a thought, but not one I favour.

The ref is sometimes the centre of attention whatever he wants - awarding that last minute PK that changes the game result... etc.
I know you are not saying that playing an advantage when faced with a PT is "bottling" it, but if you know it's a PT then all you are doing is wasting time to virtually no purpose - in an attempt to hide from the limelight. Stand straight, believe in your decision and make it without fear or favour. Be matter of fact about, don't make the grand gestures just do it and move on - would be my advice.

Good advice, too.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I am in agreemnt with DaveT on this.

A referee is there to manage & control the match, he has to be effective in his communication, and he uses Safety-Equity-Law as his management framework.

If there is a deliberate whip wheel at the 5m scrum, and if his judgement is that a try would probably have been scored, then award the PT asap. Prevent flashpoints (front row detaching & standing up, flankers breaking early / being held in, and all that the scrum halves might get up to for example).

There are times in a match when the referee needs to be the centre of attention and to have full control - this is one such scenario in my view.

 

[OB..]

A whip wheel is a penalty offense? What Law is that?

It is shorthand for wheeling the scrum using illegal techniques. It is called that because such techniques tend to produce a much faster wheel than legal techniques.

 

[SimonSmith]

Is wheeling an offence in the adult game in Scotland?

AT lower levels ( I believe) they use U19 scrum law

 

[Simon Thomas]

A whip wheel is a penalty offense? What Law is that?

20.1 (f) when FR interlocking heads break up it becomes illegal
20.2 (a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each
front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove - this will not be the case when a whip wheel is being .
20.3 Binding - must stay legal, and doesn't especially if "pulling on"

or just basic catch-all dangerous play !

 

[Adam]

A PT is not awarded for repeat offences, but for an offence that prevents a probable try.

As mentioned above, if that is the case then a PT is awarded on the first such occasion, the ref has no need to "speak" to the offenders first.

If the ref is clear in his mind that a PT is required then there is no point in playing advantage.

From the description I am unsure if there was or was not an offence, but the ref was a lot closer than I am, and I can't second guess that. But assuming he felt it was a PT offence then he would have no reason not to award it immediately.

A Premiership referee I know gave a PT at the first scrum.

 

[Dickie E]

What advantage can be gained that is greater than a PT - even if Red scored following advantage then it would probably be in a worse position, so the PT would be awarded anyway. In other words if you are going to award a PT there is absolutely no point in playing advantage.

Let me see if I have this straight.

Winger is about to score in corner but a defender tackles him around the neck. The tackle is ineffective and the winger successfully grounds the ball in the corner.

You would award a PT?

 

[crossref]

Let me see if I have this straight.

Winger is about to score in corner but a defender tackles him around the neck. The tackle is ineffective and the winger successfully grounds the ball in the corner.

You would award a PT?

Oddly enough, I have done exactly that. Nasty high tackle, the winger went down like sack of potatoes, but held on to the ball and did manage to still score.

I blew my 'angry, foul play' whistle blast, and
- first thought was de-fusing the angry flare up (we nearly had a brawl, but thankfully didn't)
- second thought was whether he was injured
- then third thought was what to do next.

I separated the teams and gave a PT and YC.

 

[Dickie E]

Penalty Try. If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts

Doesn't this wording suggest foul play must have prevented a probable try from being scored?

 

[Davet]

Or scored in a better position

We beam up the offender, if he hadn't been there would the winger have been able to get closer to the posts?