[Scrum] Scrum to the team 'Going Forward'

[Flish]

What would you give in the below;

Red vs White, White in possession, series of pick and goes but having no joy, over the space of 5 breakdowns they are pushed backwards about 5m, then we end up unplayable so scrum to team going forward (Red?) or fall back to the attacking team (White?) - I gave scrum Red - some found this unexpected but were sold on explanation (Red going forward)

Same scenario as above but only two phases and pushed back 0.5m - I would probably give scrum White - certainly expected outcome

Thoughts?

 

[Rich_NL]

Good question. Personally, I'd have given the scrum to white unless they were really clearly driven back in contact at the last phase (as unclear = white as attacking team).

I see "going forward" as the state of the last possession, rather than over the last phase or several phases - if the 9 passes wide to 12, 5m backwards, then as long as the 12 makes a net forward gain from their starting point that team will get the restart, they don't have to make 5m.

Speaking as a player though, you could have sold your decision to me with no problem.

 

[Flish]

Don't disagree, and a back running forward (even if net distance is backwards) I think I would go scrum white too, but in each of these phases they got shoved backwards so that was the picture I had in my head - but questioning it in terms of expected behaviour

 

[crossref]

Its a general question, if a team goes 25m forward and then is pushed 50cm back, is it still the team going forward.

There is no easy answer

 

[mcroker]

I would be biased heavily to the team who took it in retaining possession. Only if there was a clear pseduo-turnover before the ruck became unplayable would I award it the other way (e.g. Red clearly drive white back/off the ball prior to an unplayable heap forming).

I note that in 2017 it said "The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball." which has helpfully been simplified to "The team last moving forward."... which supports my defacto position that only the current ruck is relevant, not a trend over the previous phases...

 

[beckett50]

What would you give in the below;

Red vs White, White in possession, series of pick and goes but having no joy, over the space of 5 breakdowns they are pushed backwards about 5m, then we end up unplayable so scrum to team going forward (Red?) or fall back to the attacking team (White?) - I gave scrum Red - some found this unexpected but were sold on explanation (Red going forward)

Same scenario as above but only two phases and pushed back 0.5m - I would probably give scrum White - certainly expected outcome

Thoughts?

i have emboldened the key part of this.

Red have been positive in defence, in that they have not given away any penalties and succeeded in not only repelling the attack but also pushing the attack back toward White's Goal Line.

Clear in Law, Scrum to Red as the team going forward.

 

[Camquin]

Were White the attacking team?
If they are on the red line they are, if they are trying to get out of their 22 they aren't.

 

[Decorily]

Were White the attacking team?
If they are on the red line they are, if they are trying to get out of their 22 they aren't.

The only line that's relevant in defining 'attacking team' is the half way line!

 

[timmad]

The only line that's relevant in defining 'attacking team' is the half way line!

'Attacking team' same as 'team going forward'?
As mcroker pointed out:

I note that in 2017 it said ​

"The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball.

" which has helpfully been simplified to ​

"The team last moving forward."

... which supports my defacto position that only the current ruck is relevant, not a trend over the previous phases...​

 

[Marc Wakeham]

'Attacking team' same as 'team going forward'?
."

Really?

[LAWS]19 (2020) Extract: The team last moving forward. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team.[/LAWS]

Seams to disagree.

 

[mcroker]

[LAWS]Attacking team: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.[/FONT][/LAWS]

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Indeed.

 

[Flish]

[LAWS]Attacking team: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.[/FONT][/LAWS]

In this case Red were the attacking team (play was on the white 10m and going backwards) however I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who would think the attacking team was the one with the ball moving forward (or trying to!) and in control of how the next phase will be played

 

[crossref]

Unfortunately 'attacking' is often used to mean something other than the definition .. even by WR themselves . I don't think we can insist on that definition any more

 

[Decorily]

'Attacking team' same as 'team going forward'?
As mcroker pointed out:?

No...

 

[Rich_NL]

Unfortunately 'attacking' is often used to mean something other than the definition .. even by WR themselves . I don't think we can insist on that definition any more

However, in this instance it's completely consistent with the "in the opponent's half" definition and usage - to favour that team for a restart if all other things are equal - and I see no reason to think that's not what is meant.

 

[crossref]

However, in this instance it's completely consistent with the "in the opponent's half" definition and usage - to favour that team for a restart if all other things are equal - and I see no reason to think that's not what is meant.

I agree, in this instance

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What would you give in the below;

Red vs White, White in possession, series of pick and goes but having no joy, over the space of 5 breakdowns they are pushed backwards about 5m, then we end up unplayable so scrum to team going forward (Red?) or fall back to the attacking team (White?) - I gave scrum Red - some found this unexpected but were sold on explanation (Red going forward)

Same scenario as above but only two phases and pushed back 0.5m - I would probably give scrum White - certainly expected outcome

Thoughts?

Really?

[LAWS]19 (2020) Extract: The team last moving forward. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team.[/LAWS]

Seams to disagree.

In this case Red were the attacking team (play was on the white 10m and going backwards) however I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who would think the attacking team was the one with the ball moving forward (or trying to!) and in control of how the next phase will be played

White were going backwards so we apply "The team last moving forward." IE RED The "attacking team does not come into the equation.

If neither side was going forward we would t oneed to know who was the attacking team (IN LAW). Had the OP stated where play took place we would know who that was. The OP does not make it clear.
"White ?" suggests a lack of confidence in that call.

 

[timmad]

Sorry if my post was unclear. I was trying to make the point that Decorily's definition of 'attacking team' is not the same as 'the team going forward' as defined by mcroker. I believe the team going forward in the phase of play immediately before play is stopped should have the put in regardless of field position.

 

[Zebra1922]

Previous to this thread I’d have given the scrum to the team in possession. It’s clear I’m wrong in law, reference to the team going forward OR the attacking team if none (assuming the ‘attacking’ team are those in posession) then I’m this scenario it should be scrum red.

ill see if I remember next game :smile: