[Scrum] Scrum to the team 'Going Forward'

[Pinky]

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:

Zebra, attacking team is the opposition to the team in whose half you are playing, not the team in possession.

 

[Phil E]

Note that the "Team Moving Forward" does not apply if you stop for an injury (its the team in possession); but it does apply if you stop for "Any Other Reason".

 

[crossref]

Zebra, attacking team is the opposition to the team in whose half you are playing, not the team in possession.

So if the 11 intercepts a pass on his own 22m line and breaks through with 80m to go, he is still the defending team, in possession and moving forward

 

[Camquin]

Yes for the few seconds until he crosses the half way line.

 

[Flish]

So if the 11 intercepts a pass on his own 22m line and breaks through with 80m to go, he is still the defending team, in possession and moving forward

Seems so, in possession and moving forward, but not 'attacking' ;-)

 

[mcroker]

Yes for the few seconds until he crosses the half way line.

And if the 3 intercepts a pass on his own 22m line and breaks through with 80m to go, he is still the defending team, in possession and moving forward for the few minutes until he crosses the half-way line (or drops the ball in shock).

 

[didds]

And if the 3 intercepts a pass on his own 22m line and breaks through with 80m to go, he is still the defending team, in possession and moving forward for the few minutes until he crosses the half-way line (or drops the ball in shock).

even for a 3 a few minutes to traverse maybe 28 metres at most is slow going. One presumes the uver speedy winger only 35m maximum may have caught him by then!

didds

 

[mcroker]

even for a 3 a few minutes to traverse maybe 28 metres at most is slow going. One presumes the uver speedy winger only 35m maximum may have caught him by then!

didds

The winger was hanging off the 3 slowing their progress down...

 

[crossref]

Here's a good example of the Law Book using the word "attacking" incorrectly (or not as per the definition, anyway)

[LAWS]12.11Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out[/LAWS].

The kick could have been from his own half, when he would have been a defending player

 

[Zebra1922]

Here's a good example of the Law Book using the word "attacking" incorrectly (or not as per the definition, anyway)

[LAWS]12.11Apart from at a kick-off or restart kick, if the ball is played or taken into in-goal by an attacking player and is made dead by an opponent, play is restarted with a 22-metre drop-out[/LAWS].

The kick could have been from his own half, when he would have been a defending player

I would say this is a better definition of attacking. An assumption you can only be attacking in the opposition half is just ridiculous.

 

[Flish]

I would say this is a better definition of attacking. An assumption you can only be attacking in the opposition half is just ridiculous.

Agreed, and in my original scenario I would argue that the team going forward gets the scrum, failing that the team last in possession - which is probably more in line with expectations anyway, but the law says different

 

[Pedro]

I would say this is a better definition of attacking. An assumption you can only be attacking in the opposition half is just ridiculous.

But it’s not an assumption, it’s a law- sensible or not, there are plenty of laws we may not like or agree with, but we still have to follow them surely?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Agreed, and in my original scenario I would argue that the team going forward gets the scrum, failing that the team last in possession - which is probably more in line with expectations anyway, but the law says different

You defend your home (your half) and attack the opposition (their half).

 

[crossref]

You defend your home (your half) and attack the opposition (their half).

Most of the time people use the word attacking to mean in possession and going forward..

 

[Zebra1922]

But it’s not an assumption, it’s a law- sensible or not, there are plenty of laws we may not like or agree with, but we still have to follow them surely?

I’m not sure that’s true, there are lots of occasions we interpret laws and apply common sense or expected outcomes.

 

[mcroker]

“Attacking” is a defined term, so I would expect any reference to the word in the laws to be used inline with definition. That is true in the scenario given in OP.

Ball is awarded to team last going forward (attacking the the conventional sense of the work)

...and only if that is not clear to the team who’s half we are not in (“Attacking” in the defined sense of the laws)

 

[crossref]

“Attacking” is a defined term, so I would expect any reference to the word in the laws to be used inline with definition. That is true in the scenario given in OP.

Ball is awarded to team last going forward (attacking the the conventional sense of the work)

...and only if that is not clear to the team who’s half we are not in (“Attacking” in the defined sense of the laws)

Yes but world rugby, having defined the word, don't always use it accordingly. Even in the Laws

 

[Dickie E]

Interestingly, in rugby, YOUR goal line is the line you defend. But it is the opposition's goal to get over it.

In Aussie Rules, Blue's goal is the one they kick towards. Which kinda makes sense.

 

[Pedro]

I’m not sure that’s true, there are lots of occasions we interpret laws and apply common sense or expected outcomes.

But only when it’s ambiguous....this isn’t (for me at least), it’s a clear definition in the law book.