Scrum wheel/full time

[TNT88]

I haven't seen the replay yet, but I'm fairly certain in the Force v Tahs game last night Glen Jackson awarded a scrum turnover after the siren. Did anyone else see this?

I remember earlier in the season Peyper ended a Crusaders (vs Highlanders??) game in the exact same circumstance.

Sorry for going off memory here, I can't upload video's at the moment. Did anyone else notice this? If it is the case, will SANZAR clarify?

 

[KML1]

A wheeled scrum (if that's what you mean by a scrum turnover) is not a completed scrum (learnt that the hard way a few years back!) so that would be correct.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I haven't seen the replay yet, but I'm fairly certain in the Force v Tahs game last night Glen Jackson awarded a scrum turnover after the siren. Did anyone else see this?

I remember earlier in the season Peyper ended a Crusaders (vs Highlanders??) game in the exact same circumstance.

Sorry for going off memory here, I can't upload video's at the moment. Did anyone else notice this? If it is the case, will SANZAR clarify?

Well done Jacko, thats the correct call.

[LAWS]20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM
(a) The ball comes out. When the ball comes out of the scrum in any direction except the
tunnel, the scrum ends.
(b) Scrum in the in-goal. A scrum cannot take place in the in-goal. When the ball in a scrum is
on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground
the ball for a try or a touch down.
(c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are
nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the
ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.[/LAWS]

A wheeled scrum has not ended, its a type of reset scrum.

 

[Adam]

I thought we had a clarification on this?

 

[KML1]

Not sure any clarification needed is there Adam?? Law is pretty explicit. Just wish Id remembered that before I ended a 6pt Championship game after on an attacking 5m scrum (to the side that lost) when it collapsed.....#fondmemories

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thought we had a clarification on this?

Not quite. There is no mention of a wheeled scrum, but I have highlighted the part which I believe is relevant to the OP's situation.

[LAWS]Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling
3-2009
Union
FFR
Law Reference
5
Date
8 April '09
Request

Law 5.4 stipulates that “time-keeping may be delegated to an official responsible for time keeping”.

Law 5.7 (e) stipulates that “if time expires and the ball is not dead or a scrum or lineout has been awarded, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead.”

The ball is dead “when it has gone outside the playing area, or when the referee has blown the whistle for a stoppage, or when a conversion kick has been taken.”

Law 20.4 (g) sets out that “if a scrum collapses or lifts up in the air without penalty a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.”

Following these provisions, the FFR would like a ruling from the Designated Members with regards to the situation as described below:
1. The referee awards a scrum for Team A.
2. After blowing the whistle for this scrum and setting it up, there is the siren indicating the end of the match (real playing time).
3. The referee allows for this scrum to be played.
4. The ball is put in then the scrum collapses without any penalty from either team.
5. The referee blows the whistle.

The “technical” decision to be made would be to award a new scrum.

Question:
Does the referee have to have this scrum played or does he have to blow for the end of the match?

Ruling of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Despite the Referee being able to delegate responsibility for time keeping the referee is still the sole judge of fact and Law and the game ends with the referee’s whistle.

The scrum has been set in playing time and collapses. The referee is obliged to blow the whistle in accordance with Law 6.A.8 (g). The original scrum has not been completed and has had to be reformed in accordance with Law 20.4 (g) and therefore the match would continue and end at the next stoppage of play in accordance with Law 5.7(e).[/LAWS]

NOTE: This is not the whole clarification. The rest of it concerns a line-out on full time, so I have edited the references to that out.

 

[Phil E]

I am not sure that a collapsed scrum after time and a wheeled scrum are the same thing.

For a collapsed scrum (specifically mentioned in the ruling) the law states:

[LAWS]20.4(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered
and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.[/LAWS]

Using the ruling as a reference would suggest that "a further scrum" means an extension of the original scrum.


For a wheeled scrum the law states:

[LAWS]20.11 SCRUM WHEELED
(a) If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed
beyond a position parallel to the touchline, the referee must stop play and order another
scrum.
(b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown
in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win
possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.[/LAWS]

The fact that this is a "new" scrum would suggest it is not the same one and is therefore a new (and separate) scrum ordered after the hooter.....so no-side.

The ruling references "the original scrum has not been completed". Since we are now ordering a "new" scrum, the original scrum must have been completed...........although the observant ones amongst you will note that a wheeled scrum doesn't neccesarily fulfil law 20.10 Ending The Scrum!

 

[OB..]

The fact that this is a "new" scrum would suggest it is not the same one and is therefore a new (and separate) scrum ordered after the hooter.....so no-side.

The ruling references "the original scrum has not been completed". Since we are now ordering a "new" scrum, the original scrum must have been completed...........although the observant ones amongst you will note that a wheeled scrum doesn't neccesarily fulfil law 20.10 Ending The Scrum!

On the other hand, 20.10 would suggest the scrum has not ended therefore it has not been completed.

So we have an ambiguity. I prefer the view that the ball has to come back into play after a scrum has been awarded, and I have certainly seen this happen at top level.

 

[Davet]

further scrum would suggest "one more", as in go a mile further, and new scrum whilst seems to follow a similar linguistic approach, - both of which would seem, on the face of it to indicate that we have moved on to a new stage - which is how KML1 cleary regarded it until told better.

It sems that the illiterate 12 year olds who write the laws don't actually mean what they've written, or possibly their superiors have decided that what is written is wrong, and have decreed that the scrum is not a further one but a reset of the same one - and it makes sense for that also to be interpreted as the meaning of "new scrum", possibly with a sense of "renewed". But whatever the linguistic tricks, it seems that they want an awarded scrum to be properly completed.

If the scrum wheels 90 before the ball is out then the ref should blow and stop that scrum, he may be late blowing but the instant of FR going past 90 before the ball is out is the instant the scrum has to be stopped, without it legally ending.

But I do get irritated with the lax attitude of the law drafters - they had one go at rewriting them all about 14 years ago, but frankly that created as many - probably more - issues than it solved. it may be that any attempt to rewrite again would fail in the same way - so we are left with a series of rulings to try to make sense of things. What I wish they would do is to say, where appropriate, the wording of that clause in law is poor, for clarity it should read .......

 

[OB..]

But I do get irritated with the lax attitude of the law drafters - they had one go at rewriting them all about 14 years ago, but frankly that created as many - probably more - issues than it solved. it may be that any attempt to rewrite again would fail in the same way - so we are left with a series of rulings to try to make sense of things. What I wish they would do is to say, where appropriate, the wording of that clause in law is poor, for clarity it should read .......

Some of you may be familiar with the Larceny Act 1916, long title "An Act to consolidate and simplify the Law relating to Larceny triable on Indictment and Kindred Offences." It didn't work, and after many "clarifications" (ie court decisions) it was replaced by the Theft Act in 1968. Acts of Parliament are written by specialists, and this is one of many examples which effectively show that it is virtually impossible to avoid the sort of problems we encounter in the laws of rugby. The best we can do is deal with each problem as it arises. (And possibly create more problems ...)

How many of us can claim we would have spotted such problems BEFORE they arose? You might get one or two, but there will be others you miss.

 

[crossref]

How many of us can claim we would have spotted such problems BEFORE they arose? You might get one or two, but there will be others you miss.

I think everyone will agree that I was an early spotter of the ambiguity of the Law on leggings.. and quite some time before the RFU Touchline magazine tripped over it.
:biggrin:

 

[didds]

I confess to assuming this is why they used to use cambridge and stellenbosch as laboratories.

Did they never just get a bunch of players and coaches around a table to discuss what may occur? Or was that seen as pointless cos players and coaches may just sit tight lipped having worked out the flaws and wanting to exploit them? (In itself pointless cos everybody works it out and nullifies each other!)

Whilst OBs point is generally valid you sometimes really have to wonder if anyone ever even stopped to consider the impact of what would occur with some changes.

A clear and obvious one being the removal of the old unsuccessful end to ruck law. I appreciate there were concerns in the early 90s about wanting to promote the use of more ball in hand - but its consequences have been evident for 20 years since with wide field trench defenses.

didds

 

[OB..]

A clear and obvious one being the removal of the old unsuccessful end to ruck law. I appreciate there were concerns in the early 90s about wanting to promote the use of more ball in hand - but its consequences have been evident for 20 years since with wide field trench defenses.

didds

In 1992 the IRB brought in the turnover law for both ruck and maul. In 1994 for the ruck they reverted to the previous law under which the ball was thrown in by the team moving forwards etc.

 

[crossref]

Did they never just get a bunch of players and coaches around a table to discuss what may occur? Or was that seen as pointless cos players and coaches may just sit tight lipped having worked out the flaws and wanting to exploit them? (In itself pointless cos everybody works it out and nullifies each other!)

Whilst OBs point is generally valid you sometimes really have to wonder if anyone ever even stopped to consider the impact of what would occur with some changes.


didds

I suspect that no matter how much discussion and theorising occurs, there's actually no way to really predict the impact of any Law change, until it is tried out. Hence ELVs are a good idea.

example - I seem to remember that the idea of same-team-throws-in after a PK to touch, was brought in to make PKs in your own half more valuable. No one thought that kicking for the corner would be used for an attacking PK in the opponents 22m. In turn this has led to the cambridge trial of PK where a LO can simply be chosen as an option. unintended consequences

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am not sure that a collapsed scrum after time and a wheeled scrum are the same thing.

For a collapsed scrum (specifically mentioned in the ruling) the law states:

[LAWS]20.4(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered
and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.[/LAWS]

Using the ruling as a reference would suggest that "a further scrum" means an extension of the original scrum.


For a wheeled scrum the law states:

[LAWS]20.11 SCRUM WHEELED
(a) If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed
beyond a position parallel to the touchline, the referee must stop play and order another
scrum.
(b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown
in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win
possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.[/LAWS]

The fact that this is a "new" scrum would suggest it is not the same one and is therefore a new (and separate) scrum ordered after the hooter.....so no-side.

The ruling references "the original scrum has not been completed". Since we are now ordering a "new" scrum, the original scrum must have been completed...........although the observant ones amongst you will note that a wheeled scrum doesn't neccesarily fulfil law 20.10 Ending The Scrum!

I think the term "new scrum" is a red herring. Wheeling the scrum is not an infringement if it results in a scrum turnover as described. Therefore it must be the same scrum, just as it is with a no-fault collapse or a no-fault reset.

Perhaps this is a hangover from the days when a wheeled scrum was not necessarily a turnover.

In the 1996 Laws...

[LAWS]LAW 20 (18)
A scrummage must not be wheeled beyond a position where the middle line becomes parallel to the touch line. The scrummage will be reformed at the site of the stoppage, the ball to be put in by the side that has gained possession or otherwise by the same team.[/LAWS]

The turnover of possession at a wheeled scrum was first trialled as an ELV in 2003

[LAWS]LAW 20.11 SCRUM WHEELED
(a) If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touch-line, the referee must stop play and order another scrum.

EXPERIMENTAL LAW VARIATION
(b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.[/LAWS]


It remained an ELV until it was incorporated in the 2009 Laws, making it a bloody long experiment.

 

[didds]

In 1992 the IRB brought in the turnover law for both ruck and maul. In 1994 for the ruck they reverted to the previous law under which the ball was thrown in by the team moving forwards etc.

yers... but only as a final option if various others were not first conclusive? Or something?

Put another way... why do we now see WFT defense if rucks are the same as they ever were?

didds

 

[OB..]

yers... but only as a final option if various others were not first conclusive? Or something?

Put another way... why do we now see WFT defense if rucks are the same as they ever were?

didds

I really do not understand the point you are trying to make. My point is that apart from a two year break the law has been the same. Other things have changed, like tactics, professionalism.

 

[irishref]

20.11 seems clear to me. A new scrum, ergo you can whistle for time.

If that were to happen to me in a game and a team/coach were unhappy and want to discuss it, I'd be very happy to quote 20.11 and say I was correct to call time.

Since we're discussing possible inconsistencies in the bible, how about this

From the preamble:
Free kicks are denoted as:
Sanction: Free kick --> THIS IS IN GREEN PRINT

but then looking at the end section of law 21.8

Sanction: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second free kick, awarded 10
metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the
goal line. Any player may take the kick. If the referee awards a second free kick, the second
free kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the free
kick.

All of the above written in RED

case to get the bible updated?

 

[OB..]

20.11 seems clear to me. A new scrum, ergo you can whistle for time.

If that were to happen to me in a game and a team/coach were unhappy and want to discuss it, I'd be very happy to quote 20.11 and say I was correct to call time.

I would disagree and say you are placing far too much weight on the word "new" without looking at the wider context.

[LAWS]Law 5.7 (e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.[/LAWS]
When is a scrum completed?[LAWS]Law 20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM
(a) The ball comes out. When the ball comes out of the scrum in any direction except the tunnel, the scrum ends.
(b) Scrum in the in-goal. A scrum cannot take place in the in-goal. When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground the ball for a try or a touch down.
(c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends. [/LAWS]
That does not include "resetting" because of the wheel, so what is the basis for claiming the scrum has been completed?

I can understand this issue being argued both ways, but until we get a formal ruling of some sort, I will stick to my view.

 

[Simon Thomas]

My interpretation is that a wheeled scrum with turn-over is the "same" scrum - i.e the scrum process is not completed, in that same way that an accidental reset or collapse, is the same scrum.

So I agree with Ian and OB, but have the greatest sympathy with referees trying to make sense of the Laws that appear to have been poorly worded and built over time - in this case a very long ELV put into the Law Book at the last moment in 2009, when it was seen the 2003 ELV was never made Law.