The law says you MUST win it.
Uncontested Scrum - Hands in.
- Thread starter PaulDG
- Start date
Account Deleted
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,089
- Post Likes
- 1
But he did win it. Then he gave it to the opposition
Exactly!
So, he won it, then he lost it before the scrum was over. So they have to give it back.
Any ref who would allow the opposition to gain posession at uncontested scrum should get a serious red flag. That sort of decision would only encourage players to compete at the UC Scrum, perhaps unobtrusively, and with some subtlety, but wedges have thin ends.
The law is clear, and the logic behind it is clear. If it's an UC scrum then the side putting in MUST win the ball - and to try to use the disingenuous idea that they won it then gave it away so the turnover is OK simply will NOT do.
Any ref who would allow the opposition to gain posession at uncontested scrum should get a serious red flag. That sort of decision would only encourage players to compete at the UC Scrum, perhaps unobtrusively, and with some subtlety, but wedges have thin ends.
The law is clear, and the logic behind it is clear. If it's an UC scrum then the side putting in MUST win the ball - and to try to use the disingenuous idea that they won it then gave it away so the turnover is OK simply will NOT do.
Account Deleted
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,089
- Post Likes
- 1
Interestingly many coaches at the young uncontested levels regard the cocking up of the "free" scrum balls and a learning curve for their hookers. They don't want a second bite of the cherry to get it right. I have been "admonished" by some for resetting the scrum in such a situation. I don't have a great problem with saying tough either way. I'm glad the general view is reset however.
On the subject of senior scrums going u/c the average hooker should have no trouble clean hooking a ball. Any failure must bring into question what is going on in the front row.
On the subject of senior scrums going u/c the average hooker should have no trouble clean hooking a ball. Any failure must bring into question what is going on in the front row.
Any coach issuing such an admonishment would be told to go away.
True, and a failure to clean heel unopposed ball would worry me greatly, from a coaching perspective. As a ref it might make me question if the remaining FR is quite as STE as I had been led to believe....
Though of course the problem may simply be that the hooker is the reason we are uncontested in the first place.:chin:
Account Deleted
Facebook Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,089
- Post Likes
- 1
True re the senior hooker.
With youngsters, and their coaches, I regard it much more as a training issue for both. Many coaches are just dads so to be told to go away is not really helping the situation. Talk to and with not at is the best way.
I have an assessor who advocated "quoting a Law ruling" if you are questioned. on the basis that "they never know" What is wrong with honest dialogue?
With youngsters, and their coaches, I regard it much more as a training issue for both. Many coaches are just dads so to be told to go away is not really helping the situation. Talk to and with not at is the best way.
I have an assessor who advocated "quoting a Law ruling" if you are questioned. on the basis that "they never know" What is wrong with honest dialogue?
The "go away" was in relation to a coach "admonishing" the ref. That word is usually a euphemism for "bollocking" - as when the ref "admonishes" a player for poor behaviour.
Any coach trying to bollock the ref would receive an appropriate comment - along the of "go away"
Any coach trying to bollock the ref would receive an appropriate comment - along the of "go away"
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
The Pathway in Wales has Uncontested scrums upto age 10 I believe, thereafter they become passive, ie no push but the ball can be contested by the hookers.
http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/WRU-Rugby-Pathway2008.pdf
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
So that raises a question doesn't it? Why don't we have "passive" scrums in those circumstances on the elite game when we are going uncontested?. If 10 year-olds can manage it, surely the big boys can?
dave_clark
Referees in England
- Joined
- May 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,647
- Post Likes
- 104
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
because you can trust the 10 year olds to behave themselves but you can't do likewise with the old farts.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Actually, there's an idea.....
REF: "Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage"
Scrum collapses
REF: "Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage"
Scrum collapses
REF: "Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage"
Scrum collapses
REF: "Right then. Passive scrums until you buggers learn how to put the scrum down without falling on your faces!!!!"
Centaurian
Referees in England
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 40
- Post Likes
- 0
interesting how "materiality" is not a word that is written in the Law book - at least not in the 2008 version
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
why would it be ?
Law is factual, but applying it is based on judgement, context, interpretation and materiality.
Law is factual, but applying it is based on judgement, context, interpretation and materiality.