Uncontested Scrum - Hands in.
- Thread starter PaulDG
- Start date
:chin:
:biggrin: Not much help as a definition or set of criteria though.
If a referee gets the law wrong, I will not call it "materiality" in his report!
TigerCraig
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,464
- Post Likes
- 236
Had a fun one yesterday
I was playing as hooker in a golden oldies tournament - uncontested scrums
We packed down, only for our halfback, an old rugby league player, to come and feed the ball from the wrong side.
I hooked it back of course without the oppo trying, but I had great pleasure at claiming it as a tight head win in the bar afterwards.
I was playing as hooker in a golden oldies tournament - uncontested scrums
We packed down, only for our halfback, an old rugby league player, to come and feed the ball from the wrong side.
I hooked it back of course without the oppo trying, but I had great pleasure at claiming it as a tight head win in the bar afterwards.
I still think this is best managed rather than coming over all officious and penalising. No one gains a benefit, it is a technical offence with no material impact, so why get on one's high horse?
Just tell 'em it's a sign of a poor pack if they can't control an uncontested ball, do they need more practice?
Yeah, it is an offence, and yes they SHOULD be able to win an UC ball without feeding or hands, and as refs we have a great affection for doing things properly. But, most players would see it as utterly irrelevant - and we are there to promote their enjoyment of the game, not to prove our own grasp of regulation and detail.
The only time I would get stroppy about it is if the ball was squeezing out of the side, and thus would have been snaffalable by the opposition - in that case, yes penalise - but if it sticks between hooker and 2nd row, which is generally because the scrum is so flaccid that the strike is feeble and no push to allow a drive over just leaves it in limbo, I have no real concern about a helpful flanker or 8 rescuing us.
Just tell 'em it's a sign of a poor pack if they can't control an uncontested ball, do they need more practice?
Yeah, it is an offence, and yes they SHOULD be able to win an UC ball without feeding or hands, and as refs we have a great affection for doing things properly. But, most players would see it as utterly irrelevant - and we are there to promote their enjoyment of the game, not to prove our own grasp of regulation and detail.
The only time I would get stroppy about it is if the ball was squeezing out of the side, and thus would have been snaffalable by the opposition - in that case, yes penalise - but if it sticks between hooker and 2nd row, which is generally because the scrum is so flaccid that the strike is feeble and no push to allow a drive over just leaves it in limbo, I have no real concern about a helpful flanker or 8 rescuing us.
Last edited:
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
As a player, I would see it as a blantant penalty and not be best pleased if it wasnt penalised.
As a referee I can see your point of view, but I see it differently to that of say helping it out of a ruck, where I allow 'some' leeway.
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
Andy - we are talking Uncontested Scrums.
And I suspect that if it were YOUR side penalised you would as poorly pleased as you would be if the opposition were not.
Yep to me it its the same. Uncontested or not.
It has happened to me in the past as a player, we just thought our 2nd row player was knob for doing it. The referee was correct, so unhappy at the player, happy with the decision
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
Fairness? and the 2nd Row player, knew he couldnt take the piss.
Fairness - in what way was the 2nd rows action unfair - his side had to win the ball anyway?
I would hope that players would not take the piss, and players doing so would find out that they could not - but how was the 2nd row's action taking the piss? He did not gain any benefit for his side, he did not disadvantage the opposition. Other than, "dems de rools, so do wot de rools sez" what was the problem?
I would hope that players would not take the piss, and players doing so would find out that they could not - but how was the 2nd row's action taking the piss? He did not gain any benefit for his side, he did not disadvantage the opposition. Other than, "dems de rools, so do wot de rools sez" what was the problem?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,095
- Post Likes
- 2,358
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
Bad habits in uncontested scrums could lead to bad habits in contested scrums.
I will stick to "all other scrum laws still apply", you break em, you get pinged.
Guarantee they would only do it once!
I will stick to "all other scrum laws still apply", you break em, you get pinged.
Guarantee they would only do it once!
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
Handling in an uncontested scrum in my eyes is taking the piss, there is no need for it.
Fairness as in, if it was in a contested scrum, it would have been pinged, even if the contest for the ball was over etc.
So why not just put the ball at the 8s feet if they have to win it anyway.
And to be exact to by the time it was under the second rows feet it had been won, nothing says that in uncontested scrums should give clean quick possestion, nope it just says they have to win the ball.
YES.
It is totally unnecessary. If the ball gets stuck it is very easy to give it a nudge with the foot since you are under no pressure at all.
OK gents, but materiality surely applies.
If an immaterial offence happens in open play we generally pass over it, perhaps with a comment at the next breakdown.
So why do we suddenly get all holier than thou when the immaterial offence is in an uncontested scrum?
Yes, its unnecessary.
Yes, they should be able to handle it
Yes - possibly - it inculcates good habits
But in what way is it material?
Is this not simply us as refs getting twisted up and retentive about a bonnet bee that doesn't matter?
If an immaterial offence happens in open play we generally pass over it, perhaps with a comment at the next breakdown.
So why do we suddenly get all holier than thou when the immaterial offence is in an uncontested scrum?
Yes, its unnecessary.
Yes, they should be able to handle it
Yes - possibly - it inculcates good habits
But in what way is it material?
Is this not simply us as refs getting twisted up and retentive about a bonnet bee that doesn't matter?
In what way is a minor knock-on by the full back material when there is no player within 30 metres?
No, I do not think materiality applies. I would hope the referee had made clear beforehand that all the usual laws apply except ... Anybody using his hands in the scrum is taking the piss and deserves to get penalised. It is deliberate, and I can see no excuse for doing it.
You do not want players to get the idea that they can short-circuit the laws.
No, I do not think materiality applies. I would hope the referee had made clear beforehand that all the usual laws apply except ... Anybody using his hands in the scrum is taking the piss and deserves to get penalised. It is deliberate, and I can see no excuse for doing it.
You do not want players to get the idea that they can short-circuit the laws.
andyscott
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,117
- Post Likes
- 55
Its blatant cheating!!!
I dont think materiality applies in all parts of the game IMO.
So I can punch someone as long as it doesnt affect the game? so someone scores, I whack an apponent in the face during down time after the try, he is not injured, it doesnt delay the game, no team is disadvantaged, would you ping it?
So why is it material in contested scrums? so its under the flanker, unlikely the opposition will ever get it back, and he pushes it with his hand to the number 8, material or not?