Wheeled Scrums at U14 level

[PeterTC]

I fear I may be opening up a slightly debatable point, but with my inability to find my copy of the Continuum strewn around my room, and my debate with a coach today, I feel I need to ask my fellow referees.

Was refereeing a game this morning, which was a re-run of the county final from a month or two ago. It was a competitive game, especially so in the scrums, with both sides often pushing each other off the ball. Now because there was a lot of pushing, scrums often got wheeled. However, on more than three occasions, the scrum was taken against the head, and then it went on to wheeled. I then awarded the scrum to the side in possesson after the wheel, believing that the so called "turnover law" was not applicable, and that therefore it was side in possession.

However, come post-game and as I walked off the pitch, the coach of the home side (The County champions who incidentally lost the game comfortably) asked me how far the scrum was allowed to wheel, to which I told him 45 degrees. He then went on to ear bash me as to the fact that the side who put it in, put it in again after a wheel! Being slightly unsure, but taken aback by this, I defended my point, saying that it was the opposite to adult rugby, with no turnover, to which he cut in saying this wasn't adult rugby. After trying to draw comparisons to adult rugby, and the fact that a side putting in can actually put in again if the ball is taken against the head and then wheeled, but to no avail as he kept cutting me off, I was told that I should read the Laws before I come out on a Sunday!

So the question is, am I misinterpreting it? On reading the laws I think I am still right, though it is not explicitly there to say I am. Or do I need to re-read the laws before coming out on a Sunday?

Your views please.

Peter

 

[OB..]

From the U-19 section of the Community pages on the RFU site:-

"There is no 'turnover' law at U18. If scrums are reset for wheeling beyond 45 degrees the throw-in is to the side in possession at the time it is wheeled beyond 45 degrees."

I'd say you were right.

 

[Robert Burns]

If you gave the reset to the side in possession, I'd say it the coach who needs to read up, not you!

 

[Pablo]

I'd say you were right too... I'm curious to know what kind of tone the coach struck though - was he friendly or abusive about it? If the latter, you should seriously consider filing a report, because an age-group coach who gets away with that sort of thing while in charge of a group of impressionable youngsters is bad news for the future of the game.

 

[Davet]

You were right the coach is wrong and needs to be told, especially if he was getting heavy about it. I would suggest you get the society to write to his club and tell them that the coach could do with reading up on Law, and some manners. Get in touch with Simon Thomas.

 

[threegatesexpress]

Haven't got the Continuum to hand, but I sat in at the back of a Continuum Course over the weekend, and this point was brought up about U15 rugby.

Explicitly the trainer said "no turnover". Reset and ball to side originally putting the ball in. Except if you penalise one side for deliberately wheeling.

 

[Pablo]

From the U-19 section of the Community pages on the RFU site:-

"There is no 'turnover' law at U18. If scrums are reset for wheeling beyond 45 degrees the throw-in is to the side in possession at the time it is wheeled beyond 45 degrees."

I'd say you were right.

And here's the supporting evidence we needed, confirming that Peter's decision WAS the correct one. Thank you OB.

Interestingly though, this sentence is missing from the U19 Variations pages in the back of the print version of the 2004 Law Book, which is possibly the source of ambiguity and confusion. Equally probable, of course, is the likelihood that the coach in question has never read a Law Book in his life and has simply been labouring under a comfortable misconception all his life.

Nevertheless, the Continuum, as quoted by OB, makes this situation quite clear. Team A put the ball in, Team B won it against the head (thereby, in the eyes of the Law and the interpretation of the referee, taking possession of the ball), the scrum wheeled beyond the acceptable 45deg, so the put-in at the reset was correctly awarded to Team B in accordance with OB's quote. There is no mention in the Law of the second put-in being awarded to the same side that put-in at the wheeling scrum - this is simply a popular misconception grounded on the fact that the majority of the time possession is won by the team putting the ball into the scrum.

In conclusion, well done Peter. Right decision, 100% backed by Law and RFU practice. I'm still curious to know what the coach's behaviour was like...

 

[PeterTC]

Sorry for the delay in reply, actually have some work at Uni, seeing as there are only a few days to go!!

While I would not classify the coach as being abusive towards me, I would certainly not regard his manner as friendly. I would probably describe it as a coach frustrated in his loss trying to argue strongly a point he believes the referee has got wrong, and when attempts were made to question (and straighten out his view in a logical manner) his view, he was unwilling to hear them, instead maintaining his view and becoming defensive, unwilling to hear what I had to say and finishing it with a line telling me to read up on the Laws between a Saturday game and a Sunday game (or something along those lines). I assume he was questioning if I ever read the Laws full stop, or if I actually knew any of the variations (which I proved I knew some when answering his 45 degree question).

Basically, I would equate the conversation to talking to a brick wall, it wasn't constructive and was attempting to be a one way conversation. I don't feel at any time was the coach abusive, although at no point post-match was he ever friendly or hospitable.



Dave, the match was up in Cambridgeshire.

 

[Pablo]

Dave, the match was up in Cambridgeshire.

Cambridge City? Shelford? Ely?

 

[threegatesexpress]

The popular misconception comes from the Continuum itself which up to U12 says...

"If the scrum is wheeled more than 45 degrees without a penalty kick award, the scrum will be reset with the same team throwing the ball in."

Then it changes at U13 to the side in possession.

Then it changes again for the senior game...

We don't make it easy for ourselves do we!

 

[Robert Burns]

Sorry for the delay in reply, actually have some work at Uni, seeing as there are only a few days to go!!

While I would not classify the coach as being abusive towards me, I would certainly not regard his manner as friendly. I would probably describe it as a coach frustrated in his loss trying to argue strongly a point he believes the referee has got wrong, and when attempts were made to question (and straighten out his view in a logical manner) his view, he was unwilling to hear them, instead maintaining his view and becoming defensive, unwilling to hear what I had to say and finishing it with a line telling me to read up on the Laws between a Saturday game and a Sunday game (or something along those lines). I assume he was questioning if I ever read the Laws full stop, or if I actually knew any of the variations (which I proved I knew some when answering his 45 degree question).

Basically, I would equate the conversation to talking to a brick wall, it wasn't constructive and was attempting to be a one way conversation. I don't feel at any time was the coach abusive, although at no point post-match was he ever friendly or hospitable.



Dave, the match was up in Cambridgeshire.

I would still consider reporting this to your society as it is not the correct behaviour for a person in charge of minors to conduct themselves.

You don't want him doing the same to next weeks ref, do you.

 

[threegatesexpress]

Agree that the behaviour of the coach is unsatisfactory and worthy of at least a word in the appointments manager so he knows that there's a potential problem.

Taking this in a slightly different direction, I am sure we've all been cornered by coaches (etc.) after a game to debate decisions. Sometimes friendly, sometimes not. The generally accepted advice is that you never discuss particular decisions or points of law after a game, as they may be contentious or turned against you, but this is easier said than done.

Does anyone have any good one-liners or put-downs that they use to avoid these situations?

 

[OB..]

Is it really "generally accepted advice" at all levels? At the bottom levels I have found it is one of the few times when players are prepared to listen to points of law that they do not understand. Discussing a particular incident can help them understand eg "lazy running", or converting a maul to a ruck.

In what way might it be used against you?
If a point is contentious, why not admit it?

 

[threegatesexpress]

I'm pretty sure it's in some of the course literature, and advice to new referees.

Specific extract from the LSRFUR web site...
"After the Game
It is part of the referees duties to:

• avoid contentious issues with them"

 

[PeterTC]

At the time, I felt it definitel ywasn't one of the contentious issues, thus I was happy to try and converse on it. Will have a word with the appointments manager, just so he is aware of it, in case this is a recurring thing.

 

[Deeps]

Just occasionally when a coach is too close to a game and can't see through the fog of disappointment to be rational there is not much you can do. At the worst extreme you can, and I have, cautioned coaches that his personal remarks potentially constitute abuse and would he please desist or I shall need to make a report to his club/school. Or is he happy that his behaviour is setting a poor example to the players?

Slightly down the scale where a coach is voicing his negative appreciation of your contribution but still not listening then you can state that you call what you see and he is of course perfectly entitled to his opinion. The approach you can work with is when the coach asks your opinion on the application of a particular law; whether he is genuinely interested or just politely trying to make his point doesn't matter, you can still have a reasonable discussion in the abstract.

I had such a discussion the other day with a County coach who clearly had been previously persuaded by the Barnes variations on law with respect to law 14 and the dreadful and wrong cry of 'Let him up!'.

Where you have a good rapport with the coach and the players you can always smile and offer the words "If you played a better class of rugby you might get a better class of referee" but be very careful as witicisms can fall very flat if you misjudge the moment.