When to ping a wheel

[JDET]

I am having trouble deciding when a wheel should be pinged does anyone have any tips or 'rule of thumb'. Cheers

 

[Padster]

Have a look at the players feet. Consider who has the most to gain in the context of the game by wheeling. If they look like they are crabbing rather than just pushing forward then they are either deliberately wheeling or counteracting a wheel. The difference will usually be that the whole pack will crab to counteract whereas in a disrupting wheel there is normally a pivot and it looks like the back row are pulling the scrum around.

 

[Simon Thomas]

When it is illegal

At U19 and younger, that is any intentional wheel at all 20.1 (h).

For adult men (in England) a legal wheel is allowed.

If you read the scrum law 20 you will find a whole host of opportunities to ping.

20.2 (a) forward shove position
20.3 - all binding offences can be covered off under this
20.8 (g) twisting etc

The big clue is a FR (or flanker) pulling opposite FR on, FR stepping out (or walking around), look at body positions, where binds are, etc.
Long bind hand into pocket of oppo FR helps get a whip wheel moving fast.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Primarily I would watch the feet and the bind.

In this picture, the gold lucy is bound correctly, but the blue THP is bound illegally.
He should be grabbing the lucy somewhere near the white "tick", not on the upper arm.

Law 20.3 (c)....The loose head prop must not grip the chest, arm,
sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop...

Often you can get an idea who is pulling/pushing opponent by watching how his opponent's jersey bunches/moves under the bind. The FR is allowed to wheel the scrum by pushing their opponents, but not by pulling on them

 

[ddjamo]

check this out:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ian - really interesting photo.

In my view neither prop is bound legally, or showing a strong stance. Their backs are curved and heads are down. It is a mess and typical of modern scrummaging. What level are these teams ?

Gold / maroon LHP is bound far too low on his oppo's shirt and has his elbow down towards ground, and his shoulder may be about to follow, unless he is strong enough and has the second row power to drive through and turn blue prop. His legs look too far back and his pelvis is 45 degrees off where it should be.

Blue THP has a much better bind from shoulder to elbow, but as you say actual hand bind is not high enough - a long bind at 2 o'clock to your tick would be my requirement. He has shortened his bind as he is boring in on gold/maroon hooker and already taken the hooker's head & shoulders way down.

Ex-Lucy what do you think is happening ?

 

[Dixie]

Ian - really interesting photo.

In my view neither prop is bound legally, or showing a strong stance. Their backs are curved and heads are down. It is a mess and typical of modern scrummaging. What level are these teams ?

I think I recognise Al Baxter on the Red/Gold tighthead side.

Had an interesting discussion on Saturday with the Berks training manager, at whose club I was reffing (and whose son was the Home skipper). It was his view that only the front rows were obliged to drive straight, and that locks could legitimately drive at an angle to produce the wheel. I haven't yet done the research, but I suspect he's correct in law. However, it doesn't seem to me to be a safe approach.

 

[SimonSmith]

That was what I penalized on Saturday.

It was without question dangerous.

 

[Bungle]

Padster gives some excellent advice - consider who has the most to gain at that point in the context of the game.

The most obvious example of this is when a side in possession at a scrum has lost it on a legitimate wheel going 90. The other side put it in and *bang* round it goes very quickly. That is hardly likely to be legal - more a case of wounded pride clouding judgement - and an easy penalty to give even if you can't identify the exact miscreant. I'm still surprised how many of these I have to give in a season. Do they think we refs are stupid?

But in the same way as knowing that an attacking team 5m out from the goaline are hardly likely to drop their scrum, using your positional/tactical awareness to sense what is likely to happen will allow you to focus on that part of the scrum where the most likely illegal actions will take place. If you then spot something, boy do you feel good when you give the penalty

 

[Davet]

But in the same way as knowing that an attacking team 5m out from the goaline are hardly likely to drop their scrum,

Unless they have cocked up the hit and want a reset to try again..., or - if dead lucky get a ref who thinks like the above to give them a penalty.

 

[Bungle]

Davet - I should have been a bit clearer - I am talking about a 5m attacking scrum that is already set and on its merry way to the goaline. In whose interests would it be to drop it then?

I agree that at the actual 'engage' you need to be vigilant to the laws for both sides. In some cases, attacking sides might go for a cheap drop of the scrum in the hope that the ref is of the "3 dropped scrums must = penalty try" variety.

 

[ex-lucy]

sorry cant see that pic .. red x ...

bungle .. very rare that .. atacking team dropping a scrum if winning it .. very rare .. only ever seen that once at my level. You really have to know what you are doing and have confid the ref doesnt.
always go on first instinct ... team with most to lose tends to drop a scrum or thp pulls on lucy so getting a wheel .. or lucy packs well outside thp and pulls his fr colleagues round rather than push

 

[kenneldave]

Hi there - first post, so be nice!

I'm surprised you think that an attacking scrum already moving towards the posts would never collapse it. Many moons ago, I played academy rugby as a hooker (the identity of the academy shall certainly remain nameless!), and we had a specific call which we used in the following circumstances:

a) attacking scrum on or close to 5m line;

b) our put in;

c) game so far showed us that we had the ability to get forward momentum.

In this scenario, we would make the call before the ball was put in. Then, when the ball was at 8 and we had started to make forward progress, the scrum-half would make a loud, clear call (in the form of a loud, pre-agreed comment to the referee). At that point, it was the responsibility of the front row to take the scrum down.

This worked on the following assumptions:

a) the referee was highly unlikely to penalise us in these circumstances. Worst case scenario, he would reset the scrum and we could either try something more positive or utilise the same call;

b) the call from the scrum-half was mean to distract the referee at the moment of the collapse (it took his attention to midfield), thus ensuring that he was very unlikely to see who had initiated the collapse; and

c) there was possibly a 10-20% chance of gaining a penalty and a shot at goal.

This was seen as a "shot to nothing" in snooker parlance, with effectively no down-side for us, and a decent chance of bagging three points.

In one and half seasons (before I was quite rightly released!), we were never penalised, and probably gained 10/12 penalties.

Negative, but effective.

 

[crossref]

As a hooker didn't you feel you were putting your own personal safety at risk for the sake of three points? I played at hooker for a few seasons and personally I preferred it when the front rows stayed on their feet.

much preferred it.

 

[kenneldave]

It was my job.

Plus, if you initiate the collapse, you can usually ensure that you end up safely. In fact, that's always a good thing for an unsure referee to look at - which front row are all in a comfortable, safe position?

 

[crossref]

hmm. sometimes this whole rugby thing doesn't seem such a good idea, after all.

 

[Taff]

It was my job.

Being a hooker used to be a mates "job" too once, back in the late 80s.

I say "used to" because since a collapsed scrum left him with a broken neck, he's been in a wheelchair ever since. Google "Victor Morris" - he was playing for Lampeter at the time IIRC. He still lives near Lampeter to this day, but obviously they had to spend thousands getting it adapted for wheelchair use.

hmm. sometimes this whole rugby thing doesn't seem such a good idea, after all.

Agreed. If I was in charge, any coach instructing that would be banned for life and no bloody messing. :nono: And if a disgruntled parent preferred a more errr ... "direct" form of punishment, I'm sure there would suddenly be something more interesting to look at the other way.

 

[kenneldave]

Hence why I didn't name the club - I certainly disagree with the approach.

My point was more that it is not necessarily safe for the referee to assume that a 5m attacking scrum, in possession and moving forward, will not be intentionally collapsed by the team in possession.

I couldn't agree more that the approach is entirely unacceptable (I'd like to think that I would now be brave enough to point this out to the coach!). Interestingly, said coach is now the main man at a GP club, though I have to say I have never seen evidence of that club using this ploy.

 

[Greg Collins]

so you'd rather have had a good chance at a contrived unearned 3 than have to work for 7? Excellent value system in operation there. Such are the dangers of professionalism I guess.

I'd like to think that any 9 trying to draw my attention to something in midfield whilst the ball is in the scrum would get short shrift from me. It ain't cricket and appealing is dissent in my book.

 

[SimonSmith]

KennelDave is raising a great way to look at it.

It jibes with a presentation that was made to CUDRRS a lot of years ago by the Aussie hooker who was at Cambridge at the time. Pretty much the first thing he told us was: yes, we'll drop it if we're going forward.