Where's the penalty?

[Dickie E]

OK , so let's ( for arguments sake) say ..... AdvanOver 10m inside greens half.

You're suggesting that the green unbind is similarly 'cancelled by advantage gained' at this location. Which theoretically gives the scrum only 20m or so to retain their 'advantage being played' state ...?

I can see the your logic. And a loud AdvOver call communicates this to the B8...

I think that would be a reasonable outcome for all concerned.

If the original infringement was on Green 10 metre line I might allow more than 20 metres as the PK would be kickable.

Next time it happens in one of my games I'll let you know what I did

 

[Browner]

I think that would be a reasonable outcome for all concerned.

If the original infringement was on Green 10 metre line I might allow more than 20 metres as the PK would be kickable.

And this is the crux of the discussion, how much more?....... To the 22mL? 5mL? Goal Line? Try?

 

[FlipFlop]

The more I think about this - the more I go with where the scrum stopped. I.e. where Black disengaged.

Why? The offence is not binding. At the point that Black commit an offence, Green are still committing the offence of not binding. They are probably also not in a position to push and numerous other offences. These offences are not "spot" offences. The offence is not releasing the bind (happens at a set time and place), but failure to bind from start to end of the scrum:

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.

So Green were committing an offence at the time that Black committed their offence. IF you prefer to think of it like: Each second that Green are not bound, they are committing a "new" offence. So the PK is at that spot.

It is not possible to call advantage over at any point the scrum is still ongoing (ball in scrum), as Green are still committing the offence of not binding.

Of course in the unlikely event that Green were to rebind etc. Then you could call advantage over if advantage was gained.....

So the more I think - the happier I am at giving the PK at the final point of the scrum, no matter where that was. And in the example in the OP - when Black committed their offence is the final place of the scrum.

 

[Browner]

The more I think about this - the more I go with where the scrum stopped. I.e. where Black disengaged.

Why? The offence is not binding. At the point that Black commit an offence, Green are still committing the offence of not binding. They are probably also not in a position to push and numerous other offences. These offences are not "spot" offences. The offence is not releasing the bind (happens at a set time and place), but failure to bind from start to end of the scrum:


So Green were committing an offence at the time that Black committed their offence. IF you prefer to think of it like: Each second that Green are not bound, they are committing a "new" offence. So the PK is at that spot.

It is not possible to call advantage over at any point the scrum is still ongoing (ball in scrum), as Green are still committing the offence of not binding.

Of course in the unlikely event that Green were to rebind etc. Then you could call advantage over if advantage was gained.....

So the more I think - the happier I am at giving the PK at the final point of the scrum, no matter where that was. And in the example in the OP - when Black committed their offence is the final place of the scrum.

Ok,
So, Green get a chance to rectify their unbinding offence, by re-engaging and stopping the new Scr-uck, failure to do that legally ( and assuming that Black stay legally bound and retain the ball within their scrum formation) must always result in them conceding a Try.

( slight aside, The assumption in this is that all green front rowers break their bind, whilst all black front rowers didn't do the same deliberately !)

 

[FlipFlop]

Doesn't have to result in a try. The could concede a Penalty a sufficient distance from the goal line the ref is of the opinion that the try wasn't probable. Probably by collapsing, or diving on the ball, or....

We always see the back row disengage on mass at times, and I've never seen the remaining scrum driven that far - normally it falls over on its own accord - nothing to push against etc.

But if the entire defensive scrum disengaged close to the line, I'm definitely considering the PT.

 

[SimonSmith]

Just let me put it out there:
We know that one of the conditions fro a scrum being set is that there are 5 players at least from each team.
However, much like a maul, there are conditions for a scrum ending:

(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.

Are we sure that the scrum ended when the defending team's second row, or even front row, broke up?

 

[Browner]

Doesn't have to result in a try. The could concede a Penalty a sufficient distance from the goal line the ref is of the opinion that the try wasn't probable. Probably by collapsing, or diving on the ball, or....

We always see the back row disengage on mass at times, and I've never seen the remaining scrum driven that far - normally it falls over on its own accord - nothing to push against etc.

But if the entire defensive scrum disengaged close to the line, I'm definitely considering the PT.

Which is why I included the condition " failure to do that legally" in #24

So, Try or PT.

 

[FlipFlop]

Which is why I included the condition " failure to do that legally" in #24

So, Try or PT.

Not if they are still 80m from the try line. I don't think it is likely (or even probable) a team can manage to successfully scrum 80m without falling over/breaking up/ball popping out/breaking binds etc.

So I disagree try or PT being only outcome.

 

[Browner]

Not if they are still 80m from the try line. I don't think it is likely (or even probable) a team can manage to successfully scrum 80m without falling over/breaking up/ball popping out/breaking binds etc.

So I disagree try or PT being only outcome.

I agree unlikely FF , but be sure, i never said "only outcome " ..... you'll note that legal formation and ball retention combined to be condition no#2 before my Try / PT scenario conclusion.

I think we got there.

Now all I gotta do is see it in action, and get a clip, don't wait up!