Law discussion - forward to a scrum
"Little" because they result in scrums, and there is seldom an argument about scrums! There is a similarity in the two incidents we have picked out from these matches.
1. Benetton Treviso vs Leicester Tigers.
In the first half Benetton Treviso are again penalised. Leicester Tigers kick out for a line-out. Tom Youngs throws in and Mike Fitzgerald catches the ball and comes back to ground where he is sacked. Benetton Treviso then dive ahead and are about two metres in front of the line of touch, in other words two metres towards the Leicester Tigers goal. Then the referee decides that the heap of players have made the ball unplayable and awards a scrum to Leicester Tigers.
2. Barbarians vs Argentina
Joe Tomane of the Barbarians scores a try and the Pumas kick off deep into the Barbarians' 22 where Nehe Milner-Skudder catches the ball and starts to run with it. The Barbarians work the ball downfield and when he is tackled prop Jamie Mackintosh he is near his 10-metre line. The ball comes back to the Barbarians and Kobus Reinach passes to Victor Matfield ho passes to Ardie Savea who passes to James Hanson. When Matías Alemanno tackles Hansom, the replacement hooker falls just short of the half-way line. Tomane is quickly in to get the ball but Tomas Lezana (19) arrives and grabs the ball. A heap of players goes to ground and the referee decides that the ball is unplayable and awards a scrum to the Pumas. When the Barbarians' captain, Victor Matfield, raises eyebrows in a query, the referee says: "Turnover by 19 and then unplayable."
Law 15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY
If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to Law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the Referee: by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.
Forward is not defined here but it is in Law 12.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball-line.
Certainly in both these cases Benetton Treviso and the Barbarians were moving forward. the turnover, according to law, is irrelevant.
And if a ruck had happened?
Law 16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.
The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball.
If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward before the ruck began throws in the ball.
If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.
That is as it was for the tackle.
As Matfield realised, the award of a scrum is important. It looks as if it should have been a scrum to Benetton Treviso and a scrum to the Barbarians.
The business in 2. above about a turnover between the tackle and the referee's whistle to stop play seems irrelevant. It simply does not feature in the laws.
The ball is given either to the team going forward or to the team out of their own half. In these two incidents there certainly were teams going forward. But they did not get the scrum. If the scrum was awarded to the team outside of its own half that could have made sense provided that no team was going forward.
If anybody suggests that the situation in 2. was a ruling following the unsuccessful ending to a maul, that is simply not the case because there was no maul.
