[Scrum] Front row player forced up

[Balones]

The definitions part of 20.3 before which does require "whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body "

I don't see a standing FR player losing hand to shoulder contact with their team mate typically.



Meanwhile

(c) Binding by loose head props. A loose head prop must bind on the opposing tight head prop by placing the le20.3ft arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight head prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loose head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop. The loose head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
[and similar for TH].

Again, I don't really see standing props losing this bind element on their oppo ie on a shirt, on the back or side. No mention I can find (somebody find it for me?) requiring hand to shoulder contact etc?

So frankly 20.3 is being shoehorned into practise as a way to penalise standing up. That's not to say sides should be permitted to stand. But its all a bit... "convenient".

didds

There is also the matter of 20.1g where the props must remain bound to their opposition. When 'standing up' this bind tends to be released.

 

[Balones]

This is just a personal observation/opinion.
I have touched on this in a previous post.
I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.

 

[didds]

There is also the matter of 20.1g where the props must remain bound to their opposition. When 'standing up' this bind tends to be released.

really? All this is required is a grasp of the other props shirt on the back or side. I'm not convinced a prop standing up will necessarily lose this simple grasp.

Like I say - I don't have an issue with standing up being penalised in itself. But it needs a proper law that says so, not other laws being shoe horned to acheive it, when it may not actually have been broken.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

This is just a personal observation/opinion.
I have touched on this in a previous post.
I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.

and that I do agree with

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Can't really remember when the 'standing up' reason started to be given but its use certainly accelerated when referees came under pressure to stop resetting so many scrums. (10 years?)

Front rows tend to 'pop' because they have eight players shoving towards them and five players shoving from behind. The hooker is particularly vulnerable because he has less scope for evasive action. Hence the 'safety valve'.

The hooker has pretty much no scope for evasive action and is in essence a passenger throughout.

So to call it a safety valve unfortunately understates the risks. If you've you have ever been lifted with your neck curled to your chest, your feet off the ground and your arms trapped out back, you'll no doubt appreciate what I mean.

 

[ChrisR]

Balones, this is an example of the law of unintended consequences.

The law requires the referee to halt and reset a scrum.

See 20.3(h) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air , or is forced upwards out of
the scrum , the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

Extra note: 2017 Advantage law was changed to allow advantage, and scrum to end, if forced up player still has feet on the ground, ie. 'standing'. WR forgot to change scrum law.

So, to reduce resets it was decided to penalize the player standing up even though there is no prohibition against it. Now there is a reward for the team that can force an opponent up out of the scrum.

So scrums have gone from a restart and competition for the ball to squint feeds and opportunity for manufactured PKs.

When I read all the blather about 'rewarding the dominant scrum' we are really talking about rewarding them with PKs, not ball possession.

Here's what I suggest you pass along to you student referees:

The scrum is a competition for the ball, not PKs.
If a front row player stands up he has disadvantaged his own team, not his opponent.
If the ball can be played away from the scrum then allow the scrum to end.
If a front row players feet come off the ground and his head is still bound then whistle immediately.

The surest way to eliminate foul play in the scrum is to stop rewarding it.

 

[Balones]

The hooker has pretty much no scope for evasive action and is in essence a passenger throughout.

So to call it a safety valve unfortunately understates the risks. If you've you have ever been lifted with your neck curled to your chest, your feet off the ground and your arms trapped out back, you'll no doubt appreciate what I mean.

Been there. Fully appreciate the situation. One of the reasons why I don't want referees to automatically blame the hooker. I tend to go towards looking very closely at the actions of the opposition if this happens.

 

[Balones]

Because it is a forum and we are not discussing the scrum face to face it is difficult to get every nuance across.

ChrisR
I would say that we are entirely on the same page and in essence what you have written is what I do.

The scrum is a competition for the ball, not PKs. Of course.

If a front row player stands up he has disadvantaged his own team, not his opponent.
Partially agree. Yes he has disadvantaged his own team but he may well have disadvantaged the opposition as well. I encourage referees to just hold off on the whistle a little and see how the situation develops. (But blow immediately if there is a safety issue.) It is what happens after he has ‘popped’ that should be penalised rather than the ‘pop’ itself. If you read my previous posts you will see that I do not condone simply identifying the hooker as being at fault. Usually his ‘pop’ is the result of something else happening.

If the ball can be played away from the scrum then allow the scrum to end. Yes. Recent guidance supports this and I expect the referee to comply.

If a front row players feet come off the ground and his head is still bound then whistle immediately. I would be quite harsh with a referee if he didn’t

The surest way to eliminate foul play in the scrum is to stop rewarding it. I think this has been covered by my previous posts on wanting referees to be a bit more robust about penalising driving up.

I would like to think that some of my posts do indicate some sensitivity and understanding of the pressures and difficulties involved. If I observe a referee just penalising ‘standing up’ for the sake of it, without clear supported reasoning behind it, I do take him/her to task.

 

[ChuckieB]

This is just a personal observation/opinion.
I have touched on this in a previous post.
I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.

Don't see two many ex front rowers taking up the whistle?

Can't swap yourself out at 60 minutes of hauling oneself around the pitch one might suspect!

Easier to go rogue and take the coaching route!

 

[Balones]

Don't see two many ex front rowers taking up the whistle?

Can't swap yourself out at 60 minutes of hauling oneself around the pitch one might suspect!

Easier to go rogue and take the coaching route!

Not really true with my society. I would say that we are well blessed with ex-front row refs. However, and here is the controversial bit, we rarely see any advance to the top end of of the game because there are question marks over speed, mobility etc. And dare I say quite often a front row player tends to play on a little bit longer than a lot of players? Perhaps enjoy playing more? Certainly we all now some front row players that can continue to make a valuable contribution to a side despite not being able to run around like a gazelle for 80 minutes.

Perhaps they should go a different route to the top end of the game and become ref coaches of Match Observers.

 

[VM75]

I don't have an issue with standing up being penalised in itself. .

didds

I do Didds, massively.

You have to consider these LAWS apply to all levels of the game.

If your 18Yr old Novice [but still STE] Prop has great forces being applied ahead & from behind him cannot cope what should he do?, what are his safe options?

a] drop/hinge/twist?
b] bend double?
c] stand up to relieve his spine bend risk?

Assuming [as you suggest] he's penalised for his pressure release and then he repeatedly does it, then what? eventually YC/RC for repeated offending ? Team offences?

Replacement comes on to the same plight, same outcome? - No, no, no.

At the moment the pro's are inventing their own game [& some parts are simply made up outside of law] , so unless someone can come up with a LAW that works safely at all levels of the game then we have no practacable alternative.

Stand up for safety sake.

 

[VM75]

Perhaps they should go a different route to the top end of the game and become ref coaches of Match Observers.

Or if they are proficient in dirty play, then Citing Officer ?

 

[Pegleg]

The hooker has pretty much no scope for evasive action and is in essence a passenger throughout.

So to call it a safety valve unfortunately understates the risks. If you've you have ever been lifted with your neck curled to your chest, your feet off the ground and your arms trapped out back, you'll no doubt appreciate what I mean.

A hooker popping out and standing up does it to avoid being bent double in the way you describe.

 

[ChrisR]

Easier to go rogue and take the coaching route!

Easier, ChuckieB? In what way?

 

[didds]

I do Didds, massively.

You have to consider these LAWS apply to all levels of the game.

If your 18Yr old Novice [but still STE] Prop has great forces being applied ahead & from behind him cannot cope what should he do?, what are his safe options?

a] drop/hinge/twist?
b] bend double?
c] stand up to relieve his spine bend risk?

Assuming [as you suggest] he's penalised for his pressure release and then he repeatedly does it, then what? eventually YC/RC for repeated offending ? Team offences?

Replacement comes on to the same plight, same outcome? - No, no, no.

At the moment the pro's are inventing their own game [& some parts are simply made up outside of law] , so unless someone can come up with a LAW that works safely at all levels of the game then we have no practacable alternative.

Stand up for safety sake.

well I don;t have an issue with that either!

i've never been in that position as a coach or player but I'd suggest that if its because the player is not strong/experienced enough to deal with it, then he needs to be subbed for someone that can. If there isn't anybody then the ref will need to be advised and the scums will need to go uncontested. its not as if there are no options at all, and burying heads in the sand won't help the situation ultimately.

My "accepting" of it was ditected at the more elite end of the scale - you rightly identify that there are two games in operation under one set of laws - and if standing up is stopping the oppo from benefiting from skillful play then it needs to be penalised. In this regard I maintain then that standing up needs to be properly outlawed rather than bending another law to achieve that ... when very possibly the law that is being shoe horned into use may not actually be being broken.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

A hooker popping out and standing up does it to avoid being bent double in the way you describe.

May I just ask what your playing position was?

 

[Pegleg]

LHP Pre CBS days.

 

[ChuckieB]

LHP Pre CBS days.

Front row at least but nothing to speak of at #2?

 

[ChrisR]

I think that most standing up is caused by either deliberate forced up or just not getting a good posture at set. If it was prohibited directly by law it will simply make the whole scrum issue worse.

I want to see all scrums end with the ball played away. The scrum is a great platform for set piece attack and it's being squandered.

 

[Pegleg]

Front row at least but nothing to speak of at #2?

Did you read my answer? I'll reapeat it for the hard of thinking

LHP Pre CBS days. From the age of 14 until i was 42. So no I know nothing about hookers.

 

[ChuckieB]

Did you read my answer? I'll reapeat it for the hard of thinking

LHP Pre CBS days. From the age of 14 until i was 42. So no I know nothing about hookers.

yep hard of thinking. CBS?


"A hooker popping out and standing up does it to avoid being bent double in the way you describe."

As I said, a hooker is a passenger and so to suggest something is that easy paints a wholly inappropriate picture.