[7's/10's] 7s Scrum binding

[smeagol]

When the props bind onto each other across the hooker's shoulders, this enables the hooker to exit the scrum very quickly.

I had heard that this was illegal, but cannot find a law reference.

Note I am assuming that the hooker does not leave the scrum early. I am strictly asking about the binding.

 

[talbazar]

Maybe you can use 20.3 definition
[LAWS]When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.[/LAWS]

If the prop binds on the other prop, his full arm isn't in contact with his team-mate...

 

[TheBFG]

When the props bind onto each other across the hooker's shoulders, this enables the hooker to exit the scrum very quickly.

I had heard that this was illegal, but cannot find a law reference.

Note I am assuming that the hooker does not leave the scrum early. I am strictly asking about the binding.

One to add to the URBAN MYTH Wiki :wink:

 

[FlipFlop]

I say it isn't possible to legally bind ont he body of the other prop.

Definition:

When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

Can't see how a prop can use a full arm, on the other other props body (not arm). That would require the 2 props shoulders to touch, so the hooker would be binding onto the waists of the props, and the props would be at an angle, so boring in, from the start.

So nothing to prevent it directly, but it isn't possible to legally do, due to other requirements.

In my opinion

 

[crossref]

the normal trick in sevens isn't for the props to bind onto eachother, but for the hooker bind underneath.

So -
normally hooker raises his arms into air, props bind on him, then hooker binds with arms over the top of props
instead: props raise arms in the air, hooker binds onto props, props bind to hooker with arms over the top.

counter-intuitively this allows the hooker to extricate himself more quickly - arse first .
I know I have done it (as hooker)

I don't think it is illegal - although at the ref briefing at rugby rocks we were told to disallow it.
Perhaps disallow on grounds of safety : its definitely not as stable formation.

 

[FlipFlop]

Crossref: The trick is normally more than that - the Props don't bind to the hooker, but to each other, arm on arm. This way the hooker is not held in at all, so can get out of the scrum when he wants, without the props having to release their binding.

I have no problem with the hooker binding under rather than over, it is the props who have to bind properly. And I don't believe they can legally bind to each other, so they have to bind to the hooker.

 

[crossref]

when I did it, as hooker, the props intially grabbed my shirt to begin with, but once we engaged they simply loosened the grip.

 

[ChrisR]

This is a case of unintended consequences. It should be clear to all that the purpose of the wording for binding is to prevent the peripheral players in a scrum (or ruck) from hanging on with just a hand holding a teammate. That makes absolute sense.

To apply this narrowly to prevent props binding on props is absurd. Why would we want to prohibit a bind that gives no unfair advantage (both teams could use it) and has no safety issues.

I have had referees disallow this bind in 15s also even though I believe it to be a better (safer) bind than the traditional bind-on-hooker.

 

[rugbyslave]

I have seen this, it is illegal and is dangerous, when he pulls out the other hooker can fall through. I think I have seen this on the safety programme here a penalty for illegal binding.

 

[talbazar]

I don't think it is illegal - although at the ref briefing at rugby rocks we were told to disallow it.
Perhaps disallow on grounds of safety : its definitely not as stable formation.

It is actually fully legal:
[LAWS]20.3.(b) Binding by hookers. The hooker may bind either over or under the arms of the props. The props must not support the hooker so that the hooker has no weight on either foot.[/LAWS]

:biggrin:

 

[Phil E]

As talbazar has stated with a law reference, it is fully legal.
However I often hear "older" refs saying it is illegal, which leads me to suspect that the law used to be written differently?

They have to bind, but whether the hooker binds over or under the props arms doesn't matter.

 

[Browner]

I have no problem with the hooker binding under rather than over,expressly permitted under 20.3(b)

it is the props who have to bind properly. And I don't believe they can legally bind to each other, so they have to bind to the hooker.

Flipflop has nailed this IMO.

Crossrefs scenario of props taking a bind then switching it at formation is widely practiced, but his props changing their binding still requires them to remain legal see 20.3(e), the illegality is exactly why its done sneakily via a switch.

If scrums didn't expect the hooker to form part of a stable bound front row of x3 players then in 7s a 2-1 v 3-0 formation would be acceptable and at present it isn't.

All teammate binding presupposes that your teammate is next to you, not next+1.

Notwithstanding all this, in the context of all the other scrum offences (and especially in 7s under my refereeing) many players get any with it under the 'flow/immaterial' mantra.

 

[ChrisR]

I have seen this, it is illegal and is dangerous, when he pulls out the other hooker can fall through. I think I have seen this on the safety programme here a penalty for illegal binding.

What are you talking about? The hooker under bind or the props binding to props?

Either way your scenario of the hooker "falling through" is not going to happen. Not in 7s and certainly not in 15s.

 

[ChrisR]

Flipflop & Browner, explain please your rationale for prop-to-prop being illegal. Not just the words in law but the reasoning behind them. Or does the reason not concern you?

 

[Rushforth]

In my more flexible days I bound over THP and under LHP in XV, and thought I was getting away with it. Although technically risky - I was doing it to steal ball - my props were so strong there was no danger. And yes, I supported my own weight on one foot at all times too; I was young but not stupid!

 

[Browner]

In my more flexible days I bound over THP and under LHP in XV, and thought I was getting away with it. Although technically risky - I was doing it to steal ball - my props were so strong there was no danger. And yes, I supported my own weight on one foot at all times too; I was young but not stupid!

Rushy, Surviving a risky practice doesn't equate to it being devoid of danger

Joke ..When enrolling in my yoga class the instructor asked "how flexible are you?
My reply "very, but i can't do Tuesdays"

 

[Browner]

Flipflop & Browner, explain please your rationale for prop-to-prop being illegal. Not just the words in law but the reasoning behind them. Or does the reason not concern you?

I thought I had?

Prop 2 prop bind can't meet the requirements of:
[LAWS]......Must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the teammate's body..... [/LAWS] without infringing 3 in a row with hooker in the middle.

I simply dismiss the notion that law permits 'fast ejection' leaving a 3v2 pushing contest to continue, purely on safety grounds.

 

[ChrisR]

Browner, you're still ducking the question.

"Must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the teammate's body."

Do you really think that this wording was introduced to prohibit prop-to-prop binding? Do you think that prop-to-prop is unfair or dangerous?

 

[Browner]

Do you really think that this wording was introduced to prohibit prop-to-prop binding? Do you think that prop-to-prop is unfair or dangerous?

In 15 v 15 id say that the hooker not being bound onto by his props is dangerous. Id add that the forces exerted are best protected by the intertwined standard legal bind expectations of law.

If 7s wants to vary this law to mean that 3v2 is ok, then feel free to propose it. Do I presume that you think safety risks dont increase?

I suspect that in most 7s we'd both ignore it in favour of flow/immateriality, provided scrums disperse safety/quickly.

 

[Dixie]

Browner, you're still ducking the question.

"Must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the teammate's body."

Do you really think that this wording was introduced to prohibit prop-to-prop binding? Do you think that prop-to-prop is unfair or dangerous?

Who gave Browner (or you for that matter) the discretion to disregard the clear wording of a law based on what he thought the intnetion to be, when he has no means of determining that intention? The clear wordig of the law is here:

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS
When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

(a) Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Marauder, you seem to be arguing that when the iRB clarified the concept of binding in the scrum by issuing a definition, they didn't actually intend for it to apply to the very next sentence, covering binding by ALL front row players. Where is your authority for this view? If you feel that they did indeed mean it, but that an arm is part of the body and thus binding to the arm is binding to the body, I wonder whether you'd accept Mr McCaw getting two feet closer to the #10 by binding to the outstretched arm of his lock forward?