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

[Browner]

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?

Dixie,
you appear to have misunderstood my post, I'm agreeing that the prop (in 15s) should bind on his hooker. In my view its a law driven by the risk of collapse compounded by the huge forces = safety issue

IMO a blind eye could be extended in 7's purely because all the collapse forces are noticeably lessened. We both agree its unlawful but I suspect you'd be seen as quite picky if you routinely penalised prop2prop with hooker holding himself underneath bind style in 7's.

Perhaps poster's who would always Ping it would let us know.

 

[ChrisR]

Dixie, prohibiting the peripheral players from hanging on with one hand (Mr McCaw) seems to me the very purpose of the law. And I absolutely support it. From my earlier (#8) post:

"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."

Browner, you are talking total rubbish: "risk of collapse compounded by the huge forces" Have you any experience with this bind? No, I didn't think so. I have. Used it since the 1950s from my school days. And, as a hooker, I preferred it as it allowed more freedom to adjust my hips.

- - - Updated - - -

Dixie, prohibiting the peripheral players from hanging on with one hand (Mr McCaw) seems to me the very purpose of the law. And I absolutely support it. From my earlier (#8) post:

"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."

Browner, you are talking total rubbish: "risk of collapse compounded by the huge forces" Have you any experience with this bind? No, I didn't think so. I have. Used it since the 1950s from my school days. And, as a hooker, I preferred it as it allowed more freedom to adjust my hips.

 

[Browner]

Browner, you are talking total rubbish: "risk of collapse compounded by the huge forces" Have you any experience with this bind? No, I didn't think so. I have. Used it since the 1950s from my school days. And, as a hooker, I preferred it as it allowed more freedom to adjust my hips.

I do not need to have any experience to know /recognise that both props binding on the hooker who reciprocates is a stronger confirguration than if both props bind only on each others inner flank with a clenched fist grab, with a hooker dabbling between them. If you believe it otherwise then that's your prerogative, as 'rubbish' as it seems to me.

You personal 1950's 'sink/swivel/twist or hip drop hooking preferences really have no sensible bearing on my "it's safer coz its stronger" suggestion.

 

[talbazar]

IMO a blind eye could be extended in 7's purely because all the collapse forces are noticeably lessened. We both agree its unlawful but I suspect you'd be seen as quite picky if you routinely penalised prop2prop with hooker holding himself underneath bind style in 7's.

Perhaps poster's who would always Ping it would let us know.

I believe the prop-to-prop binding should be avoided in 7's to avoid unfair advantage (particularly on the non-feeding side)
Said so, I've never pinged it. There nothing easier to manage:
- Crouch
- beep-beep! Props, bind on your hooker please. Thanks... ,let's start again: Crouch....

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[ChrisR]

talbazar, what advantage would prop-to-prop have in 7s? Just curious as I have little to do with 7s. Hooker out quicker?

 

[ChrisR]

"I do not need to have any experience to know /recognise that both props binding on the hooker who reciprocates is a stronger confirguration than if both props bind only on each others inner flank with a clenched fist grab, with a hooker dabbling between them."

Nope, just an unsupported opinion. There are four different front row binds (that I'm familiar with). Three are prop-to-hook, one prop to prop. Each has some fault.
Prop-to-prop is actually the strongest but it makes it harder for a prop to disengage.

 

[talbazar]

talbazar, what advantage would prop-to-prop have in 7s? Just curious as I have little to do with 7s.
Hooker out quicker?

Exactly!

On a prop-to-prop binding configuration, the hooker isn't "hold" by anyone at all.
So, because the scrums are so quick in 7's the non-feeding team's hooker could chose to basically leave the scrum almost as soon as the ball gets in, choosing not to contest the scrum and as such giving one more body around the scrum for defending the attacking SH going around (for example).

Indeed leaving the scrum before it's over is illegal. But again, scrums are so quick in 7's that it can be hard to spot/ref properly.

Basically it is something illegal by itself which allow the hooker to do something else illegal in a much easier way.
Why, as a ref, would you give him this leeway?
It's making your own life harder if you ask me...

 

[Browner]

Prop-to-prop is actually the strongest bind.

I've never seen this practiced, if you can forward any significant video evidence of it being used then I'm open to being persuaded.

In addition, I posed this suggestion to front row & coaches at training last night, they all cited "weaker pull/grip on a stretchy shirt" as the reason for not using it.

 

[ChrisR]

In addition, I posed this suggestion to front row & coaches at training last night, they all cited "weaker pull/grip on a stretchy shirt" as the reason for not using it.[/QUOTE]

Did they try it or just comment? Just curious. Thanx for asking tho.

 

[Pegleg]

If two props can bind to each other, with a hooker in the middle, LEGALLY (ie a FULL ARM BIND) then I can see we have no choice but to allow it.

I, for one, having read this forum for a while, have tried to visualise how to props can achieve a full arm bind with even the smallest hooker between them.

Therefore, if I see such a bind, my first instinct will be that it is illegal and I'll be looking to go down the ATP route.

 

[ChrisR]

Pegleg,

The issue is always the interpretation of "full arm bind". My interpretation is grasp with the hand and keep full contact from hand to shoulder with a teammate(s). Note the plural. That means the prop grasps his teammate prop and wrist to shoulder is in contact with the hooker.

Folks that believe the bind to be illegal claim the bind can only be with one teammate. To me that's semantics and not the intent.

 

[OB..]

Folks that believe the bind to be illegal claim the bind can only be with one teammate. To me that's semantics and not the intent.

Why do you believe that?
[LAWS]Binding: Grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

20.3 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.[/LAWS]These definitions use the singular.

I have always assumed that the idea is to ensure the scrum is solid and stable. It was clearly aimed at 15s, but i would still expect it to be applied at Sevens.

 

[Pegleg]

Agreed OB the laws do not say when a prop binds on a team mate or a couple of team mates.

 

[ChrisR]

It used to be a 7s style bind but then was banned here (USA).

I think the emphasis on "hand to shoulder" is the message here, not the singularity of the teammate, to ensure that players don't hang off loosely. Not something props are likely to do.

 

[RobLev]

Pegleg,

The issue is always the interpretation of "full arm bind". My interpretation is grasp with the hand and keep full contact from hand to shoulder with a teammate(s). Note the plural. That means the prop grasps his teammate prop and wrist to shoulder is in contact with the hooker.

Folks that believe the bind to be illegal claim the bind can only be with one teammate. To me that's semantics and not the intent.

Your interpretation is the one that smacks of semantics; and moreover one that is clearly contradicted by the wording of the definition, which clearly requires grasping the body of the team-mate using the whole arm.

 

[ChrisR]

Roblev,

read "binding" under definitions and then tell me that you are NOT going to PK the #8 for failing to bind on a teammate "between the shoulders and the hips". Or the locks, for that matter.

 

[Pegleg]

It used to be a 7s style bind but then was banned here (USA).

I think the emphasis on "hand to shoulder" is the message here, not the singularity of the teammate, to ensure that players don't hang off loosely. Not something props are likely to do.

Teammate's. Note the placement of the apostrophe. Singular not plural. Why do you take one part of the law and ignore another part of the same law? - The emphasis is about a full arm bind on a teammate. That is simply not possible between prop and prop. Therefore any such bind is liable to the ATP process as is the scenario covered in your reply to RobLev.