[Scrum] "BIND!!"

[Alastair]

I ref at levels 9-11 (and enjoy it). In my brief to the front rows I instruct them to be ear to ear on "bind!". None the less front rows are frequently fully engaged at his point. No-one's complaining,no-one's getting an advantage... they're just big and tired... so I let it go to keep the game moving. Do I need to be more strict and, if so, why?

 

[Rushforth]

I only do the ear-to-ear explanation to kids nowadays, unless there is a genuine issue.

If both sides are clearly engaging a little earlier than they should - had they been pro/international level - without any danger, then I cannot see any reason to be "more strict".

If there is any safety issue whatsoever, use the whistle. You don't need to penalise unless there is a pattern. Both packs will want to enjoy a fair contest but more importantly a safe contest.

 

[Phil E]

If they are fully engaged at the bind this usually indicates that they are not balanced at the crouch, they are pre-emptying the call to stop themselves falling forward, which makes the scrum unstable and potentially unsafe.

Three separate words, three separate actions, don't let them merge them all into one. If they engage (set) on the bind, next thing they will be doing it on the crouch. You are then no longer in control, so how can you maintain safety in the scrum?

Tell them at the brief to wait for the instruction before moving to the next stage, then if they don't, stand them up and remind them of the brief. Don't let the player manage the engagement procedure.

 

[ChrisR]

If they are fully engaged at the bind this usually indicates that they are not balanced at the crouch, they are pre-emptying the call to stop themselves falling forward, which makes the scrum unstable and potentially unsafe.

Three separate words, three separate actions, don't let them merge them all into one. If they engage (set) on the bind, next thing they will be doing it on the crouch. You are then no longer in control, so how can you maintain safety in the scrum?

Tell them at the brief to wait for the instruction before moving to the next stage, then if they don't, stand them up and remind them of the brief. Don't let the player manage the engagement procedure.

Alastair, context is everything. Your description ".. they're just big and tired.." is telling. They're not a bunch trying to get the jump on the ops. In that context I have to disagree with Phil E, above.

If the scrum is stable, straight & static prior to the ball coming in then I care not how they got there.

 

[The Fat]

Not a great idea to send mixed messages to the OP. If he ever gets an assessor or wishes to move up a grade, he will be expected to control the engagement of the scrum. Not saying he needs to be a pedant but as Phil says, 3 calls, 3 actions, stability, safety.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'll straddle the two horses.

What you're doing is refereeing down to the teams rather than setting high standards and asking them to comply. What I think you're at risk of is letting this become your norm; then one day you'll have a prop, or FR, who didn't get your memo, and don't meet the scrum model that you have in your head.

There are some things that you can, guardedly, revise your standards on - definition of 'repeat' for repeat offences, for example. I would suggest that there are some areas where you shouldn't compromise - and the scrum is one of them. Safety, and standards.

 

[ChrisR]

Simon & TF, I don't disagree and at the competition level at which I coach I would expect a precise CBS.

If, over the course of the match at lower levels, the front rows are leaning in on "Crouch" and by "Bind" have got all the way to "Set" but the result is a SSS scrum I think I'd accept the result unless one team is trying to get an advantage.

Part of the problem is that CBS requires different front row footwork from CTPE and if they haven't adjusted then they tend to be sitting on their heels and too high or they fall in prematurely.

 

[Nigib]

Try using a different instruction - they probably think they are ear to ear, but happen to be fully engaged (that's front rows for you).

On Bind, shoulders apart please - wait for Set before you come together. No pushing before the ball is in.

First scrum, they will just keel into each other as they are used to at that level. Stop, remind them of the briefing, ask if that's clear and reset. Next scrum - thank them for complying (thanks guys, I knew you could do it - same again please). Works until they are completely kn*ckered. And most FR will comply; if they don't, ping them. They all know what they *should* be doing.

I agree that as the game proceeds at lower levels, tiredness will kick in - then it's contextual. Your choice to keep the game going as long as it is safe or ping; if the ball is coming out quickly, probably better for the match you are reffing to keep it going. Watch out for replacement FR, who may need similar treatment - stop on first one and remind them, don't just ping - I am talking lower levels here, 9 and below in UK.

 

[Wert Twacky]

Alastair - I tend to agree with Maurader on this one. Context of the game at L9-11 and if they're all playing ball, safety is not compromised and all is well... then stay as you are.
What you do need to consider, as one or two have eluded to, is that should a problem arise, or you be appointed to a higher level game, there may be a different expectation on CBS.
I often experience the same when refereeing younger age-groups - no-one is trying to cheat or extract the urine, so I don't make anything of it as long as they're safe and no-one's gaining an unfair advantage.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Context of the game is everything here. I had this issue on Friday night in an U14 cup game, the weather was awful (snow and cold) so I allowed the front rows to pretty much bind and set in the same movement to keep the game moving. However into the 2nd half and the conditions, along with the large number of scrums due to handling errors, were starting to take their toll on the front rows.

The moment the scrums became unstable I blew the whistle with a stand up and reverted to the 3 stage call with clear instructions to the FRs. Scrums immediately became more stable and safer.

 

[SimonSmith]

Context of the game is everything here. I had this issue on Friday night in an U14 cup game, the weather was awful (snow and cold) so I allowed the front rows to pretty much bind and set in the same movement to keep the game moving. However into the 2nd half and the conditions, along with the large number of scrums due to handling errors, were starting to take their toll on the front rows.

The moment the scrums became unstable I blew the whistle with a stand up and reverted to the 3 stage call with clear instructions to the FRs. Scrums immediately became more stable and safer.

Haud on a wee sec here. Not picking on you, just the thought process here:


You didn't follow the scrum protocol, and at some stage in the game, scrums destabilized. You went back to the protocol and the scrums stabilized?

I wonder if you had kept to the protocol, the destabilization would not have happened? I'm not entirely convinced that the extra seconds between 'bind' and 'set' in the context of the weather would have trumped the protocols.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Haud on a wee sec here. Not picking on you, just the thought process here:

I'll try and clarify as I don't think, re-reading it, that I explained myself properly.

You didn't follow the scrum protocol, and at some stage in the game, scrums destabilized. You went back to the protocol and the scrums stabilized?

I did follow protocol but rather than have a 3 stage call I allowed the front rows to come together as they bound but not to set themselves. Their heads were engaged, rather than ear to ear, but the scrum wasn't set for the ball to come in. That didn't happen until I called set.

I wonder if you had kept to the protocol, the destabilization would not have happened? I'm not entirely convinced that the extra seconds between 'bind' and 'set' in the context of the weather would have trumped the protocols.

The scrums were fine for the first half and probable 10 minutes of the 2nd half with this procedure. It was clearly obvious that the unstable scrums were a result of fatigue caused by the cold wet snow and the higher than usual number of scrums that were happening due to the backs not being able to hold onto passes or the forwards knocking on at rucks when they tried to pick and go; giving them those extra few seconds in the final stages of the game just meant they could get themselves sorted before the scrum commenced.

 

[thepercy]

What I am seeing is that to prevent themselves from being pre-engaged FRs will often lean the top of their heads on the top of the opponents shoulders, and slide in on set.