Clarification on where the defending scrum-half may move to once the scrum begins?

[jdeagro]

Per 19.30, these are the defending scrum-half's options of where they may move to once play in the scrum begins:



Per 19.30.a, can the scrum-half move to the opposite side of the scrum from where they started, as long as they stay behind the ball and close to the scrum while doing so?

Option 19.30.b makes it sound like such might not be possible, but the law doesn't explicitly dismiss the allowance of such.

Additionally, the subsequent diagram in the lawbook of offsides for the scrum-halfs makes it further ambiguous by showing the defending scrum-half's offsides line per the ball extending through both sides of the scrum, despite where they are standing:



If it were legal for the defending scrum-half to change sides, I guess from the ref's perspective, they'd be able to distinguish if the defending scrum-half is choosing to exercise 19.30.b over 19.30.a by if the scrum-half retires behind the hindmost foot and stops there (my interpretation of "permanently") as opposed to if they didn't stop moving during the entirety of changing sides.

 

[Dickie E]

Short answer is no. As per 18.28 non-feeding SH has to stand next to opponent. Unless he crawls through the tunnel he wouldn't be able to get to t'other side

 

[crossref]

That's a good spot on the diagram, @jdeagro ,
The line under then Red SH's feet labelled "offside line for the red scrum half" should NOT extend to the far side of the scrum.

In fact neither of the two lines under the two SH's feet should extend very far because if they stay close to the ball they must also stay close to the scrum

 

[Volun-selected]

I’m not sure I agree. Clauses b) and c) use the word “permanently”, a) does not. The a) only has the SH must be behind the ball and close to the scrum.

Prior to this thread, not that I’ve seen it happen but as long as the SH moves without delay from one side to the other and keeps close and onside, then I’d be ok with them swapping side.

 

[jdeagro]

Short answer is no. As per 18.28 non-feeding SH has to stand next to opponent. Unless he crawls through the tunnel he wouldn't be able to get to t'other side

True about 19.28 dictating that they start next to the opposing scrum-half. But that favors the case that he is allowed to switch sides, after play in the scrum begins, then. Otherwise option 19.30.a would never be possible.

 

[Stu10]

Personally, the way I interpret law 19.30, if a scrum-half (not in possession) retires to the back foot of the scrum, that is permanent for the remainder of that scrum... he cannot advance until the ball is out. Therefore he can move to the other side, but he must remain behind the back foot.

 

[jdeagro]

Personally, the way I interpret law 19.30, if a scrum-half (not in possession) retires to the back foot of the scrum, that is permanent for the remainder of that scrum... he cannot advance until the ball is out. Therefore he can move to the other side, but he must remain behind the back foot.

So would you say the diagram is inaccurate with extending the offsides line for the scum-half (not in possession) in both directions?

 

[Stu10]

I meant to raise this ages ago and never did... now seems like an appropriate time...

Personally, I think Spencer should have been penalised because he retired to the back foot and then came forward again (law 19.30.b):

🔴 LIVE REPLAY | Harlequins v Bath | Round 23 Game of the Week | Gallagher Premiership Rugby

🃏 Harlequins v Bath 🛁Every week we'll replay the best Gallagher Premiership game of the weekend live and in full! This week it's the big game at Twickenham...

www.youtube.com

(15:30 on the video, 9:30 on the game clock)

 

[Stu10]

So would you say the diagram is inaccurate with extending the offsides line for the scum-half (not in possession) in both directions?

IMHO, it's OK, we generally accept that offside lines extend the whole width of the pitch

If you see it as a line to merely indicate how far up the field you can move it's fine; but maybe it is inaccurate if you consider the line specifically shows where you can stand... however, as I said, we generally accept that offside lines extend the whole width of the pitch, and indeed we have previously discussed and agreed that after a scrum half retires to the back foot of the scrum then he is free to move sideways as far from the scrum as he wishes, whereas the line on the diagram only extends a couple of meters either side of the scrum.

 

[jdeagro]

I meant to raise this ages ago and never did... now seems like an appropriate time...

Personally, I think Spencer should have been penalised because he retired to the back foot and then came forward again (law 19.30.b):

🔴 LIVE REPLAY | Harlequins v Bath | Round 23 Game of the Week | Gallagher Premiership Rugby

🃏 Harlequins v Bath 🛁Every week we'll replay the best Gallagher Premiership game of the weekend live and in full! This week it's the big game at Twickenham...

www.youtube.com

(15:30 on the video, 9:30 on the game clock)

Yikes, yea I definitely agree with that. He waited at the back foot for a significant amount of time too. That's definitely a "permanent" retiring to me. Even worse was that he kicked the ball out of the opposing scrum-half's hands as he was pulling it out of the scrum. That's a big no-no in my eyes too. I had to watch with the sound off, but seems like he got away with that one too, eh?

Thanks for a clear video of an example scenario btw.

 

[crossref]

I meant to raise this ages ago and never did... now seems like an appropriate time...

Personally, I think Spencer should have been penalised because he retired to the back foot and then came forward again (law 19.30.b):

🔴 LIVE REPLAY | Harlequins v Bath | Round 23 Game of the Week | Gallagher Premiership Rugby

🃏 Harlequins v Bath 🛁Every week we'll replay the best Gallagher Premiership game of the weekend live and in full! This week it's the big game at Twickenham...

www.youtube.com

(15:30 on the video, 9:30 on the game clock)

i noticed that at the time... and as a quins fan can only agree

 

[tim White]

By remaining close to the scrum he is still onside in the scrum-half position. The use of the foot was to block the pass away -but he was very close to a PK for me putting a boot that close to fingers holding the ball.

 

[jdeagro]

By remaining close to the scrum he is still onside in the scrum-half position.

He retired behind the hindmost foot though. Per the law, that is a permanent action.

The use of the foot was to block the pass away -but he was very close to a PK for me putting a boot that close to fingers holding the ball.

Yea, right in front of the ref's eyes too. That would be a definite PK and warning from me, if I was the ref in that scenario.

 

[Stu10]

By remaining close to the scrum he is still onside in the scrum-half position. The use of the foot was to block the pass away -but he was very close to a PK for me putting a boot that close to fingers holding the ball.

I agree he blocked the pass with his foot... I was OK with that; but I still believe he was offside.

 

[Volun-selected]

By remaining close to the scrum he is still onside in the scrum-half position. The use of the foot was to block the pass away -but he was very close to a PK for me putting a boot that close to fingers holding the ball.

If I’d seen that in real-time I think I’d have given a PK for kicking out of the hand. At least the ref was close enough to see there was no contact.

Personally, I think Spencer should have been penalised because he retired to the back foot and then came forward again (law 19.30.b):

Have to agree. I'd allow quickly moving round the back, but you stop at the back like that, then nope - you stay there or retire 5m back with the rest.

 

[didds]

Personally, the way I interpret law 19.30, if a scrum-half (not in possession) retires to the back foot of the scrum, that is permanent for the remainder of that scrum... he cannot advance until the ball is out. Therefore he can move to the other side, but he must remain behind the back foot.

and thats how Ive always understood it also

 

[DocP]

Personally, the way I interpret law 19.30, if a scrum-half (not in possession) retires to the back foot of the scrum, that is permanent for the remainder of that scrum... he cannot advance until the ball is out. Therefore he can move to the other side, but he must remain behind the back foot.

Like @didds, this for me. You go to the back foot of the scrum, that is where you stay. Can move to the other side but you must stay at the hindmost foot. So, for me, in the law image above, the red dashed line that is inline with the ball needs trimming to the edge of the scrum, by the flankers foot nearest red SH

 

[DocP]

So like this

 

[chbg]

I meant to raise this ages ago and never did... now seems like an appropriate time...

Personally, I think Spencer should have been penalised because he retired to the back foot and then came forward again (law 19.30.b):

🔴 LIVE REPLAY | Harlequins v Bath | Round 23 Game of the Week | Gallagher Premiership Rugby

🃏 Harlequins v Bath 🛁Every week we'll replay the best Gallagher Premiership game of the weekend live and in full! This week it's the big game at Twickenham...

www.youtube.com

(15:30 on the video, 9:30 on the game clock)

Did he ever actually get to the rear foot offside line? Presumably the Laws allow him to retreat to just in front of the rear of the scrum, and then come forward again? I'd be more worried about when he kicked (at) the ball - in another player's hands?

But this is, of course, TV rugby.

 

[didds]

Did he ever actually get to the rear foot offside line? Presumably the Laws allow him to retreat to just in front of the rear of the scrum, and then come forward again?

Good spot. Looks like maybe ONE foot breaches that rear foot line but the other stays in front.