Coaches. Gotta love 'em :o)

[Phil E]

'Hey Sir, I'm not making a big fuss about it but did you see that England player give me an illegal forearm smash while I was trapped on the floor?'...

"No". replied the ref



He needs to learn to use "open" questions.

 

[didds]

maybe the answer to the coach shoud have been

"what about the extra backline player you now have with the in built overlap"

;-)

didds

 

[Tryer]

Tryer - bear in mind this is underage rugby.

U19 Laws apply.

A team must have fewer than eight players in its scrum when the team cannot field eight suitably trained players in its scrum due to either the team not fielding a complete team, or a forward player being sent off or temporarily suspended for foul play, or a forward player leaving the field because of injury.

What that tells me is that putting a winger into the scrum is a no-no at underage level.

Hi Donal, yea I've got that and I'd go with it in those situations but if there are forward reserves then they should be used at the expense of a back unless there is a centre for example that can play in the back row. And I only say that because I do think the non-offending team loose attacking options. I accept that teams can and should do other things but at age group rugby it just causes confusion.

 

[Tryer]

maybe the answer to the coach shoud have been

"what about the extra backline player you now have with the in built overlap"

;-)

didds

But that's not the point is it. The non-offending team can no-longer use the scrum for attack with BR moves. The fact this can't happen would allow the oppo to quickly cover the extra man as they know they won't be subject to 8 pickups.

I aggree there are lots of other opportunities provided but unless this situation has been practiced at junior rugby it will just cause confusion for a team which will probably negate the man advantage.

 

[Deeps]

But that's not the point is it. The non-offending team can no-longer use the scrum for attack with BR moves. The fact this can't happen would allow the oppo to quickly cover the extra man as they know they won't be subject to 8 pickups.

I aggree there are lots of other opportunities provided but unless this situation has been practiced at junior rugby it will just cause confusion for a team which will probably negate the man advantage.

One might be in danger of missing the point here. Under age rugby is about enjoyment in a safe environment. In their wisdom, the law commissioners deem that rugby is more about running and passing in open play than heaving and straining and back row options in set pieces.

 

[didds]

But that's not the point is it. The non-offending team can no-longer use the scrum for attack with BR moves. The fact this can't happen would allow the oppo to quickly cover the extra man as they know they won't be subject to 8 pickups.

I aggree there are lots of other opportunities provided but unless this situation has been practiced at junior rugby it will just cause confusion for a team which will probably negate the man advantage.

I was being tongue in cheek... but you are indeed correct.

The "man down" regulation makes a real mess of the scrums as it is... now there is much reduced scope for ball control post-hook (ie at the #8s feet normally) and often the ball rolls clear of the 2nd rows who have more important things to do (IMO) and it then becomes a scrap for the ball between the two s/hs and the now forward moving non-putting flankers.
A tidier approach would be (to me anyway) to either allow the sides to choose their b/row formation with just 7 men, or use ctnm s/half offside lines ie stop at the tunnel. This would at least provide either ball protection or some time for the ball winning s/h to deal with the ball.

I do concur that this reg does seemingly penalise the non-offending side somewhat.

didds

 

[The umpire]

The "man down" regulation makes a real mess of the scrums as it is... now there is much reduced scope for ball control post-hook (ie at the #8s feet normally)

Of course, at u-19 they're not allowed to keep it at the no.8s feet anyway, when it gets there, it has to go.

 

[didds]

Of course, at u-19 they're not allowed to keep it at the no.8s feet anyway, when it gets there, it has to go.

yes... but as it arrives at the no. 8s feet it gets stopped there, and transferred to the right foot (usually) to enable a nonetheless speedy pass away by the s/h with some protection from his opposite number, and the ball held in the scrum for that second or two to permit this. Contrasted to the ball squirting out the back as there is no number eight to control/stop it (even if only for a second) and the ball as a result ending up rolling around in open pay - with a subsequent hell of a mess trying to get some reasonable play going rather a now scrappy mess as two s/halves try to snaffle the ball rolling around on the floor.

This isn't about being clever or "tactical" - its about enabling the game to progress akin to the way we normally see it played, rather than a scrum becoming a probably fight for a loose ball, and in the interests of equity the side awarded the scrum most likely to be in effect the team worst off by such a situation.

didds

 

[Tryer]

One might be in danger of missing the point here. Under age rugby is about enjoyment in a safe environment. In their wisdom, the law commissioners deem that rugby is more about running and passing in open play than heaving and straining and back row options in set pieces.

I could well be....... but tell the front row that they can't enjoy a game unless they're running and passing in open play......

I also coach an U15's team and we had a game of uncontested scrums a couple of weeks ago. The biggest moaners about it at the end of the game were the backs..... they didn't get any space from scrum ball as the oppo BR didn't have to help their F5 out at all......

Horses for courses really..... but if the law makers really deem what you say is what the game is about we'll be playing RL soon and all we'll have to do is learn how to count to 5.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Evasion and running is only half the game, the backs half.

There is also controlling the ball and creating space by concentrating the defense.

The whole rugby player knows how to do both halves of the game and when to do which.

 

[Davet]

- but if an attacking 5m scrum wheels the 45deg necessary to make a flanker clearly the hindmost player... and then he picks up.... then you've got to think it happened deliberately, haven't you?

You have no NO 8, so only a very little wheel will make a lock hindmost, even if one isn't already by virtue of having longer legs than his mate

So I don't see why a pick and go is that difficult - except that a lock will probably drop the damn pill.

 

[Dixie]

So I don't see why a pick and go is that difficult - except that a lock will probably drop the damn pill.

As far as I know, the hindmost man can stop a scrum by both unbinding AND picking up - which suggests that it is the final action that terminates the scrum. From the moment that he unbinds to facilitate the pickup until the moment he picks up, both his fellow lock and his flanker are illegally bound, in that they are bound to a player who is not part of the scrum. It's small technical stuff, but it's plenty for me to justify a statement that there will be no 2nd row pickups in my game.

 

[OB..]

As far as I know, the hindmost man can stop a scrum by both unbinding AND picking up - which suggests that it is the final action that terminates the scrum. From the moment that he unbinds to facilitate the pickup until the moment he picks up, both his fellow lock and his flanker are illegally bound, in that they are bound to a player who is not part of the scrum. It's small technical stuff, but it's plenty for me to justify a statement that there will be no 2nd row pickups in my game.

Not in my book. The law specifically says it is legal for the hindmost player to unbind and pick up. You are trying to use a more general bit of law to support your personal preference. If you do it in those circumstances, how do you justify allowing it at other times?

 

[Dixie]

If you do it in those circumstances, how do you justify allowing it at other times?

The LoTG very clearly requires all non-FR to be bound to a lock at all times during a scrum. The answer to your question is simple: I never do allow them to get away with deviating from this at any other time. The #8 is given a specific exemption in law - he is permitted to unbind from the lock in order to pick up and terminate the scrum. The flanker and the other lock have no such exemption.

 

[OB..]

The #8 is given a specific exemption in law - he is permitted to unbind from the lock in order to pick up and terminate the scrum. The flanker and the other lock have no such exemption.

Law 20.10 (c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are nearest the team's own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player's feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.

Nothing specific to the #8 - which has been the point of the discussion.

 

[Dixie]

Indeed - and shoddy language from me, for which I apologise. But I do believe this provision is written with the back row in mind. Any of them can detach (if the last man) without affecting any other player. The lock as last man cannot unbind without making the flanker and opposite lock illegally bound.

 

[OB..]

Indeed - and shoddy language from me, for which I apologise. But I do believe this provision is written with the back row in mind. Any of them can detach (if the last man) without affecting any other player. The lock as last man cannot unbind without making the flanker and opposite lock illegally bound.

I agree there is a potential problem with a lock unbinding, since that could well destabilise the scrum. However I am not comfortable with your blanket approach, since it does not really have a basis in law. I note that a 3-2 formation is specifically allowed.

 

[Davet]

Hindmost player unbinds and picks up.

Note it is HIM that unbinds, if someone else is still bound to him that is of no relevance.

Why would you invent a difficulty, especially one that depends on an esoteric reading of Law?

 

[Dixie]

Why would you invent a difficulty, especially one that depends on an esoteric reading of Law?

As one who frequently uses the term "Manage It", its interesting to see you place limits on the management options. In my view, the second row pickup is a problem waiting to happen, which can easily be managed out. You can nitpick about law all you want; in my view, it needs managing so I'll manage it.

 

[OB..]

As one who frequently uses the term "Manage It", its interesting to see you place limits on the management options. In my view, the second row pickup is a problem waiting to happen, which can easily be managed out. You can nitpick about law all you want; in my view, it needs managing so I'll manage it.

So if the scrum were reduced to 5 men each, you would rule that no second row player was allowed to break and pick up?