Good.I agree completely in practice
Don't bother - the laws are simply not written with that in mind.I'm just being pedantic with wording.
Good.I agree completely in practice
Don't bother - the laws are simply not written with that in mind.I'm just being pedantic with wording.
Standing up is not a crime.
This time last year the following amendment was proposed and, I believe, accepted:
8.3 (d), (e) and (f)
WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
FFR
Delete: (d) Collapsed scrum. Advantage must not be applied when a scrum collapses. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(e) becomes (d)
Amend: Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in the air or forced upwards and has no support on the ground out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(f) becomes (e)
This is to formalise a refereeing practice that is more and more applied. Also, in such circumstances, advantage may be applied if there is no risk for the players’ safety.
The amendment was introduced to allow scrums to go to completion if the front row goes down or a player stands, or is forced, up. It does not allow advantage if a front row player is forced into a position with his feet off the ground, ie. 'stapled'.
When asked by me the RFU replied that they disagreed with the change and was asking WR to rescind it. I have heard nothing since.
Standing up is not a crime. Forcing a player up is a crime:
20.8 (i) Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air,
or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or
afterwards. This is dangerous play.
I suggest that those who would ping the one who stands up reconsider. You are quite likely penalizing the victim for an action that is not a crime.
Furthermore, the front row player who stands up is not gaining an advantage as he has ceased to be an effective element of the scrum.
Law reference for penalising someone for "standing up" please?
FTR - if WR want to ping it, and its universally accepted and blown that way, then fine. Though why they can't just expressly write it into the laws defeats me.
Meanwhile.. standing up COULD cause a collapse. I can't recall ever seeing a collapse in this manner mind, ever.
WRT the laws as writ similarly its clear that binds on teammates are never ever really loosened/removed
And similarly again law defined binds on the oppo are never ever loosened/removed
So call it as a PK for sure. But lets not really try and lever scenarios and laws that nobody actually ever sees happen.
At least call it contrary to 20.2(a) whereby a body position is not maintained to push forward in any meaningful way - but that's just my attempt to square this circle.
didds
I hear what you're saying, but I can't see why it's so offensive to say that standing up is not really breaking a bind? To my mind it is breaking a bind. Typically it's the hooker that stands up - when hes up his shoulders are not in contact with his props even though he may still be grasping them tightly. So although I agree ita a bit technical call to me he's breached
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
In think it is covered. (The 'stand up' 2ndry signal is just an easier and clearer communication signal than using the 'no bind' signal).
The art is determining whether it was a stand up or being forced up!
I never said anything to suggest 'every single time' so I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring?every single time?
really?
Meanwhile props standing up probably done lose that hooker continual bind cops the hooker's arm goes with them. So why do props that stand get pinged?
I shoe horn cut-and-paste reason, that may not actually exist.
As I say - if WR want ti pinged then fair enough. But it would be better tow rite it into the alws rather than leave people debating which law is beign levered into place here.
didds
didds
didds
In think it is covered. (The 'stand up' 2ndry signal is just an easier and clearer communication signal than using the 'no bind' signal).
The art is determining whether it was a stand up or being forced up!
Secondary signals? Standing up? Not in my book. Perhaps they are in your "Make 'em up as you go along" book with the "Make 'em up" laws.
If you're pinging the 'standing up' you are most likely pinging the product and not the cause. Players stand up because scrums go to shit, not the other way around.
As for standing up causing a collapse? Doesn't happen.
I believe that the Advantage Law amendments were introduced to allow the ball to be played away instead of requiring a re-set or sanction.
You are wrong on two counts.
Standing up, in and of itself, is not illegal. But it is ineffective play and will be an advantage to the opponents. So why take away the advantage the ops have gained? WR, by amending the Advantage Law, are asking you to let it play out.
Are Red scrum really driving legally? I don't have the film references (dial-up access prohibits video) but I suspect that the major cause of standing up is not being driven backwards but being driven up.
You are wrong on two counts.
Standing up, in and of itself, is not illegal. But it is ineffective play and will be an advantage to the opponents. So why take away the advantage the ops have gained? WR, by amending the Advantage Law, are asking you to let it play out.
Are Red scrum really driving legally? I don't have the film references (dial-up access prohibits video) but I suspect that the major cause of standing up is not being driven backwards but being driven up.
Except that you fail to answer who you're going to ping when the ball doesnt come out or the retreating scrum who have their FR standing ends up with the ball (and stood up before scrum ended). I think you're suggesting the advantage was gained by pushing them backwards? For mine that is not sufficient reward to a dominant scrum.