[Scrum] Confused about these 2 scrum laws. Help please !

[OB..]

I agree completely in practice

Good.

I'm just being pedantic with wording.

Don't bother - the laws are simply not written with that in mind.

 

[ChrisR]

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.

 

[Dickie E]

Standing up is not a crime.

[LAWS](g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Is standing up not likely to collapse a scrum?

[LAWS](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]

and I don't see how a stood up player can bind continuously to the finish of the scrum

 

[menace]

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.

So you're suggesting a FR player that willingly stands up to bail out of a scrum and weaken it not be sanctioned at all regardless? What happens when the scrum goes to sh!t (such as splinters and/or collapses because they're goingbackwards) - who are you going to ping?

If the player that stands up causes the instability and the ball doesn't come into play...then I'm pinging him.

 

[didds]

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

 

[winchesterref]

Continuing to square off didds' circle...

10.2 (a) with reference to 20.2 (a)?
Seems explicit to me that the scrum is told to crouch, describes what a crouch is and then tells players they must remain in a position to make a forward shove. I think the law makers past made the assumption that this bit did not need clarification.

 

[talbazar]

Law reference for penalising someone for "standing up" please?

[LAWS]20.2 Front-row players’ positions
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]
Which I agree is only a FK
But...
[LAWS]10.2 Unfair play
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
And as it's law 10, foul play, you can even award a PT based on it...

EDIT: could have read everything before posting this... Apologies :-(

 

[menace]

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!

 

[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!

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

 

[ChrisR]

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.

 

[menace]

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

I never said anything to suggest 'every single time' so I'm not sure what part of my post you're referring?

But i would say Props that stand up are pinged for the same reason. No bind.
Ok - you want it written into the laws. I don't care if it is or not. Im happy to agree to disagree.

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.

Retracted....not sure why I bothered to engage.

 

[Blackberry]

This is an excellent thread, much to think about.

I am going back to why we ping people who stand up, and that is helping me make sense of it.

If red scrum is dominating and driving legally, but green scrum rather than take the drive backwards choose to stand up, then red's superior skill is nullified unfairly. This is cheating, so when we decide a retreating or defeated scrum is choosing to stand up we penalise. Am i reading this right?

 

[ChrisR]

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.

 

[ChrisR]

Menace, sorry for the sarcasm but the fact is there is no signal for 'standing up' which lends credence to my claim that it isn't, in and of itself, an offence. It gets called at the top level and they are wrong. It's a lazy call and it invites mischief.

 

[talbazar]

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.

Few points:

1. Standing up is illegal because by standing up the front row is not in a position to shove which is punished by a FK (unless the ref deems it's done on purpose and then it becomes a foul play and it's a PK)
--> 20.2.(a) and then 10.2.(a)

Now you are right that begin destroyed in the scrum is not illegal and there are ways for a scrum to be destroyed and remain "legal enough" so that the contest is bot biased and the safety of the players is not endangered.

2. Your point about legal dominance is extremely accurate and important.
IMHO is that it is our duty to ensure that the dominating scrum was, is and remain dominating legally.

One of the "tool" I used for that is asking the dominant scrum to be sensible and to show me their dominance by keeping the scrum in shape.
Using this, I have seen White pushing Blue towards try line. Blue trying to wheel the scrum. White scrum stopping the push, putting the scrum back in a straight line and starting pushing again to score: an extremely well drilled scrum that team has: it won't happen every weekend

3. Standing up is a way of escaping the pressure. It indeed may happen when the dominating FR push up (illegally) but more often than not, it comes from strong second rows and weakers FR.
Take a hooker for example, if his prop(s) is/are giving away and the Seconds don't move, where does he go?
Up...

4. The part I have underlined in your post is in my opinion totally inaccurate: when going backwards, a FR standing up forces the dominating FR to go up too and as such, no one is in a proper position to shove and push. The scrum cannot go anywhere anymore.

Lastly, and to soften my post a little, I for one try not to whistle as much as possible: I'd rather work with both scrums to manage the dominance in a safe and sensible situation that the dominating team can score tries instead of PK.
I will have no problem to whistle if I have to though.

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[The Fat]

Blue v Red

It must be remembered that if a red scrum is going backwards and the front row "stands up", the original long bind of the props on their blue opposition props has probably now changed. They may still have a grip on the opposite prop's jersey in some cases but they are no longer in the "bind position" as illustrated in the Law book.
I know there will be people who will poo poo this possible explanation and say that the illustrations are not Laws as such but they are intended to assist in explaining what the intent or meaning of a Law is.
Since the front rows are required to maintain their binds from the commencement to the end of the scrum, this may be where the "standing up" interpretation came from.

 

[menace]

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.

 

[ChrisR]

4. The part I have underlined in your post is in my opinion totally inaccurate: when going backwards, a FR standing up forces the dominating FR to go up too and as such, no one is in a proper position to shove and push. The scrum cannot go anywhere anymore.

Don't you think that this is the other way around?

 

[ChrisR]

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.

I suggest that you read 20.4:

(e) When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.


(f) When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.


(g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without sanction a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again. If a scrum has to be reformed for any other reason not covered in this Law the team who
originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.

Why must someone get pinged? If the retreating team has the ball and can't get it away then the advancing team get the feed at the reset, advantage gained. If the advancing team has the ball they should be able to get it away. Either way driving forward is very disruptive to the retreating team. Isn't that enough?

 

[ChrisR]

From talbazar:

1. Standing up is illegal because by standing up the front row is not in a position to shove which is punished by a FK (unless the ref deems it's done on purpose and then it becomes a foul play and it's a PK)
--> 20.2.(a) and then 10.2.(a)

talbazar, I highly recommend reading 20.2(b) below:

(b) This means that the front row players must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on at least one foot. Players must not cross their feet, although the foot of one player may cross a team-mate’s foot. Each player’s shoulders must be no lower than the hips.

I think that a standing player meets this criteria.