Conundrum

[Stuartg]

In the martch I refereed today the grey loose head did not once bind to his opposite tight head. Number of penalties for not binding =zero.

Why?

 

[OB..]

In the martch I refereed today the grey loose head did not once bind to his opposite tight head. Number of penalties for not binding =zero.

Why?

One-armed prop.

 

[Stuartg]

One-armed prop.

Correct - well done OB. He was a 65 year old and still playing with one arm. Caught the ball twice and passed immediately. The opps respected his disability and we had a very enjoyable derby game.

 

[Decorily]

Great stuff......but is that not dangerous?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

No arm and a loose head - poor fella.

 

[OB..]

Correct - well done OB. He was a 65 year old and still playing with one arm. Caught the ball twice and passed immediately. The opps respected his disability and we had a very enjoyable derby game.

I've seen it before, so I recognised the situation.

 

[menace]

Correct - well done OB. He was a 65 year old and still playing with one arm. Caught the ball twice and passed immediately. The opps respected his disability and we had a very enjoyable derby game.

Were they contested scrums?

If I came across this, I'm sorry but I would be going uncontested.

 

[didds]

presuming he was missing his left arm then, what if he was playing TH and now had a bind on his oppo LH but not his own hooker?

didds

 

[dave_clark]

didds, i'd guess that no coach or captain would insist he cover both sides.

 

[Stuartg]

Were they contested scrums?

If I came across this, I'm sorry but I would be going uncontested.

I spoke to the oppo tight head before the game and asked that he respect the one armed loose head. He had no problem with this. Scrums were contested and there was no problem. Not a single scrum went down. Both teams were out there to enjoy a game and that is what happened in a sportsmanlike fashion.

 

[ChrisR]

Stuartg, you are to be applauded for your empathy and common sense.

Menace,

from my experience in the front row forced binding is much more of a liability.

The stupidest penalty is when a prop gets in trouble, unbinds, puts his hand on the deck to keep from going down and gets PKd.

As in this link here to the worst scrum management I've ever seen.

 

[Phil E]

The stupidest penalty is when a prop gets in trouble, unbinds, puts his hand on the deck to keep from going down and gets PKd.

Your not necessarily giving the PK simply for unbinding. As you stated, he got into trouble, the hand on the deck allows him to get out of trouble, but negates the good work the opposite prop has done to get him into trouble. If you don't give the PK then You are saying that if he loses the FR battle, you will allow him to break the law as a get out of jail free!

 

[didds]

didds, i'd guess that no coach or captain would insist he cover both sides.

Hi dave - not quite what i meant.

If its felt that playing LH is unsafe because he has no bind with the oppo TH, would the same view be taken if playing at TH with a bind on the oppo LH but none of the hooker? (other than the hooker's bind on him).

didds

 

[winchesterref]

How about two one armed props? The LH for one side and the opposing TH. Uncontested call?

 

[menace]

I spoke to the oppo tight head before the game and asked that he respect the one armed loose head. He had no problem with this. Scrums were contested and there was no problem. Not a single scrum went down. Both teams were out there to enjoy a game and that is what happened in a sportsmanlike fashion.

Great. For a social match maybe. And I get the empathy to let all shapes and sizes and abilities play.

But what if it turns out there was a mismatch at the first scrum and it was unsteady because of the lack of binding and it goes down resulting in a serious injury? Who will they be looking at next to blame especially with such an obvious impediment?

(From my limited experience the most unstable scrums I tend to see are where a/the props don't bind?)

 

[dave_clark]

Hi dave - not quite what i meant.

If its felt that playing LH is unsafe because he has no bind with the oppo TH, would the same view be taken if playing at TH with a bind on the oppo LH but none of the hooker? (other than the hooker's bind on him).

didds

sorry, missed out the ;-) from the original post

 

[didds]

oh you tease you, Dave!

 

[Browner]

In the match I refereed today the grey loose head did not once bind to his opposite tight head. Number of penalties for not binding =zero.

Why?

you've got a SH referee bloodline? epper:

 

[Browner]

(From my limited experience the most unstable scrums I tend to see are where a/the props don't bind?)

From my limited experience the most unstable scrums I tend to see are where the props are elite!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Speaking of Elite Scrums.

I watched the Aviva highlights from this last weekend in ITV and during the programme there was a little piece in Bath's training room where Mark Durden-Smith (MDS) and David Flatmand (DF) showed a one man "scrum machine". Bath (and I assume anyone else who has one) use it to measure the hit and the sustained "after push" an individual can muster.

I appreicate Bath probably bought it before the new engagment process (although it looked fairly pristine to me) but from what they showed and comments made by DF is they still put great store in how hard someone can hit and sustain that hit/push immediately after. If that's the approach they (the whole of Elite Rugby) take the chances are we've all wasted our time fixing their probalem whilst they continue to do bugger all about it.

MDS had a go and did 130kg/s hit and 70kg/s push
DF did 208kg/s hit and about 170 kg/s push
DF said Bath's top gym bunny does >300kg/s hit and >200kg/s push

So much for the hit has been taken out of the game. I have also heard a number of Elite Referees still using the term hit whilst talking to FRs in recent matches and not in the context of "the hit has gone".