front row binding with a disabled player

[Norfolk_Ref]

Hi,

Been reading a few posts on binding, and this got me thinking about a game i had where the LH prop only had 1 arm. He was a bit of a vet and he said in 20 yrs no-one had batted an eyelid at it. Me being new was unsure so asked the conveniently placed assessor on the pitch next door, who had a chat with the player and then assured me he'd be fine as long as the opposing prop got a good bind on him and that he was tight to his own hooker. No prizes for guessing what happened next? The 3rd or 4th scrum collapsed and he twisted his knee and had to go off.

Now I'm thinking that either it's my fault the scrum wasn't strong enough or that he isn't as stable as he thinks he is in a scrum?

Thoughts??

Norfolk_ref

 

[Davet]

assume it was his left arm.

Difficult one - the game is striving to be inclusive, and whilst a LHP who has no bind at all may not be entirely stable, as your assessor said if the opposing THP gets a good bind he should be able to hold it up - provided neither of them bugger about.

But - to be honest, if he'd collapsed and someone else had got hurt we could have had an issue.

I don't like to say this, and I am quite prepared to listen to arguement, but my instinct is that scrums should have been uncontested under those circumstances.

 

[Norfolk_Ref]

Good thoughts Davet. I think if i'd have been on my own I would have still let it go. It's having the grapefruits to tell some they can't play, although my head says i should have refused.

In terms of law:
[LAWS](c) Binding by loose head props. A loose head prop must bind on the opposing tight head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight head prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loose head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop. The loose head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]

Does this count if this law has been broken immediately due to lack of left arm?

 

[Dixie]

I don't like to say this, and I am quite prepared to listen to arguement, but my instinct is that scrums should have been uncontested under those circumstances.

I have to agree. Our mantra is: Safety Equity Law, in that order. The scrum binding laws are safety issues, and so need to be the priority consideration - even ahead of the equity of allowing a disabled player to participate. The equity can be acheived, but only in the context of uncontested scrums.

As you state - grapefruits.

 

[Taff]

... It's having the grapefruits to tell some they can't play ...

Except you're not stopping him "playing" ... you're just stopping him scrummaging. He can do everything else.

.... He was a bit of a vet and he said in 20 yrs no-one had batted an eyelid at it.

My best guess is that he's either a bullshitter, or plenty of people have batted an eyelid but were too scared to question someone with a disability.

 

[OB..]

My best guess is that he's either a bullshitter, or plenty of people have batted an eyelid but were too scared to question someone with a disability.

20 years ago there was a local team that had a one-armed prop, and nobody batted an eyelid.

However the scrum laws and the scrum were much more relaxed in those days.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Safety is paramount - no way can you allow a one armed player to prop. He can play in back row, or on the wing or wherever, but not in the FR.

 

[Womble]

OB, was the team bristol based? Did a team many years ago with 3 one armed players! Pinged one of them at a lineout for using his outside arm! You can't begin to imagine! Think I would let him play and reasses after first scrum

 

[Davet]

3 one armed players! Pinged one of them at a lineout for using his outside arm!

That actually made me laugh...

I feel bad now.

 

[TheBFG]

I reffed a "junior" with only one full arm, it'll be in the junior section on here somewhere, think the overall opinion was a big :nono: what got me was that he'd been allowed to play there before :chin:

 

[Davet]

Where's "there"? - Front Row, I think we are fairly united on that not being a good idea - and depending on which arm he may have difficulty at lock or flanker - depending on which side he tries to play. But elsewhere, - probably OK.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

When I played, we used to play against a team with a hooker with one arm and a little rudimentary flipper. His good arm was MASSIVE!

He scrummaged with no issues as far as I know (or cared at the time) I couldn't see - I was preparing to cut, rapier like, through the opposition backline.

 

[Womble]

Most supporters only have " one eye" and we don't stop them! But seriousely, should we not do all we can to help, even talk to the opo prop and maybe do a few practice scrums before the game to see if it works! To just dismiss IMO is wrong!

 

[OB..]

OB, was the team bristol based?

No, Gloucester.

 

[ianh5979]

I played against a one armed hooker for many years at 2/3rd team with no problems

 

[didds]

Safety is paramount - no way can you allow a one armed player to prop. He can play in back row, or on the wing or wherever, but not in the FR.

not hook?

didds

 

[didds]

I played against a one armed hooker for many years at 2/3rd team with no problems

croydonians? mid 1980s?

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Norfolk, you didn't say why the scrums collapsed. Are you saying that it's because of lack of binding?

It wasn't that long ago (or was it?) that either prop could elect not to bind on the ops. I didn't see that it was a problem then and today I'd let him play. I like Wombles approach, talk to the other prop, make sure he can get a good bind and both have good body position.

 

[Davet]

It wasn't that long ago (or was it?) that either prop could elect not to bind on the ops.

Yes, but...

20.6.c in the old book applied only to LHP - saying he must either bind on ihs opponent, OR place his left hand or forearm on his own left thigh. The THP was required to bind on the jersey (not sleeve or arm) of the LHP opposite.

The LHP was this supported either by binding his opponent, or by his own left thigh.

 

[Davet]

Sorry - meant to say that the LHP's ability to use his own left thigh as support disappeared in 2001, when the sentence about using the thigh was removed.