[Scrum] Front row player forced up

[ChrisR]

This is a lot of tosh.

I don't see any "contrived" penalties in my games - up to and incl. D1AA. How do you know? Do you PK collapsed front rows? Standing up?

This proposed law change would kill the old school dominant front rows (and how, exactly, does the "old school dominant front row" manifest itself?) and devalue the whole scrum. So the Elite are stuffing it up. Let them. Let the rest of play rugby

My suggestion for law change is not a serious one as the law are not the problem. Refereeing at the elite level is. My original post for this thread is about wrong application of law in two international matches.

Just the other day I watched a DVD of Oz vs. ABs from 2006. Nearly every scrum went to completion. A few were reset and no PKs/FKs were awarded. So what has changed?

Watch this clip from the last AB vs. BIL match: https://youtu.be/npZA7iijqPg?t=222 A gimme 3 for the ABs. For what? How was the collapse material as the scrum was static and the ball at the #8's feet?

Who was at fault? Do you think RP got it right?

My law change suggestion was a response to KM75's post but my real suggestion is for something that can be changed: Stop the PK parade and the problem will go away.

 

[Treadmore]

Watch this clip from the last AB vs. BIL match: https://youtu.be/npZA7iijqPg?t=222 A gimme 3 for the ABs. For what? How was the collapse material as the scrum was static and the ball at the #8's feet?

Who was at fault? Do you think RP got it right?

That's one of several PKs istr been given over the series against the prop that hit the ground first. However, the opposing prop had shoulders below hips prior to the collapse, whilst the penalised prop was legal.

I think RP got the cause of the collapse (which is what he appears to penalise) wrong, and missed the shoulders below hips from the AB LH.

 

[SimonSmith]

I don't see any "contrived" penalties in my games - up to and incl. D1AA. How do you know? Do you PK collapsed front rows? Standing up?

This proposed law change would kill the old school dominant front rows (and how, exactly, does the "old school dominant front row" manifest itself?) and devalue the whole scrum. So the Elite are stuffing it up. Let them. Let the rest of play rugby/QUOTE]

Yes, I penalized collapsed and/or boring in. Only when I know I can identify a culprit. I can't remember the last penalty I gave for standing up.

If you have the chance, watch the Scot at UMW, Adam. He is quite clearly a THP, and he knows what he's doing. If they can balance out the rest of the FR, then they might have a scrum that can be used as a weapon, either to disrupt the opposition or to win and be able to use their own scrum ball in a variety of ways. If a FR can push the opposition and keep the opposition on the back foot in the scrum, I see no reason to take that weapon away from them. Tire the heck out of them

 

[ChrisR]

Now that I'm a free agent I may get to do that (watch UMW, that is).

As a former hooker & TH I do appreciate how a superior front rower can apply pressure to his opponent and disrupt their strike and/or drive. I have been on both sides of that coin.

My gripe is that the attempt to eradicate foul play in the front row actually encouraged it. Wasn't there a memo before the 2011 WC that took a 'no tolerance' position? Essentially it said that if something bad happened in the front row someone had to get a ticket. So the skilled cheaters had a field day and things haven't improve since. Castrogiovanni is the cheaters poster boy.

 

[chbg]

1.5m is too short, it eliminates the push-over try, but I don't see why the drive shouldn't be limited to 5m, so that it's still possible to go for a push over try at a 5m scrum, while out in the mid-field I can't see that there is any good reason to drive a scrum > 5m, other than in search of a PK.

A 5m drive will only take the middle line of the scrum to the GL. You normally need another 3m to get the ball at the feet of the No 8 to the GL.

 

[ChrisR]

Look, it wasn't a serious suggestion anyway.

 

[beckett50]

Rather than start a fresh thread, I thought that I would resurrect an old one.

My match on Saturday just gone was a turgid affair with a fair number of scrums. Fast forward to after the match in the Clubhouse and the away coach asks me why - if his side had the dominant scrum - there were no penalties for the opposition standing up. I asked him why should they be penalised and he was adamant that it was illegal in Law. I questioned to which Law he was referring, and whether he was sure because, as far as I was aware, so long as the binding remained then no offence is committed.

I explained that if you have two packs pushing against each other then it will pivot at the weakest point, ergo where the front rows come together. Now, as i explained to him, if his players are not guilty of driving the scrum up and the ball is at the feet of the #8 I am going to call "Use It!" all day long. We agreed to disagree and he agreed to go away and consult the LotG.

 

[Christy]

hi beckett .{ im assuming we talking adult rugby here }
firstly i hate messy scrums the most .. it can be a lottery at times ,,even if we know where /how to look ..
the coach had a fair point . & for me we would need to find out why opposition keep standing up .
if its through natural causes ,,then penalty all day long { get in the gym more & start pumping iron }

if there are too many & through 1 side being simply too dominant at all scrums , & we think it now becoming a safety issues ,,maybe advise lads if it continues we might need to go uncontested .

with ball at nr 8s feet & lads are all standing up ..in irfu land we are pushed more towards blow up straight away , as collapsed scrums cant be played ,,this is from u 13 up to division 1 all ireland league { above this is provincial rugby } ..

im going to be more with what coach thought ,,dominant scrum ,,marching opposition up field & opposition keep popping up ..im going to penalty all day long ,, if its happening too often ,,one of them is going to the bin ..:yellow:

 

[didds]

... and after youve binned two of them the doinainat scrum will find its at uncontested 9alebit with a two man advantage

didds

 

[ChrisR]

I think Beckett's point is that a font row player standing up is not specifically prohibited in law. And, if the opponent is winning the ball why would the referee blow it up?

 

[Jolly Roger]

LotG 2018
LAW 19
25. If a scrum collapses or if a player in the scrum is lifted or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

As an ex-hooker I can vouch that being forced up whilst still bound puts increadible pressure on the neck of the 2 and 3, hence the need to blow. If both front rows remained bound and no side obviously guilty of driving upwards then no offence has been committed. However, I think that it is very rare that this will be the case and either the weaker team has stood up, breaking binding, or the stronger team has driven upwards to “inflict discomfort” or to win a penalty. Easy to say, often difficult to see.

 

[Zebra1922]

I know this was discussed earlier in the thread and I think the general consensus is it is difficult to stay legally bound (long arm to back/side of the prop) whilst standing up, ergo penalty for losing binding (or against the opposition if you think they have driven up illegally).

If you think they have stood up AND remained legally bound, I do agree no offence, I'm just not convinced this is really possible.

 

[didds]

I think Beckett's point is that a font row player standing up is not specifically prohibited in law.

Ive been saying this for years. the retort is a bind must have slipped. My response is that props bindings only require a shirt grab, not full-arm-from-armpit stuff, and a hooker's bind won;t change cos his prop stands up. The reply to that is "but the bind has slipped". We go around in circles for several days in this manner.

At some juncture the "must be in a pushing position" law is mentioned. I have more sympathy with this, but of course the laws do not say what a pushing position actually is. I can push you (albeit ineffectively) standing up, with my chest, for example.

It is basically a law that is shoe horned into use to justify pinging somebody standing up.

I eventually get bored and give up.

didds

 

[Pinky]

For me there is too much now in the modern (especially professional) scrum about not using it as a restart of the game, but an opportunity to "win" a penalty. I think there should be less of it and more calls to use it when the ball is available. Need to think what to do if they all go up, and especially near the goal line, but I think there should be less penalties awarded unless there is a deliberate act that affects the winning side playing the ball.

 

[Phil E]

Ive been saying this for years. the retort is a bind must have slipped. My response is that props bindings only require a shirt grab, not full-arm-from-armpit stuff,...

The laws would seem to disagree with your statement Didds.

[LAWS]Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the
whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]7. The players in the scrum bind in the following way:
a. The props bind to the hooker.
b. The hooker binds with both arms. This can be either over or under the arms of the
props.
etc.[/LAWS]

 

[Pinky]

The laws would seem to disagree with your statement Didds.

[LAWS]Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the
whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]7. The players in the scrum bind in the following way:
a. The props bind to the hooker.
b. The hooker binds with both arms. This can be either over or under the arms of the
props.
etc.[/LAWS]

I think Didds is talking about one prop binding on his opponent, not on his own hooker.

 

[Phil E]

I think Didds is talking about one prop binding on his opponent, not on his own hooker.

[LAWS]a. Each loose-head prop binds by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the
opposing tight-head prop.
b. Each tight-head prop binds by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of
the opposing loose-head prop.
c. Each prop binds by gripping the back or side of their opponent’s jersey.
d. All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the
whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.[/LAWS]

Yes I know this never happens, but that's not what the law says.

 

[thepercy]

What about 19.5?

If you stand up are you still in "the formation as outlined in the diagram"?

 

[didds]

I think Didds is talking about one prop binding on his opponent, not on his own hooker.

well both really.

the prop bind on the oppo only requires a fist grasp on a shirt.

to the hooker may be while arm yadda yadda etc but on the whole don;t see a standing prop having to lose said bind. In realuity he tends to take his hooker with him on that side, so full arm contact is maintained in effect.

in short I do not see binds actually being lost is what i am saying, and the oft quoted reasons for pinging a FR standing up rely on this law it seems to award the penalty. I'm not saying it can never be the case. just very very rarely.

but I've been here before. i don't recognise these claims, others insist they must happen prety much every time. We just agree to disagree.

didds

 

[didds]

[LAWS]a. Each loose-head prop binds by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the
opposing tight-head prop.
b. Each tight-head prop binds by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of
the opposing loose-head prop.
c. Each prop binds by gripping the back or side of their opponent’s jersey.
d. All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the
whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.[/LAWS]

Yes I know this never happens, but that's not what the law says.

If you insist on full arm binding "between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder." between opposing props you'd need to ping all four props at every scrum?

Or did I miss your point Phil?

didds