Halfback and crossing into pocket

[Thornton]

Hi, can someone please advise what law relates to the opposition half back staying out of the pocket between breakaway #8 if they remain in onside position both feet behind ball.


thanks

 

[TheBFG]

nothing says they can't go in there, but they'll find it very difficult to get in there without having at least one foot in front of the ball, also they're not allowed to touch the scrum (sorry can't find law ref), so again another reason why they'll find it difficult to be in there without committing at least one offence.

 

[talbazar]

nothing says they can't go in there, but they'll find it very difficult to get in there without having at least one foot in front of the ball, also they're not allowed to touch the scrum (sorry can't find law ref), so again another reason why they'll find it difficult to be in there without committing at least one offence.

Actually, SH can't grasp an opposition player... "Touching" is ok...
[LAWS]20.9.(i) Scrum half: Holding opposing flanker. A scrum half must not grasp an opposing flanker.[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

It's an U19 variation. I'll go searching for you.

Update:
It's actually an Australian U19 Law Variation
20.12(c) Add: The scrum-half of the team that has not won the ball in the scrum may not stand in the space between the flanker and Number 8 when following the ball through the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty Kick

Look in the back of your Law book. Glued to inside of back cover are the Australian U19 Law Variations


PS: Welcome to another Aussie. Great site mate. You'll learn a lot from some really good discussions on here.

 

[Blackberry]

Welcome Thornton... and what he Fat says is true about being a great site.

If a SH does go into the pocket, a wily pack will swiftly move the ball forward to the second row hoping to catch the SH offside, especially as to get out of the pocket he has to move further away from the offside line.

 

[Phil E]

If a SH does go into the pocket, a wily pack will swiftly move the ball forward to the second row hoping to catch the SH offside, especially as to get out of the pocket he has to move further away from the offside line.

Oxymoron alert!!!

 

[SimonSmith]

Banned in the US at all levels.

This may account for why the current scrum half is so unspeakably shite.

 

[ChrisR]

"The pocket" doesn't exist unless the flanker is allowed to bind as a back row player.

 

[Browner]

Without AR's .......The law of self preservation!

pass gets thrown Refs eyes follow ball, count 1-2-twack !!!! " next time you're in here you get me fist and some leather , stumpy" !

 

[Dixie]

"The pocket" doesn't exist unless the flanker is allowed to bind as a back row player.

What other bind would you expect him to use? He IS a back row player!

 

[crossref]

What other bind would you expect him to use? He IS a back row player!

back in the day, the scrum used to be a 3-2-3 formation, and flankers used to push on the lock and bind on the #8 ... that really was a back row.


Aside: when did that change to 3-4-1 (a long time ago - 1980?) and was it a sudden change prompted by a Law change, or was it just a drift..

 

[ChrisR]

I have a 1950s book on rugby that describes both formations. The 3-2-3 was considered the 'power' formation, 3-4-1 a better defensive formation.

Law 20 definitions: The outside players who bind onto the second or third row are the flankers.

U-19 restricted to 3-4-1.

 

[OB..]

I have a 1950s book on rugby that describes both formations.

The 1952 RFU Manual of Rugby Union Football? (The first the RFU produced.)
"The 3-4-1 formation has now become the general practice infirst-class football" (page 60)

It later gives some comments on the relative merits of the formations.

3-2-3 or 3-4-1?
26. Among present-day players opinion is swinging more and more in favour of the 3-4-1 scrum, for the following reasons:
(a) Four men can apply their weight directly to the front row, leaving the two locks to take the weight of the No. 8 only.
(b) The inward shove of the wing forwards on the front row holds it together, counteracting instead of reinforcing the tendency of the locks to split it apart.
(c) The shove is concentrated on the opposing hooker.
(d) The ball has to come back through two rows only, and with a properly timed shove and good hooking should come straight out on the scrum half's side of the No. 8.
(e) The shove of the more compact 3-4-1 body is better concerted. The formation is designed to produce a quick "heave", to carry the hooker over the ball at the ideal instant, rather than a sustained pressure; there should be no need to walk two or three paces forward to let the ball out, as is often the case with 3-2-3.
(f) The wing forwards are a pace nearer the advantage line and to that extent better placed to spoil the opposing scrum half or get up on the fly half. Moreover they are better able to watch the progress of the ball in the opposing scrum and thus to time their break correctly.
(g) The wide second row forms a good protective screen for the scrum half when he is getting the ball away.
(h) The No. 8 can make a quicker break, as he has no one binding on him.
27. As against this, the possible disadvantages of 3-4-1 are:
(a) The formation is perhaps less well adapted to "holding" the ball in the scrum, and is certainly unsuited for wheeling. In fact, when a wheel is to be attempted it is best to drop the wing forwards back temporarily to the third row.
(b) An inexperienced or ill-balanced 3-4-1 scrum can be a very ragged affair, much given to slewing.
(c) The timing of the shove is by no means easy.
(d) The "forward" position of the wing forwards and the comparative freedom of movement of the No. 8 may tend to over-develop spoiling tactics at the expense of shoving.
28. Every team must decide for itself which formation to adopt, and the choice may well depend on the size and physique of the players in the pack-remembering in particular that two forwards with very strong backs are essential in a 3-2-3 scrum if the thrust of the back row is to be transmitted with full effect. Each formation has its own special technique, which must be learnt; it is quite fatal to suppose that a 3-4-1 scrum can be formed simply by moving the wing forwards up one row.

 

[ChrisR]

My ideal scrum is a 3-3-2 with the flank on the side of the put in binding back in the third row. Provides additional protection for the SH and better support on #8 takes.

Unfortunately the requirement for "all other players" to bind on the body of a 2nd row inhibits this.

This question has been raised before so I won't pursue it.

 

[didds]

what happens to channel 1 ball in this lineout marauder? Effecrtively it will have left the scrum as soon as it passes through the LHP's legs ? If it then passes under the flanker in the 3rd row... is that now reinstroducing the ball to the scrum?

I like your thought processes but suspect it would need some signioficant law changes to be legal 9aside from the binding issue).

If the bind thing could be overcome - and I am not sure a flanker to the left of the #8 could not bind on a second row, he'd just use a long forward bind along the 2nd row's spine maybe? - then maybe the right flanker packing down between left flank and 2nd row with #8 in the normal position would do?

didds

 

[Browner]

what happens to channel 1 ball in this lineout marauder? Effecrtively it will have left the scrum as soon as it passes through the LHP's legs ? If it then passes under the flanker in the 3rd row... is that now reinstroducing the ball to the scrum?

I like your thought processes but suspect it would need some signioficant law changes to be legal 9aside from the binding issue).

If the bind thing could be overcome - and I am not sure a flanker to the left of the #8 could not bind on a second row, he'd just use a long forward bind along the 2nd row's spine maybe? - then maybe the right flanker packing down between left flank and 2nd row with #8 in the normal position would do?

didds

Am i missing some inhibiting restriction?, flankers can just replicate how the #8 binds on to the second row, Shoulder behind no#4 rump etc... As per 20.3(f)

(Confused.com)

 

[Browner]

what happens to channel 1 ball in this lineout marauder? Effecrtively it will have left the scrum as soon as it passes through the LHP's legs ? If it then passes under the flanker in the 3rd row... is that now reinstroducing the ball to the scrum?

didds

Didds i thought the sole point of channel 1 ball was to expedite exiting of the scrum , re-entry was not ever desired , nor expected.

The possession certainty/ risks have seen its demise in the modern game.

 

[ChrisR]

didds, no law changes needed. Except U-19 where 3-4-1 is mandated.

Binding is the only issue and only when the referee makes it one.

Agreed, the ball escaping thru channel 1 could be a problem but the advantages outweigh the risk. The SH gets much better protection as the LH flank can bind at an angle (but not swing out after the ball is in). This is how the "pocket" gets created.

 

[Browner]

My ideal scrum is a 3-3-2 with the flank on the side of the put in binding back in the third row. Provides additional protection for the SH and better support on #8 takes.

Unfortunately the requirement for "all other players" to bind on the body of a 2nd row inhibits this.

Marauder, How does it inhibit that set up?

 

[ChrisR]

This may just be a local issue (ie. Virginia, USA) but I have had a difficult time convincing referees that flanks binding as a third row is a legal formation. The reason offered is that the scrum binding law for "all other players" has to be on "the body of a second row". In their opinion this would prohibit a third row bind.

This has been a thread on this site and there have been similar arguments put forth here. I find this very frustrating as there are sound tactical reasons for the 3-3-2 and it's not a "trick play" or "coach showing how clever he is".