Halfback and crossing into pocket

[crossref]

the fact that 3:4:1 is specifically mandated for U19 and below implies that the IRB consider that other formations are possible in adult rugby

 

[FlipFlop]

3-4-1 implies binding on 2nd row such that shoulder is on prop.

3-2-3 can be legal, if binding onto 2nd row, with shoulder against 2nd row as well (like #8)

 

[RobLev]

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.

The #8 is an "other player" for the purposes of Law 20.3(f); how do they allow him/her to 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".

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

3-2-3 can be legal, if binding onto 2nd row, with shoulder against 2nd row as well (like #8)

Can it? I would envisage the 6 & 7 would have their shoulders on the outside arse cheeks of the respective 2nd rows and their bind would be on the #8. The requirement is for all other players to bind on the 2nd rows not just touch their arse with the clavicle.
6 & 7 can't reach forward to bind on the 2nd rows as the shoulder is then above the arse cheek and you can't generate any push.

Perhaps legal but totally ineffective?

 

[RobLev]

Can it? I would envisage the 6 & 7 would have their shoulders on the outside arse cheeks of the respective 2nd rows and their bind would be on the #8. The requirement is for all other players to bind on the 2nd rows not just touch their arse with the clavicle.
6 & 7 can't reach forward to bind on the 2nd rows as the shoulder is then above the arse cheek and you can't generate any push.

Perhaps legal but totally ineffective?

They can bind on the 2nd row the same way the #8 does, surely?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

They can bind on the 2nd row the same way the #8 does, surely?

I suppose so. Bit uncomfotable on the #8 lugs I'd imagine.

 

[FlipFlop]

Never said it was easy, or useful, or ....

But it is possible.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Never said it was easy, or useful, or ....

But it is possible.

Indeedy.

 

[Browner]

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".

How do they explain the 8 binding as a 3rd row, he binds onto the 2nd row, just replicate his bind positioning. ....how strange, never heard of it being a problem.

 

[ChrisR]

"....how strange, never heard of it being a problem."

Never a problem if it's never used. Who on this site has seen 3-2-3 or 3-3-2? Some in he SH perhaps.

 

[Browner]

"....how strange, never heard of it being a problem."

Who on this site has seen 3-2-3 or 3-3-2? Some in he SH perhaps.

Granted I've never seen, or used, 3-2-3.

I haven't seen 3-3-2 used in years, and I suspect this is because 3-4-1 is coached as standard in RFU juniors etc but I do recall packing down in the 2 ( which has great success at wheeling ) albeit we used it purely as an attacking rotation skew rather than a scrum reset-turnover.

I can't remember referees objecting, & i wouldnt, so I'm not sure why it lost fashion.

(Or has it?-anyone?)

 

[OB..]

Who on this site has seen 3-2-3 or 3-3-2?

I have.

After all it was quite normal in 1949.

 

[crossref]

the U11s used to play 3:2:3 when I was at school in the 1970s ..
probably our teacher learned his rugby in 1949.

 

[Rushforth]

The reason the 90 degree law was introduced is because the attacking pack, once in control of course, would then wheel (usually, but not always) with the natural clockwise torque before finishing the scrum with their own back three closer to the opposition try line than the opponent's back three.

It is not uncommon in the women's game for the number 8 to bind for purposes of torque (or counter-torque?), but if the "second-row flank" positions are called A and E, and the rear binds on the #8 B, C, and D from left to right, my opinion is that although there is nothing to worry about most permutations (5 choose 3), the A-C-E is at any level where strength is equally or more important to pure skill by far the best option.

I'd be interested to know what people think of an A-B-C combination, both putting the ball in (for extra protection v. #9) and going for the deliberate (but legal?) wheel against the head.

 

[ChrisR]

It would be effective at discouraging the opponents #8 takes and it would bring the ops back row around to the SH. But if the ball goes wide .....?

 

[didds]

I'd be interested to know what people think of an A-B-C combination, both putting the ball in (for extra protection v. #9) and going for the deliberate (but legal?) wheel against the head.

own put-in: you better win your own ball - or be pretty close to the touchline

oppo put-in - the only down side is if the oppo win the ball and attack to your right, as there is no right flanker for immediate defense. Again, playing this close to the right touchline may be a better idea as it minimises the benefits of going left for the oppo. maybe.

But I'd go with that idea - nothing ventured etc.

didds

didds

 

[RobLev]

"How do they explain the 8 binding as a 3rd row, he binds onto the 2nd row, just replicate his bind positioning.....how strange, never heard of it being a problem."

Never a problem if it's never used. Who on this site has seen 3-2-3 or 3-3-2? Some in he SH perhaps.

(Restoring the first part of B's original comment, to make sense of what follows).

But why do the referees permit the #8's third-row bind in the light of (i) their view that flankers can't bind in the third row and (ii) the fact that there is no special exemption for #8?

 

[Rushforth]

(Restoring the first part of B's original comment, to make sense of what follows).

But why do the referees permit the #8's third-row bind in the light of (i) their view that flankers can't bind in the third row and (ii) the fact that there is no special exemption for #8?

[LAWS]20.3 (f) Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No other player other than a prop may hold an opponent.[/LAWS]

I realise that your question is rhetorical, but the bold+italic highlighted above are sufficient for me.

 

[ChrisR]

"I realise that your question is rhetorical, but the bold+italic highlighted above are sufficient for me."

Sufficient for what? To allow or disallow flanks binding as a third row?

 

[Browner]

(Restoring the first part of B's original comment, to make sense of what follows).

But why do the referees permit the #8's third-row bind in the light of (i) their view that flankers can't bind in the third row and (ii) the fact that there is no special exemption for #8?

Ive never found a Law ( u20+) prohibiting 6&7 binding on the hips of a 4&5 in the same way a #8 does.

I suspect its another myth born out of u19s regs and carried by refs into senior rugby.