Marc Wakeham
Referees in Wales
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2018
- Messages
- 2,779
- Post Likes
- 842
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Let’s deal with the scrum formation and why I feel it shows Crossref’s approach to the whole law book debate to be flawed.
The 2017 book says:
Front row
The middle player in each front row is the hooker.
The players on either side of the hooker are the props. The left side props are the
loose head props. The right side props are the tight head props.
Second Row
The two players in the second row who push on the props and the hooker are the
locks.
Optional
The outside players who bind onto the second or third row are the flankers.
Third Row
The player in the third row who usually pushes on both locks is the No.8.
[FONT="]Alternatively, the No. 8 may push on a lock and a flanker.[/FONT]
So, the Flanker may bind either in the second or third row. And the No eight can bind centrally (between the two locks) or to the left or right by binding on a flanker and Lock. This is the way we generally saw teams bind (prior to 2018) that is 3-4-1
Regarding Binding 2017 required the flankers to bind on the locks
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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The 2018 book “helps” us by providing a diagram showing a 3-4-1 set up (with a conventional central bind by the 8). However, we read the diagram in parallel with the wording:
19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in
formation as outlined in the diagram. Each team must have two props and one hooker in
the front row and two locks in the second row. Three back-row players from each team
complete the scrum.
19.7. 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.
c. The locks bind with the props immediately in front of them and with each other.
d. All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.
What does it tell us? Well one problem presents when trying to link the words to the diagram is that the wording of 19.5 tells us there are three “BACK ROW” players. There is only one back row player in the diagram. So we ask ourselves do we “obey” the diagram (1 back row player ) or the wording of 19.5 (3 back-row players)?
Well does 19.7 help?
“d” tells us that the flankers must bind with (at least) one arm on a lock
So, 2018 allows three in the back row. 19.5 tells us that. It also tells us that it must be 4 in the second row and 1 in the back row, the diagram tells us that.
So, If I follow the “law book contains changes” mantra do I go by the diagram or the wording of 19.5?
Well the whole body of evidence is:
2017 allows 3-4-1 or 3-2-3
2018 says 3-4-1 but then contradicts itself and allows 3-2-3
WR have stated the law has not changed.
Cross ref says the law has changed.
Both 2017 and 2018 require the flankers bind on the locks.
The only way to make sense of this is to say both 3-4-1 and 3-2-3 are allowed subject to legal binds. You can’t have 2018s contradiction of itself. So, which option stays true to the statement from WR’s (NO CHANGE!!)? Clearly it is the either option is legal.
When it is accepted that. The rewrite was poorly done / There are no changes in law. / You read the whole thing and you don’t cherry pick the bits that fit your argument. The logical conclusion is the law has not changed.
Life as a ref would be much easier if people stopped making the book more complicated. That include the WR, with its failed simplification and refs who want a conspiracy theory behind every call.
Accept that the 2018 is intended to be a simplification and not a change and the Law book makes just the same amount of sense as the old one did.
The players and watchers expect nothing to be different. WR expects nothing to be different. All societies / unions, that I am aware of, expect nothing to be different. Even the LSRFUR might expect nothing to be different (if we find a member of that society who is prepared to tell us either way we will know!).
Why make a rod for your own back?
The 2017 book says:
Front row
The middle player in each front row is the hooker.
The players on either side of the hooker are the props. The left side props are the
loose head props. The right side props are the tight head props.
Second Row
The two players in the second row who push on the props and the hooker are the
locks.
Optional
The outside players who bind onto the second or third row are the flankers.
Third Row
The player in the third row who usually pushes on both locks is the No.8.
[FONT="]Alternatively, the No. 8 may push on a lock and a flanker.[/FONT]
So, the Flanker may bind either in the second or third row. And the No eight can bind centrally (between the two locks) or to the left or right by binding on a flanker and Lock. This is the way we generally saw teams bind (prior to 2018) that is 3-4-1
Regarding Binding 2017 required the flankers to bind on the locks
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.
Sanction: Penalty kick
The 2018 book “helps” us by providing a diagram showing a 3-4-1 set up (with a conventional central bind by the 8). However, we read the diagram in parallel with the wording:
19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in
formation as outlined in the diagram. Each team must have two props and one hooker in
the front row and two locks in the second row. Three back-row players from each team
complete the scrum.
19.7. 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.
c. The locks bind with the props immediately in front of them and with each other.
d. All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.
What does it tell us? Well one problem presents when trying to link the words to the diagram is that the wording of 19.5 tells us there are three “BACK ROW” players. There is only one back row player in the diagram. So we ask ourselves do we “obey” the diagram (1 back row player ) or the wording of 19.5 (3 back-row players)?
Well does 19.7 help?
“d” tells us that the flankers must bind with (at least) one arm on a lock
So, 2018 allows three in the back row. 19.5 tells us that. It also tells us that it must be 4 in the second row and 1 in the back row, the diagram tells us that.
So, If I follow the “law book contains changes” mantra do I go by the diagram or the wording of 19.5?
Well the whole body of evidence is:
2017 allows 3-4-1 or 3-2-3
2018 says 3-4-1 but then contradicts itself and allows 3-2-3
WR have stated the law has not changed.
Cross ref says the law has changed.
Both 2017 and 2018 require the flankers bind on the locks.
The only way to make sense of this is to say both 3-4-1 and 3-2-3 are allowed subject to legal binds. You can’t have 2018s contradiction of itself. So, which option stays true to the statement from WR’s (NO CHANGE!!)? Clearly it is the either option is legal.
When it is accepted that. The rewrite was poorly done / There are no changes in law. / You read the whole thing and you don’t cherry pick the bits that fit your argument. The logical conclusion is the law has not changed.
Life as a ref would be much easier if people stopped making the book more complicated. That include the WR, with its failed simplification and refs who want a conspiracy theory behind every call.
Accept that the 2018 is intended to be a simplification and not a change and the Law book makes just the same amount of sense as the old one did.
The players and watchers expect nothing to be different. WR expects nothing to be different. All societies / unions, that I am aware of, expect nothing to be different. Even the LSRFUR might expect nothing to be different (if we find a member of that society who is prepared to tell us either way we will know!).
Why make a rod for your own back?
