Leinster #8 vs London Irish

[Greg Collins]

I was in the north stand on Saturday night (hic!) the only Munster fan in a sea of City slicker Capital-ist types from London and Dublin.

I swear on a number of occasions in the second half the Leinster #8 swapped positions from classic 8 to pack between lock and flanker after the scrum had formed and as the ball was being put in. On at least one he seemed to me to clearly move after the ball had left the scrum half's hands.

Anyone else spot it or was it an excess of Jack Frost on my part? If you did what would you do in a game you were reffing?

 

[Davet]

Did he continue to bind on a lock with one full arm at all times?

 

[Taff]

.... I swear on a number of occasions in the second half the Leinster #8 swapped positions from classic 8 to pack between lock and flanker after the scrum had formed and as the ball was being put in.

Haven't seen that game yet, but Andy Powell seems to do exactly what you described regularly when playing for Cardiff Blues. He packs down normally ie between the 2 second rows, then almost instantly moves across to bind on one side of one of the locks. I just don't understand what he's gaining. Why doesn't he just pack down in that position in the first place. :chin:

 

[Dixie]

I just don't understand why he doesn't pack down in that position in the first place. :chin:

He's trying to fool the oppo back row into believing that he's not about to do whatever he normally does when packing down like that.

Powell is usually, IMO, illegal when he does it because he doesn't maintain a full-arm bind. Of course, no elite ref is going to waste aone of his limited number of PK's on that. Leinster #8 seemed to slide across more, rather than binding with just hands (or not at all) while shifting.

The key is the bind with one full arm on a lock at all times before and after the engage, Greg. No worries aboout a head up and looking around, or a slide across, as long as one arm is always in contact with a lock up to the oxter.

 

[Greg Collins]

Did he continue to bind on a lock with one full arm at all times?

When does an elite level #8 EVER bind with one full arm?

Nope. H didn't imo he just nipped across as quick as he could.

 

[Greg Collins]

Haven't seen that game yet, but Andy Powell seems to do exactly what you described regularly when playing for Cardiff Blues. He packs down, then almost instantly moves across to bind on one side of one of the locks. I just don't understand what he's gaining. Why doesn't he just pack down in that position in the first place. :chin:

In the forlorn hope the the oppo with be even more confused than they already are on seeing Keith Lemon running straight at them carrying the ball under one arm so he can lose it in contact.

Andy Powell. A Welsh port in a storm.

 

[Dixie]

Andy Powell. A Welsh port in a storm.

Given that he plays most of his rugby in Cardiff, I prefer to think of him as a Welsh storm in a port.

 

[FlipFlop]

Why not penalise it? Simple really:

If you saw it you would "manage it" by asking the #8 to bind fully. So no different them releasing a bind and then rebinding. They have complied with your request, so it's hard to penalise it.

Yes it's against the law, and if I thought a #8 was tacking the p!ss, I might warn him to stop. But a quick change, no problem.

 

[Blindpugh]

Law 20(f) Binding by all other players - All other players, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock's body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks etc......

My reading of this is that No.8 is doing nothing illegal by moving across between lock and wing forward. He is probably doing it to give better protection to SH.

Note U19 law variation requires No.8 (20.1f) to be shoving on both locks.

I would not have penalised Leinster No8.

 

[Davet]

20.1.e all 8 players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends.

The bind must therefore be continuous.

If the 8 can slide around while maintaining a full arm bind with at least one arm at all times then he is OK.

If he becomes unbound then he is at your mercy.

 

[Blindpugh]

Somebody once said to me that there are a possible 88 scrum infringements?:swet:

So at the level I referee I go through my routine at scrum time CTPE, scrum half ball in straight, correct binding FR, Back Row, 5 metres Backs and so on.

At the end of the day it is about that horrible word Materiality. Unless somebody can explain what difference No.8 moving across is making then I am probably not looking for that because Ive only got one pair of eyes which is what I tell players when they start complaining and ask if I can look at X,Y and Z's binding etc. etc.

So can somebody explain what is wrong if No.8 moves across?

 

[Greg Collins]

What is wrong if No.15 knocks on without another player within 50m? (JOKING!)

 

[OB..]

It is something of a grey area. Law 20.1 (e) says all eight players must be bound until the scrum ends, implying from when it forms, and we know from a recent ruling that he must be bound when the packs engage. However Law 20.7 (a) says the scrum begins when the ball leaves the scrum half's hands.

Just enough wiggle room perhaps to allow him to move before the ball is thrown in. It is also one of the cases where materiality might be reasonable. Following Davet's dictum it does not directly involve the ball.

If he starts moving around once the scrum has started it is akin to the old-style charioteering #8, who has unbound to his advantage and is illegal. However I have seen it done "legally" ie the whole arm in contact all the time, albeit bent and only touching rather than "binding" in the normal sense of the word.

 

[Taff]

.... My reading of this is that No.8 is doing nothing illegal by moving across between lock and wing forward. He is probably doing it to give better protection to SH.

I can see the logic of that, but I still don't see why he can't just pack down in his new position from the off. :chin:

 

[Davet]

Following Davet's dictum it does not directly involve the ball

Nice to know someone is reading what I write.

But, just for the avoidence of confusion, I am not saying that materiality ONLY involves the ball, simply that if it involves the ball it MUST be material.

 

[Greg Collins]

Nice to know someone is reading what I write.

But, just for the avoidence of confusion, I am not saying that materiality ONLY involves the ball, simply that if it involves the ball it MUST be material.

still a durned good dictum imo.

 

[FlipFlop]

I'd go slightly further than Davet:

Materiality is to be used when an action of a player is in contravention of the law book, but this action does not affect the ball OR prevents the opposition from exercising options that they would have been able to had the illegal action not occurred. In all events the infringing team must not benefit from the action, and the non-offending team must not be dis-advantaged by the action.

 

[Phil E]

Somebody once said to me that there are a possible 88 scrum infringements?:swet:

I was given these figures:

Lineout: 45 - 24 FK, 21 PK
Scrum: 45 - 19 FK, 26 PK
Tackle: 23 - 0 FK, 23 PK
Ruck: 19 - 4 FK, 15 PK
Maul: 14 - 2 FK, 12 PK

Not quite 88, unless you apply 45 to each team :biggrin:

 

[Davet]

I suspect OB is the only one with the patience to troll through the good book and sm them up...

Volunteers

 

[OB..]

I suspect OB is the only one with the patience to troll through the good book and sm them up...

Volunteers

I might if I thought there was some point to it. Moreover the question is ill-defined, as I believe I have mentioned once or twice before. Look at 19.2 (e). It does not have a sanction listed as such. How many offences does the text allow for?