[Scrum] New scrum law to be introduced immediately, apparently...

[Dickie E]

Memo

that's high tackles, not scrums

 

[Flish]

Agree basically with the list. Just a question If they have not got long binds: "What action, if any, will you take?"

Trick question that I'm missing? Penalty obv

 

[Marc Wakeham]

that's high tackles, not scrums

Please read point number 1 in the memo.

Trick question that I'm missing? Penalty obv

Law reference?

 

[Arabcheif]

It's not an offence in itself to bind short. But if there's a collapse on that side, then that'll most likely be the cause. So I'd not do anything until there's an actual offence.

 

[Phil E]

This has been posted on the Canterbury Rugby Referees Facebook.

Please note that the Law changes announced by World Rugby around the scrum will NOT apply to club rugby this year. This has been confirmed by NZ Rugby so business as usual for the remainder of the club season for referees.

 

[crossref]

That's a surprise seeing as it's safety law

They are saying it's ok to risk your neck until the end of the season?

 

[buff]

The photo in the tweet on this page is a little clearer.
https://www.rugbydump.com/news/wales-hooker-happy-to-see-scrum-law-finally-changed

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's not an offence in itself to bind short. But if there's a collapse on that side, then that'll most likely be the cause. So I'd not do anything until there's an actual offence.

That's ok.

 

[Flish]

Law reference?

19.7 Defines who must bind to who (sanction penalty), and the definitions define a bind as full arm, so if not in compliance we have the option to penalise. I’m still looking for the trick though ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Does not mean it has to be long. Long is what we prefer. A prop can be compliant with a shorter bind.

 

[Flish]

Does not mean it has to be long. Long is what we prefer. A prop can be compliant with a shorter bind.

So, back at you then, reference for this? assuming we mean a long bind to be;

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

Genuinely intrigued as law 19 has lot's of references to who must bind to who, and when - which ones must be a proper bind as defined (which I call a long bind) and which ones can be different?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You can bind legal with out a long bind. Any prop will tell and show you how. Long bind expose the prop. They wil lnot be happy if you force then int oan uncomfortable position just to make your life easier. There is a hugh difference between a long bind and a bind set to allow pulling down.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"...between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact..."[/FONT] does not say, or mean (for me) "running from shoulder to hips". It eans the grip must be somewhere between those points and with the whole arm.

 

[crossref]

back to the topic - the new Law is now up on the WR site (as ssems to be the custom now, it's not highlighted as a change)

[LAWS]
19.10 When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the referee calls “crouch”.
a The front-rows then adopt a crouched position if they have not already done so. Their heads and shoulders are no lower than their hips, a position that is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
b The front-rows crouch with their heads to the left of their immediate opponents’, so that no player’s head is touching the neck or shoulders of an opponent.
[/LAWS]

the red bit is the amendment.

Q: is the apostrophe in the right place? shouldn't it be opponent's ?

 

[didds]

b The front-rows crouch with their heads to the left of their immediate opponents’, so that no player’s head is touching the neck or shoulders of an opponent.
[/LAWS]


Q: is the apostrophe in the right place? shouldn't it be opponent's ?

I concur with CR

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]
19.10 When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the referee calls “crouch”.
a The front-rows then adopt a crouched position if they have not already done so. Their heads and shoulders are no lower than their hips, a position that is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
b The front-rows crouch with their heads to the left of their immediate opponents’, so that no player’s head is touching the neck or shoulders of an opponent.
[/LAWS]

the red bit is the amendment.

Q: is the apostrophe in the right place? shouldn't it be opponent's ?

Fowler, Fourth Edition 2015

The apostrophe before s became regulated as an indicator of the singular possessive case towards the end of the 17c., and the apostrophe after s was first recorded as an indication of the plural possessive case towards the end of the 18c. Since then gross disturbances of these basic patterns have occurred in written and printed work, as will be evident from what follows. Such instability suggests that further disturbances may be expected in the 21c.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Fowler does not give a definitive answer in the current situation.

One approach is to re-write using 'of': "[...]to the left of the head(s) of their immediate opponent(s)." I think either singular or plural format would be acceptable, which suggests the apotrophe could come either before or after the s.

Elsewhere under 'none', Fowler says usage tends to follow the meaning, so that if the sense is plural, the grammar can be plural.

I don't think we can get a definitive answer here.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]
19.10 When both sides are square, stable and stationary, the referee calls “crouch”.
a The front-rows then adopt a crouched position if they have not already done so. Their heads and shoulders are no lower than their hips, a position that is maintained for the duration of the scrum.
b The front-rows crouch with their heads to the left of their immediate opponents’, so that no player’s head is touching the neck or shoulders of an opponent.
[/LAWS]

the red bit is the amendment.

Q: is the apostrophe in the right place? shouldn't it be opponent's ?

Fowler, Fourth Edition 2015

The apostrophe before s became regulated as an indicator of the singular possessive case towards the end of the 17c., and the apostrophe after s was first recorded as an indicator of the plural possessive case towards the end of the 18c. Since then gross disturbances of these basic patterns have occurred in written and printed work, as will be evident from what follows. Such instability suggests that further disturbances may be expected in the 21c.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Fowler does not give a definitive answer in the current situation.

One approach is to re-write using 'of'': "[...]to the left of the head(s) of their immediate opponent(s)." I think either singular or plural format would be acceptable, which suggests the apotrophe could come either before or after the s.

Elsewhere under 'none', Fowler says usage tends to follow the meaning, so that if the sense is plural, the grammar can be plural.

I don't think we can get a definitive answer here.

 

[tewdric]

I think if is defensible since it is an abbreviated form of opponents' heads.

If it were written "opponent's" there would be an implication that each of their opponents has more than one head.

 

[chbg]

Whilst the intention is that each member of the front row has only one 'immediate opponent', there is more than one 'immediate opponent' for the collective singular noun "the front-row".

 

[crossref]

Yes but it doesn't really make sense to talk about the front row having immediate opponent (s). An immediate opponent is something a single person has, not a group of people

 

[Flish]

You can bind legal with out a long bind. Any prop will tell and show you how. Long bind expose the prop. They wil lnot be happy if you force then int oan uncomfortable position just to make your life easier. There is a hugh difference between a long bind and a bind set to allow pulling down.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"...between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact..."[/FONT] does not say, or mean (for me) "running from shoulder to hips". It eans the grip must be somewhere between those points and with the whole arm.

No, but it does mean the whole arm should be in contact, which does negate the traditional Prop bind of grip with hands and elbows out. Not saying I enforce this (I have played front row) but you asked what basis in law is there to penalise a short bind - this is it in black and white, whether that's what happens or what they mean for us is something else altogether!