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

[ChrisR]

I am certainly seeing a lot more of this than previously. I assume it is legal.

Yes, not only legal but technically smart. With the outside foot well up the props are the pre-bind 'brake' and, most important, the inside foot can be further back so that the inside thigh is vertical and a solid base for the locks shoulder. For older and stronger players the props can transfer the brake to a stiff arm at "Bind" but with younger, not so strong, I'd suggest moving the foot back at "Set".

 

[OB..]

Like much of the laws, it is best to use common sense rather than trying to tiptoe through a grammatical minefield.

I doubt if anybody actually misunderstands what is required.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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!

A short bind can be legal. CAN not IS. Pulling down is the problem or, indeed, pushing and driving across. So no YO udon't ping short bind. YOu ping a bind that is not full arm or pullung down a bent arm.

 

[crossref]

Press release
https://www.world.rugby/news/435760?lang=en

 

[Jz558]

Minor point but wouldn't it be more logical to locate this in law 19.11 as it applies between the bind and set calls or am I missing something?

 

[crossref]

I agree

 

[Pablo]

SPAM.

... which you have now preserved by quoting!

 

[Pablo]

Press release
https://www.world.rugby/news/435760?lang=en

Thanks for sharing. Nice to have it confirmed by the official WR site.

But does rather beg the question... why has this been circulating via unofficial sources for nearly a week before WR got the official release out?? :rc:

 

[crossref]

I am curious to know what is happening in New Zealand .. are they applying the new law or not ?

 

[Dickie E]

... which you have now preserved by quoting!

now killed

 

[didds]

... which you have now preserved by quoting!

bugger.

- - - Updated - - -

I am curious to know what is happening in New Zealand .. are they applying the new law or not ?

No. Some are still whinging about not winning by taking more wickets

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Thanks for sharing. Nice to have it confirmed by the official WR site.

But does rather beg the question... why has this been circulating via unofficial sources for nearly a week before WR got the official release out?? :rc:

The official release was the email I post here 6 days ago (posts 18 & 19 refer). That your union / society or whoever's job it is has not forwarded the email to you is not WR's fault.


THe WRU did its job. Or are you suggesting that the WRU is an "unofficial source"?


There is a method of cascading information out. Blame the messenger for not doing their job.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

8th of July WR told the unions!

 

[Rich_NL]

It's not World Rugby's job to communicate to anyone but the unions?

 

[thepercy]

Thanks for sharing. Nice to have it confirmed by the official WR site.

But does rather beg the question... why has this been circulating via unofficial sources for nearly a week before WR got the official release out?? :rc:

And, if this is their preferred way to disseminate information. why wasn't there an initial press release about the other 2 items?

 

[Pablo]

THe WRU did its job. Or are you suggesting that the WRU is an "unofficial source"?

Of course I'm not calling the WRU "unofficial" But I'm not a member of the WRU!

The official release was the email I post here 6 days ago (posts 18 & 19 refer). That your union / society or whoever's job it is has not forwarded the email to you is not WR's fault.

The good chaps at Bucks are clearly enjoying a well-earned summer rest :biggrin:

There is a method of cascading information out. Blame the messenger for not doing their job.

If that is truly the prevailing view, then the method is stupid and archaic. Sure, Societies have their role to play in communications. But in this digital world, there's no excuse for WR not viewing themselves as the primary reference source for everybody.

 

[didds]

How woud WR contact "everyone" ?

(I may be missing something here!) - WR won't have every ref/player/coach/blazer's email address? They can stick it on various social media & their web sites of course (and maybe they didn't which id agree is somewhat daft) but then not everybody will follow WR on web/twitter/FB/instagram/pinterest/goodness knows


???

didds

 

[Phil E]

WR have informed the RFU, who in turn have informed all the Societies.
As and when Societies pass it on to referees depends on them, but the don't need to do it before the start of the season so may be waiting for the first pre-season meeting.

 

[crossref]

This is an age old RR.COM argument

We divide into two camps , those who think the most effective way to communicate to referees is email cascades, and those who can imagine other methods ..

 

[Pablo]

How woud WR contact "everyone" ?

(I may be missing something here!) - WR won't have every ref/player/coach/blazer's email address? They can stick it on various social media & their web sites of course (and maybe they didn't which id agree is somewhat daft) but then not everybody will follow WR on web/twitter/FB/instagram/pinterest/goodness knows


???

didds

my bold

That's exactly my point - they didn't put anything up on the website or social channels for at least a week.

I'm not saying to stop using the cascade - obviously that's the most effective way to ensure the message eventually reaches everyone that needs to hear it. But I am saying that WR should make the message available via channels other than the cascade.