Watching a school game last week I noticed that after winning the ball, but before it got to his feet the No 8 changed his bind, ie moved from having his arms around the locks to having one arm around the lock and the other around his flanker. A quick examination of the law has not helped, can he do this? Can the number 8 (at U19 level) change his bind once the ball is in the scrum? Can this happen at senior level.
No 8 bind at U19's
- Thread starter oldman
- Start date
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?variation=1&law=20 (U19 variations)
[LAWS]20.1 Forming a scrum
(e) In an 8 person scrum the formation must be 3-4-1, with the single player (normally the Number 8) shoving on the 2 locks. The locks must pack with their heads on either side of the hooker.[/LAWS]
Strictly not allowed at U19 even to start off in an alternative formation.
[LAWS]20.1 Forming a scrum
(e) In an 8 person scrum the formation must be 3-4-1, with the single player (normally the Number 8) shoving on the 2 locks. The locks must pack with their heads on either side of the hooker.[/LAWS]
Strictly not allowed at U19 even to start off in an alternative formation.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Rushforth answers this correctly for U19
Starting between a lock and a flanker is fine at Senior level, but changing it after the scrum begins is not, apparently
In the RWC Final (and you can''t get more Senior than that) NO told both Pocock and Read that they were not to change their binds once the scrum began.
On a different note, the 3-4-1 formation I would describe as A-C-E, with B-C-D being an old-school "genuine third row" (3-2-3). All positions A, B, C, D, E are able to bind on a second row player with at least one arm.
Combinatorically speaking there are 10 possible choices (5 choose 3) when a full pack of senior players is playing. A-D-E is a very sensible choice for preventing the opponents from wheeling, at least if the hooker uses channel 2. In fact C-D-E makes sense too, with the classic #8 position filled.
My question is, if seniors packed down A-B-C, and the scrum wheels a lot... How soon do we escalate ATP? Hypothetically speaking, of course!
Combinatorically speaking there are 10 possible choices (5 choose 3) when a full pack of senior players is playing. A-D-E is a very sensible choice for preventing the opponents from wheeling, at least if the hooker uses channel 2. In fact C-D-E makes sense too, with the classic #8 position filled.
My question is, if seniors packed down A-B-C, and the scrum wheels a lot... How soon do we escalate ATP? Hypothetically speaking, of course!
menace
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,657
- Post Likes
- 633
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
My highlights.
Ian...in your opinion is that WR law or NO law?
If it is WR law then presumably NO is applying 20.1? Ie
[LAWS]
(e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.[/LAWS]
If that is not it, then what WR law might justify no change by #8. I'm happy this is it but I'm happy to be proven otherwise or shown that it is legal. (I guess you can technically slide your bind without losing contact as ndefined by a 'bind').
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,680
- Post Likes
- 1,760
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I think its WR Law because NO is not the only one I have heard this from (WB, Jacko, CJ that I can recall, there are probably others)
Yep, I think that is what they are using
Well I have two opinions to express here.
1. It ought to be allowed.
If the No. 8 sees/feels that the scrum is wheeling, why should not be allowed be allowed shift his bind to a position the helps him to stop the wheeling.
2. Technically, the no 8 only has to bind with one arm, not two...
[LAWS]Law 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[/LAWS]
...so with a bit of skill, a No. 8 could change positions without ever infringing 20.1(e) by always keeping at least one arm bound; 20.3(f) allows him to do that.
Might be worth a question to SAReferees Duty Ref.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
I agree with Ian - WR law for me and an item I would discuss with any referee at any level, even at L5 with an aspirational National Panel referee. Actually spotting it if not looking for it can be a "blind spot".
#8 chooses where he binds initially and if he moves then I expect him to pick the ball up immediately, and the scrum has ended.
#8 chooses where he binds initially and if he moves then I expect him to pick the ball up immediately, and the scrum has ended.
Dixie
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 12,773
- Post Likes
- 338
This is one of those situations where WR does not help itself by having laws that cannot realistically be applied in practice. I doubt anyone has ever seen a #8 packing down with a bind above the hips of a lock, so we all accept that the #8 does not actually have to bind in accordance with the laws of the scrum. If we accept that, why do we have an issue with him changing his already-illegal bind mid-scrum?
I don't have a problem with a uniform application of Simon's approach, and nor would I have a problem with allowing it everywhere. But since neither position can be arrived at by a careful study of the LoTG, my beef with WR and the elite boys (plus, to an extent, ST and other assessors) is that they are applying a standard that is not communicated to the rugby world. Even if this has been made abundantly clear to the elite players (in which case, how come it comes up in a RWC final?), it needs to be formalised throughout the game if we are to continue to assert that there is one game with one set of laws.
and meanwhile what's the appropriate approach at grass roots -- allow it, or not.
obviously on the field it's easy enough to manage either way, ...
but then in the bar afterwards you are asked - "can you explain why you wouldn't let the #8 move? never seen that before"
do you start waaffling about what you noticed in the RWC final, and Ian Cook's sensible post on Rugbyrefs ?
and of course it might be your assessor who is asking!
obviously on the field it's easy enough to manage either way, ...
but then in the bar afterwards you are asked - "can you explain why you wouldn't let the #8 move? never seen that before"
do you start waaffling about what you noticed in the RWC final, and Ian Cook's sensible post on Rugbyrefs ?
and of course it might be your assessor who is asking!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,090
- Post Likes
- 2,354
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
Rich_NL
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,621
- Post Likes
- 499
I looked blankly at it the first time round, but I'm pretty sure I get it. There are five possible positions for the back three. A pushes on the LHP, B on the left lock, C on both locks ("no. 8 position"), D on the right lock and E on the THP. Mind, I speak Dutch, so maybe that helps
If it's a legal bind, it's up to the opposition to counter, really - presumably with a CDE setup. If it gets dangerous and it's a lower-level team, explain to the captain that you want symmetrical scrums for safety, even though it's not in law.
R is talking about the positions the thre players can bind in
A and E - are where a modern flankers bind
B and D - are where flankers used to bind in the dark ages (alongside the #8)
C - is the normal #8 position.
So something like C-D-E would look pretty outlandish - a traditional #8 and both flankers on the tight head side... ie a 3-3-2 formation
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,090
- Post Likes
- 2,354
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
Double Dutch now :shrug:
don't blame me -- I'm channeling rushforth
Here's a diag of what (I think) he means
normally flankers bind at A and E, with #8 at C
View attachment 3358
Dave Sherwin
Referees in the Cayman Islands
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 283
- Post Likes
- 52
I get the ABCDE thing and its an interesting question. I can honestly say I have never seen flankers bound at the B or D positions in all the time I have refereed, but I think any combination would be legal at senior level, subject to safety. On the question of No. 8 not changing his bind, I had this reiterated through WR (or IRB as it was then) channels about four years ago after I missed it (or rather didn't act on it) in my first test match and the Mexico No. 8 moved across about three times during the game. Suffice to say, I don't miss it now, and given the same 8 is still regularly playing for Mexico, I always remind him at the first scrum whenever I have the pleasure of looking after them again!
[LAWS]20.3 (f) [FONT=fs_blakeregular]Binding by all other players. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]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. [...][[/FONT][/LAWS]That seems to make the old-fashioned 3-2-3 formation illegal, since the flankers would be binding on the #8, not a lock. (Yes, I know the #8 used to be known as a "lock" - but not nowadays.)
I've never actually seen it on the pitch - -do you use it?