No8 Binding

[PaulDG]

Ruling: 3: 2008: 13 May 2008

The New Zealand Rugby Union has requested a ruling relating to Law 20.3.

Law 20 was amended with effect from January 2007 - a four stage engagement process was introduced. This was promulgated to reduce the impact and the velocity of the engagement process. There are some teams who employ a practice whereby the Number 8 does not bind in accordance with Law prior to the scrum engagement. The Number 8 stands and pulls back on the locks shorts and then pushes the locks forward which would appear to increase the impact of the engagement process and can increase instability.

Law 20.3 (f) states - Binding by all other players. All other players in a scrum, other than front-row players must bind on a lock's body with at least one arm. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No players other than a prop may hold an opponent.

The NZRU believe that this means that the Number 8 is obliged to bind in accordance with Law 20.3 (f) on engagement and if he does not do so renders himself liable to sanction with a penalty kick.

The Designated Members have ruled the following in answer to the question raised:

The Designated Members confirm that all players including the Number 8 are required to bind in accordance with Law 20.3 on engagement.

Additionally Law 20.7 heading states WHEN THE SCRUM BEGINS whilst 20.7 (a) states:

Play in the scrum begins when the ball leaves the hands of the scrumhalf The word play within the body of the Law indicates the start of the contest for the ball rather than the engagement process. Players must therefore conform to the Laws from the time that the scrum is awarded including Law 20.3.

 

[Dixie]

Yet again, the Designated Members adopt a meaningless and useless ruling. What on earth is the point of these people?

The NZ question deals in fractions of a second. Is it legal to delay the full bind until the moment of the hit, so as to increase the intensity of the hit; must he be fully bound at the start of the CTPE process; or can he effect his bind between the start of CTPE and the fraction of a second before the hit? In answer to that question, requiring absolute precision in respect of timing, the ruling says that if the No.8 is not fully bound from the moment the scrum is awarded, he is in violation. Presumably, if he happens to be at the bottom of a pile-up at that point, he is to be penalised.

Sack the lot of them and get some reality in - or at least get the catering staff to delay serving the pink gins until after the discussion.

 

[OB..]

Dixie -
"Players must therefore conform to the Laws from the time that the scrum is awarded including Law 20.3."

The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.

This does not mean the players have to bind as soon as the scrum is awarded. They merely have to be bound before the scrum can be said to be properly formed ie before the CTPE sequence.

 

[Padster]

This will certainly help with the stability of scrums at youth level as this is now a very common tactic.

 

[Davet]

Dixie -
"Players must therefore conform to the Laws from the time that the scrum is awarded including Law 20.3."

The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.

This does not mean the players have to bind as soon as the scrum is awarded. They merely have to be bound before the scrum can be said to be properly formed ie before the CTPE sequence.

Spot on as an inference. But why could they not state this explicitly?

I suspect they are far too used to making political statements, which are always intended to be ambiguous and leave wriggle room, rather than any form of technical writing - which is the opposite.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Personally I have not liked this secondary #8 bind and the added impetus, especially at Youth levels.

 

[Deeps]

I think it is a fad and will die out; it's just a cool thing to do at the moment and is probably more about psychology than actually gaining any additional momentum. My guess is that it is probably better to get properly bound and hit as a cohesive unit all together rather than as a set of railway trucks being shunted.

 

[Dixie]

Dixie -
"Players must therefore conform to the Laws from the time that the scrum is awarded including Law 20.3."

The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.

This does not mean the players have to bind as soon as the scrum is awarded. They merely have to be bound before the scrum can be said to be properly formed ie before the CTPE sequence.

OB - is that the start of the CTPE, or the end of it? There is only one relevant bit of 20.3, and it says:

(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. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No player other than a prop may hold an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The question asked of the Designated Members was, in effect: can the No.8 delay taking his full bind until the moment of engagement? The Designated Members have declined to answer the question. At the moment of engagement in current practice, all players are properly bound. Fractionally before it, the No.8 is not. As the scrum is not formed until the moment of engagement, can we assume that the DM have given the thumbs up to the current practice?

 

[beckett50]

Dixie I believe that you are getting caught up in your own semantics.

What the learned gentlemen are trying to stop is the late secondary hit - a la Laurence Dallaglio at Wasps. It does destabilise a steady scrum, but if timed right gets that nudge just as your own SH is throwing the ball in.

I think the All Blacks had a half an eye on the upcoming summer tours, and trying to upset the England scrum. Looks like they've succeeded.

Let's see if Wasps get away with it next Saturday:wink:

 

[Phil E]

Been following this thread with interest.

Personaly I would expect all participants in the scrum to be bound at the "Crouch" command. If I get to "Pause" and someone is still not bound I am going to blow up and want to know why not.

If they want to be part of the scrum, then they need to be bound throughout the whole of the CTPE sequence.

 

[chopper15]

Been following this thread with interest.

Personaly I would expect all participants in the scrum to be bound at the "Crouch" command. If I get to "Pause" and someone is still not bound I am going to blow up and want to know why not.

If they want to be part of the scrum, then they need to be bound throughout the whole of the CTPE sequence.

What effect will the 5m law have on this late binding next season?

 

[OB..]

What effect will the 5m law have on this late binding next season?

None at all.

 

[ex-lucy]

it would have been nice to see this applied y'day with Munsters back row as per usual not bound on at scrums.....

 

[chopper15]

None at all.

No8 will be allowed to loiter within the 5m then ?

 

[Deeps]

Been following this thread with interest.

Personaly I would expect all participants in the scrum to be bound at the "Crouch" command. If I get to "Pause" and someone is still not bound I am going to blow up and want to know why not.

If they want to be part of the scrum, then they need to be bound throughout the whole of the CTPE sequence.

Phil, I think what you advocate is entirely supportable, however, is it up to the referee to tell the players how to play the game? Is it really a safety issue for the No 8 to bind momentarily after the engagement?

Untidy and possibly less effective that the coaches would have you believe but is it a problem from the referee's perspective? Yet I do think you would be well within the scope of safety if the scrum destabilised and collapsed as a result of this 'shunting', especially in junior games.

Now that would be novel; YC'ding the No 8 when the front row collapses. I wonder if there is a precedent?

 

[OB..]

No8 will be allowed to loiter within the 5m then ?

No. The latest edict requires him to be bound when the scrum engages.

 

[Phil E]

Phil, I think what you advocate is entirely supportable, however, is it up to the referee to tell the players how to play the game? Is it really a safety issue for the No 8 to bind momentarily after the engagement?

It maybe different at my level (11-13), but I hark back to my training, this is part of my team brief.

Crouch: I am checking bindings, straight backs parallel to ground, etc.
Touch: I am checking teams are a safe distance apart.
Pause: I am making my final safety check prior to allowing the teams to engage, at this point I want to see the two halves of the scrum fully formed, everyone bound on, right height and posture, etc, etc.
Engage: If all of the above is correct, then I am happy that I have done everything that is required of me to allow a safe engagement of the scrum. If I am not happy, if any of the above is not what i want to see, then I wont call engage. I will get them back up and tell them why. I will only allow them one or (at most) two warnings before I start penalising them.

SEL, safety first, especially at scrums.

I agree professional teams might be allowed more latitude, but thats not really my concern. <slope>

 

[Dickie E]

Is it really a safety issue for the No 8 to bind momentarily after the engagement?

Deeps,
I think it is and so does IRB as they have made the edict.

 

[Deeps]

Deeps,
I think it is and so does IRB as they have made the edict.

Well I am genuinely happy with that but we need to have the example set by those who referee at the high visibility levels. It would be silly for grass roots rugby referees to start penalising No 8s for binding offences in this situation if those 'ont tele' are not going to deal with it.

It seems an appropriate item for resolution at the pre match brief.

 

[Deeps]

Chopper it's 00 30; what are you doing online at this time of the morning at your age? You should be in bed.:nono: