Number 8 unbind...

[The Fat]

I'm leaning towards Marauder's way of looking at it. A slight change in mindset for me I suppose.

 

[ChrisR]

I just don't see that requiring the 8 to pick up the ball has any real purpose. You'd have to be a sloth of an 8 to get caught by the defending SH unless same SH was offsides. So what does the requirement (for the 8 to pick it up) gain? Nothing. Just inhibits a few creative options, that's all.

What y'all are saying is that if the 8 unbinds with the ball at his feet he can happily stand there and the scrum ain't over because the law does not include the magic word "immediately". Could he first play it away with a foot and pick it up? Fine by me, scrums over.

- - - Updated - - -

I just don't see that requiring the 8 to pick up the ball has any real purpose. You'd have to be a sloth of an 8 to get caught by the defending SH unless same SH was offsides. So what does the requirement (for the 8 to pick it up) gain? Nothing. Just inhibits a few creative options, that's all.

What y'all are saying is that if the 8 unbinds with the ball at his feet he can happily stand there and the scrum ain't over because the law does not include the magic word "immediately". Could he first play it away with a foot and pick it up? Fine by me, scrums over.

 

[talbazar]

I just don't see that requiring the 8 to pick up the ball has any real purpose. You'd have to be a sloth of an 8 to get caught by the defending SH unless same SH was offsides. So what does the requirement (for the 8 to pick it up) gain? Nothing. Just inhibits a few creative options, that's all.

The purpose is to be in line with the rest of the law which states that *all* players must remain bound until the end of the scrum.
So to allow number 8 to still pick up, this specific exception was added in 20.10 for the hindmost (as stated by OB above).
And btw, there is no need for a purpose and even less for a purpose we (as referee) agree on... It's the law.

What y'all are saying is that if the 8 unbinds with the ball at his feet he can happily stand there and the scrum ain't over because the law does not include the magic word "immediately". Could he first play it away with a foot and pick it up? Fine by me, scrums over.

Nope, we are all saying that if he stays there, he's liable under law 20.1.(e) and should be penalised for unbinding.

That's just the law... refer to the rule #2 in my signature epper:

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[ChrisR]

Laws do, and should, all have purpose under the general principles of continuity and fair contest. The law would just as well provided a means of successfully ending the scrum without requiring the 8 to pick it up.

 

[OB..]

Laws do, and should, all have purpose under the general principles of continuity and fair contest. The law would just as well provided a means of successfully ending the scrum without requiring the 8 to pick it up.

AIUI you would like to put something in Law 20.1 (e) along these lines:
Exception: when the ball is at his feet, the #8 may unbind and the scrum is over.
What creative moves do you have in mind if that were the case?

 

[tim White]

He would obviously impede the opposition 9 whilst his own picked up the ball :knuppel2:

 

[ChrisR]

Yes Tim, he could do that and give away an obvious penalty for obstruction.

OB, I agree that the options are limited but I mentioned a couple in post #13.

However, that really isn't my point. I just see the "pick it up" requirement as redundant and just another opportunity to give another penalty. As would occur in the examples in post #13.

Talbazar, consider this: The 8 unbinds with the ball at his feet and has a good look around to assess his options. How much time do you give him to pick up the ball? One second? Three? Five? The law doesn't say. So whatever time you chose you're "making it up".

And that violates your Rule #2. I'd let you have your emoticon back but it went in the trash.

 

[winchesterref]

However, that really isn't my point. I just see the "pick it up" requirement as redundant and just another opportunity to give another penalty. As would occur in the examples in post #13.

It can't be redundant just because you don't like it - it is there in black and white! It isn't an opportunity to give a penalty if you manage the opposition 9 correctly. It is a chance to use space to get the ball back into play cleanly.

Talbazar, consider this: The 8 unbinds with the ball at his feet and has a good look around to assess his options. How much time do you give him to pick up the ball? One second? Three? Five? The law doesn't say. So whatever time you chose you're "making it up".

And that violates your Rule #2. I'd let you have your emoticon back but it went in the trash.

It doesn't say, but it does give a continuous action. "Unbinds... and picks up the ball" - not Unbinds, stands up, looks around, bends back down and then picks the ball up. It is reasonable to follow the law and suggest if he unbinds with the ball at his feet then he must comply with his requirements - picking the ball up - before he stands up, otherwise he has not complied with law and he has broken 20.1 (e) and should be penalised [thanks for the reminder OB!]

 

[ChrisR]

.... and you're reading more into it than is written.

 

[didds]

so what DOES happen if between unbinding and picking up the ball the oppo #9 gets his own hands/feet on the ball?

is that technically hands in?

didds

 

[ChrisR]

If you are ruling that the scrum hasn't ended then it would be 'hands in' or 'kicking it out'.

If you are ruling that the scrum ended when he unbound then it's "Play on".

 

[OB..]

OB, I agree that the options are limited but I mentioned a couple in post #13.

I guess my point is this: When the hindmost player with the ball at his feet unbinds the ball has now "left the scrum" and therefore, to my mind, the scrum is over and we are in general play. That player could pick it up, play it with his feet, move to a position to receive it from his SH or get out of the way.

He's not allowed to interfere with an opponent attempting to play the ball (that is unbind and back into the ops SH).

He can play it with his feet without unbinding.
If he simply moves away, he must, as you say. be wary of obstructing the opposing scrum half (in attempting to favour his own).

In practice, the best option is to pick the ball up - he can then legitimately back into the opponent and hand the ball off to his team-mate.

There is indeed a problem with how quickly the #8 has to act, and whether or not the opposing scrum half can dive for the ball. If you want the scrum to be over when the #8 merely unbinds, then the exception for the #8 needs to be changed. Personally I don't see any real benefit.

 

[ChrisR]

As I see it the benefit is a simpler end the scrum that would be consistent with 20.10(a), that is, ball beyond bound players feet, and is not subject to timing issues. Yes, it would be nice if the IRB had a think about it.

 

[Dickie E]

As I see it the benefit is a simpler end the scrum that would be consistent with 20.10(a), that is, ball beyond bound players feet, and is not subject to timing issues. Yes, it would be nice if the IRB had a think about it.

If its simplicity you're after (and fair enough, too) why not just leave 20.10(a) and do away with 20.10(c)? Has the added benefit of eliminating an unbound #8 getting in everyone's way.

 

[ChrisR]

Boooooring! That's why. C'mon, scrums have almost been eliminated as a tactical opportunity coz they've just become a penalty device.

 

[Dickie E]

Boooooring! That's why. C'mon, scrums have almost been eliminated as a tactical opportunity coz they've just become a penalty device.

In the interest of equity do you think the opposition #8 should be able to detach at the same time?

 

[RobLev]

In the interest of equity do you think the opposition #8 should be able to detach at the same time?

And why not #6&7 at the same time (if everybody does it Aus may get back to parity at scrum-time :biggrin.

 

[The Fat]

The exemption for the #8 simply allows him to break his bind BEFORE the scrum has ended otherwise he would be subject to PK. What the law then requires is that he must immediately pick up the ball. If he fails to do so before an on-side opposing SH can get to the ball, then that is his problem. As far as the oppo SH is concerned, the ball has left the scrum and he is therefore able to play the ball however he chooses other than fall on the ball. Marauder's view is simple to referee and I believe complies with the way the laws are written.

 

[ChrisR]

Dickie, as I would rule the scrum over as the 8 unbinds then "yes", ops 6, 7 & 8 can unbind. Whatever action the 8 takes needs to be prompt whichever way you call it. I see his alacrity driven by the actions of the opponents, not by the arbitrary timing of the referee.