Scrum - bind, unbind(?), rebind(?)

[Wedgie]

I recently saw a match where one team (blue) were consistently being pushed off their own ball by red almost immediately the ball was put into the scrum, but then held and sometimes blue pushed back towards the mark. I looked to see if there was anything obvious (skill wise) that was different between the two teams. What I saw was the red 8 packing down with the rest of the scrum, then he would come off the scrum, merely maintaining the 'bind' with his hands until the moment the ball was put in. Then he would he would drive forward, hit his shoulders into the backsides of his 2nd row and use the arms length distance to generate forward momentum and, IMHO, significantly contribute to the initial shove that pushed blue off the ball.

Is this illegal under
[LAWS] 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....[/LAWS]

Any safety concerns?

It just looked wrong to me.....

 

[colesy]

It's called slingshotting and used to gain just the type of advantage you describe. I'd warn the first time and if he doesn't stop, ping him for not binding correctly.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The technique is called slingshotting and was outlawed a few seasons ago as one of the ELVs I think. I will have to look it up later.
You need to manage the number 8s at the first scrums in the match to be fully bound up to the shoulders.
If not so bound, blow it and reset reminding them to bind fully.
That usually gets them sorted.
At higher levels the second time round just ping em !
Even do it again if necessary, and their front five will usually tell them to stop messing about !

At the lower levels for stubborn number 8s if non-compliance the second time by them, a final warning is followed by a FK the third time. That normally gets their attention !

 

[Nigib]

At the lower levels for stubborn number 8s if non-compliance the second time by them, a final warning is followed by a FK the third time. That normally gets their attention !

And the FK is for? Shouldn't it be PK for not bound?

 

[chrismtl]

And the FK is for? Shouldn't it be PK for not bound?

I usually ping them on this after I've warned them.

[LAWS]20.1
(d) No delay. A team must not intentionally delay forming a scrum.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

 

[The Fat]

Don't allow slingshotting.
Ping him under 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

 

[didds]

What I saw was the red 8 packing down with the rest of the scrum, then he would come off the scrum, merely maintaining the 'bind' with his hands until the moment the ball was put in.

It is illegal and should have been penalised. Its also been illegal for several years now.

This stuff is simple - its before the "set" so WTF is the referee actually looking at ?

didds

 

[Simon Thomas]

And the FK is for? Shouldn't it be PK for not bound?

Many of the original ELVs were FK only - as i said in my first post I will have to look it up.

I woukd use FK delay to form scrum as the initial offence perhaps, not a PK for not bound. Down to your management style and what works for you.

In the real world slingshotting is stopped after the Ask or Tell state so not penalisedanyway. I cannot recall seeing it penalised or penalised it myself ever. Any referee with half decent management will gave a quick word, and get 8s bound, or possibly reset the first incident and after that happy days.

 

[Browner]

But what is the value of this anymore .... You mean teams are still trying to win the HIT prior to the ball being fed??!!??:deadhorse:

I'd remind the player once and at the same time loudly tell him " its unnecessary as there ISNT an early shove" , Thereby getting 'two messages' across at the same time.

if it happens again then FK against his team for the 'Early Shove' pinpoint his involvement and tell his captain that "its his 2nd repeat of that offence so captain needs to take charge before I do".

IME early action against early shove sorts all these issues.

 

[ChrisR]

You are right, Browner, but old habits die hard.

 

[Browner]

....but old habits die hard.

Presumably you mean the old habit of ' refs abdicating dealing with it' :shrug:

 

[Dave Sherwin]

It certainly seems to me that the recent spate of collapsed scrums in the AP (the subject of Austin Healey's astonishingly uninformed rant earlier this week) is down to a return to the bad old days of a hit, chase and massive push-a-thon long before the ball, but there appears to be no management of this issue beyond a mantra on the part of the elite refs to ask the props to ensure their feet are underneath them, a request which is uniformly ignored. The return of endless PKs for collapsed scrums is a real sadness as we seemed to have made such progress on this front only 12 months ago.

 

[Adam]

I reckon the solution to most scrum problems is to bring the front rows closer together.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

I reckon the solution to most scrum problems is to bring the front rows closer together.

True to a point, but the reason the stats showed an increased number of scrums going "up on the mark" following the new protocols is that if the front rows are too close then it can mean that the opposition's pressure can't be correctly transferred along the spine. At lower levels, bringing the front rows closer is a good solution as the weight of pressure from the opposition is markedly less due to poor technique / ergonomics, but at higher levels the quality of the ergonomics requires an effective position from the opposition to keep the forces appropriately counterbalanced. This, of course, is the conundrum facing elite level referees / lawmakers. As an ex front-rower myself, I abhor the idea of removing the scrum as a weapon (and potentially a penalty-winning weapon), but I do wonder whether too many matches are decided on points from scrum penalties. I don't believe for a moment that we can go to FKs for scrum offences (I thought that particular law trial was a disaster) but I wonder about keeping scrum penalties full-arm penalties with the proviso that you cannot kick for goal. This would keep the need for a strong scrum (as otherwise you would cede territory and lineout possession by the bucketload) but also reduce the likelihood of games being decided purely by goals kicked from scrum penalties. The availability of YCs for repeat offenders and penalty tries in the appropriate circumstances would not be affected.

 

[ChrisR]

Presumably you mean the old habit of ' refs abdicating dealing with it' :shrug:

Nope. You presume incorrectly. I was referring to the habit of a 'slingshotting' 8 who hasn't figured out that there isn't a 'hit' anymore.

 

[ChrisR]

I agree with you Dave S. that winning games by scrum PKs reinforces the chicanery. However, what I consider the real negative impact is the complete loss of tactical play from scrums as so very few seem to deliver predictable ball.

Because the NFL has complete control of professional US football (gridiron, a term no longer used in the USA), including the teams of referees, they can readily manipulate the rules and how they are applied. Their sole objective is to maximize the entertainment $$$ they generate. They balance safety (concussions and bad publicity) against spectacular hits. This year they placed an emphasis on limiting down field contact. Result, more passing, higher scoring. By awarding the first draft picks to the worst teams and having salary caps the promote equity. Except for the Washington Deadskins who have been pathetic for eons.

For professional rugby to regain a semblance of workable scrums the teams need to be held accountable for the actions of their players. I don't see that happening until professional rugby acknowledges that the current sorry spectacle of scrums just being a vehicle for PKs is bad for the game.

 

[didds]

Nope. You presume incorrectly. I was referring to the habit of a 'slingshotting' 8 who hasn't figured out that there isn't a 'hit' anymore.

and who is somehow clearly being allowed to continue doing it - otherwise why woud he try/do it? If the first time he ever did it in a game he was ALWAYS penalised for it, all he would ever do is lose the ball for his side. So there is obvioously some potential gain for him doing it.

Why and how would that gain occur then?

I am not absolving the #8 from any blame here. But he is not alone in the reasons why he continues to still attempt it YEARS after it was made illegal.

didds

 

[matty1194]

Wedgie,


As others state, the 8's actions are slingshotting, if the ref in question in that game had set his stall out at the set up of the scrum then this is easily manageable out of the game, currently in Scotland we are using the phrase, “set up for success” this is at every lineout and scrum, if the referee had reempahsized to the 8 on the setup of the scrum to be bound then he would/could save himself lots of issues later in the game.


For me Simon Thomas hits the nail on the head with this post and this is what Scottish referees are being pressed to achieve:

You need to manage the number 8s at the first scrums in the match to be fully bound up to the shoulders.
If not so bound, blow it and reset reminding them to bind fully.
That usually gets them sorted.
At higher levels the second time round just ping em !

At the lower levels for stubborn number 8s if non-compliance the second time by them, a final warning is followed by a FK the third time. That normally gets their attention !

However I disagree with his last comment about allowing 8's at the lower levels more leniancy, if he doesnt listen to you then tough love for him. And for me I would PK him as he is not fulfilling the requirements for binding by all other players

I reckon the solution to most scrum problems is to bring the front rows closer together.

Adam, I dont know if you have ever been near a FR in a playing capacity but getting them too close together as DaveS states can cause you even more problems. Its trying to get tht happy medium of a stable position to push, hence the new phrase doing the rounds in the Aviva is, “ get in a position you can sustain for the whole scrum “

and who is somehow clearly being allowed to continue doing it - otherwise why woud he try/do it? If the first time he ever did it in a game he was ALWAYS penalised for it,

If you dont allow him to do it at the first scrum and get to the situation of having to penalize him then thats one less PK in my book., keep them PK's for when you need maximum effect, not some wishy washy scrum binding which you can sort earlier.

Man management and effective communication at the set piece can ensure you get a suitable outcome, its all on the shoulders of those 17 people involved in the scrum to ensure the correct outcome.

 

[Wedgie]

Thanks to all for the advice.

Just to be clear, 8 was binding correctly when the scrum was packing down. Only once the ref had given the OK to 9 to put the ball in and the refs attentions were elsewhere, did 8 come off the back of the scrum and time his shove (impeccably, I have to admit) with the ball coming in. So he was not tying to win any initial hit, but the initial legally timed shove.

I do think that it should be possible for refs to notice and manage this variation of the slingshot.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I

Thanks to all for the advice.

Just to be clear, 8 was binding correctly when the scrum was packing down. Only once the ref had given the OK to 9 to put the ball in and the refs attentions were elsewhere, did 8 come off the back of the scrum and time his shove (impeccably, I have to admit) with the ball coming in. So he was not tying to win any initial hit, but the initial legally timed shove.

I do think that it should be possible for refs to notice and manage this variation of the slingshot.

Thanks for the clarification. A big difference to the initial manageable slingshotting.
In this case the #8 is deliberately breaking his bind, so just ping him as he knows exactly what he is doing - PK at all levels.
He is doing this as the ball comes in so as you say referee attention is usually elsewhere - not now after you have flagged this technique up !