Scrum half in the pocket

[Dave Sherwin]

From the newly released USA Rugby Game Management Guidelines (which I was just looking at out of interest, do not have to apply and know sometimes have their faults (the receiver joining the lineout one having been a good example in the past)):

Defending scrum halves are not to position themselves in the 'pocket' between the flanker and the number 8. Manage before penalising. Penalty Kick.

Thoughts?

 

[FlipFlop]

It's a good idea. Very hard for them to get there legally (without touching scrum, going offside etc), and prone to doing illegal acts etc.

Was taught this in London, and still use it. Makes it easier to manage the base of the scrum as well.

 

[Simon Thomas]

This has been standard practice for some seasons now in my Society, Federation and Group. Refereees are expected to manage it, and penalise as a last resort.

As FF says very difficult to get there legally, and with zero tolerance reffing early doors easy to stop.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

From the newly released USA Rugby Game Management Guidelines (which I was just looking at out of interest, do not have to apply and know sometimes have their faults (the receiver joining the lineout one having been a good example in the past)):

Defending scrum halves are not to position themselves in the 'pocket' between the flanker and the number 8. Manage before penalising. Penalty Kick.

Thoughts?

The solution is to bind blind side flank against his 2nd row's backside. Thus no pocket, free pass for 9. That is the end result, protect the SH and give him free pass

It's a good idea. Very hard for them to get there legally (without touching scrum, going offside etc), and prone to doing illegal acts etc.

Was taught this in London, and still use it. Makes it easier to manage the base of the scrum as well.

Cept there is no law forbidding it. ST has it as standard practice, which is great if they inform all teams under them of their local change in law. Ohterwise it ain't law.

I'm still not sure for what the PK would be awarded.

 

[SimonSmith]

That's been in the GMG for ages.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

That's been in the GMG for ages.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the guidance itself was new, only that it featured in the 2015 GMG. I've no problem with the suggestion that you aim to keep players out of the pocket as a management tool (which I would advocate), but not overly keen on the implication that merely being in the pocket is a penalisable offence. As FF says, there is likely to be another offence, in which case fine, but absent such an offence, I wouldn't really want tot ping the guy.

 

[OB..]

not overly keen on the implication that merely being in the pocket is a penalisable offence.

It isn't, IMHO.

As FF says, there is likely to be another offence, in which case fine, but absent such an offence, I wouldn't really want tot ping the guy.

Agreed, but being very strict on it, warning of dangers etc usually prevents the situation from arising.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

It isn't, IMHO.

I think that the language of the US GMG certainly implies that it is, and I would agree with you that this should not be the case. To be honest, this has always been one where management has solved the issue for me, so not sure I can offer much experience of having to deal with the actual purported "offence".

 

[Simon Thomas]

Celt there is no law forbidding it. ST has it as standard practice, which is great if they inform all teams under them of their local change in law. Ohterwise it ain't law.

I'm still not sure for what the PK would be awarded.

It is a game management guideline and interpretation.
As for awarding a PK take your pick - offside ahead of ball, touching flanker or 8, etc

I tried to do it for many years, mostly illegally I suspect and any switched on flankers / 8s would know how to pack down, or adjust ball position once I was in the pocket to catch me offside.

 

[beckett50]

What ST said.

I knew (when I played 9) that being in the pocket was wrong. It's almost impossible to get there legally and even stay there legally.

To make matters worse the #9 will appeal for the #7 holding him back, or flanker trapping him with his legs etc.

Manage it.

 

[ChrisR]

From NKW:

The solution is to bind blind side flank against his 2nd row's backside. Thus no pocket, free pass for 9. That is the end result, protect the SH and give him free pass

Are you suggesting that the flank bind back in the third row?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

From NKW:

The solution is to bind blind side flank against his 2nd row's backside. Thus no pocket, free pass for 9. That is the end result, protect the SH and give him free pass

Are you suggesting that the flank bind back in the third row?

Sure,

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

It is a game management guideline and interpretation.
As for awarding a PK take your pick - offside ahead of ball, touching flanker or 8, etc

I guess the guidance is that these offenses are not up for interpretation by the ref as material or not. This is turn establishes the offside line for the non-winning SH as the #6 flanker feet and not the ball.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

What ST said.

It's almost impossible to get there legally and even stay there legally.

.

Really the space between your flanker and number 8. How short were your 2nd rows and how tall were your flankers?

To make matters worse the #9 will appeal for the #7 holding him back, or flanker trapping him with his legs etc.

Manage it.

Yeah manage it, tell the little SOB to STFU

What ST said.

I knew (when I played 9) that being in the pocket was wrong.

What is wrong with being onside behind the flanker and adjacent to 8 man as per OP

 

[FlipFlop]

I guess the guidance is that these offenses are not up for interpretation by the ref as material or not. This is turn establishes the offside line for the non-winning SH as the #6 flanker feet and not the ball.

Not at all - it is still the ball. The issue is taking the space between the flanker and the #8 (directly behind the 2nd row) - normally by pushing on flanker/#8. It is a small space. If the #9 wants to be further away from the scrum, they can still go forward with the ball.

Most "good" scrums won't allow a pocket to exist large enough for the SH to fit.

The SH being there will cause issues with SH pushing on scrum, flankers changing binds, flankers holding/kicking the SH, calls for offside against the SH, issues if scrum goes backwards, SHs "jostling" with each other (and we know they like to start fights). So I try to stop all that, and get on with a game.....

 

[ChrisR]

The following photo appears courtesy of "The Rugby Site"

View attachment 3140

If the pocket, circled in red, is accessible and the ball is under the Red #8's hindmost foot, what is the problem? "If" this, "if" that? How about refereeing what "is", not what "if"?

 

[RobLev]

The following photo appears courtesy of "The Rugby Site"

View attachment 3140

If the pocket, circled in red, is accessible and the ball is under the Red #8's hindmost foot, what is the problem? "If" this, "if" that? How about refereeing what "is", not what "if"?

I'd be tempted to ping Red #6 for an illegal bind, for starters. Assuming he took up a correct bind, the space you've circled becomes a good foot narrower. If the ball is under Red #8's HMF, then White #9 might still be onside - but not if the Red #8 is smart, because if he is then the ball won't be under his HMF, it'll be a foot or so forward at the hindmost foot of the locks ahead of him.

While you're watching for that, you're also watching for White #9 interfering with the flanker, and vice versa; and a premature unbinding by Red 7; and... How many pairs of eyes do you have?

 

[FlipFlop]

I would not describe that as the pocket. The pocket is more "forward" (towards centre of scrum) of that red circle. The White #9 would have stepped over the red #6 legs to get to the pocket. Roughly speaking inline with the red #8s elbow....

The pocket is where the white #9 would have red players on 3 sides. And if the scrum were to move quickly, then the #9 cannot get out.

 

[ChrisR]

What is illegal about Red #6 bind? The angle? Not a problem if he started at that angle, as in the photo. Only a problem if he swung out after the ball goes in and interferes with White 9.

Do you really think that the Red #8 will even notice a pair of white socks in the pocket?

It does look like a problem developing between Red 3 and White 1. And, if the ball is not yet in, then Red 9 is feeding it squint or Red scrum has pushed early.

But I digress, we're discussing the 'pocket'.

Does anyone have another pic of KK's bum?

 

[RobLev]

What is illegal about Red #6 bind? The angle? Not a problem if he started at that angle, as in the photo. Only a problem if he swung out after the ball goes in and interferes with White 9.

[LAWS]When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body...[/LAWS]

Red #6 is only using half his arm - to his elbow.

Do you really think that the Red #8 will even notice a pair of white socks in the pocket?

He will if his #9 tells him...

<snippage>