Scrum issue/decision

[ChrisR]

Front row feet in the air? Peeeeep! Now! Very dangerous situation regardless of the cause.

The TH can't get into this posture as described in the OP (back bent, shoulders & hips level) without upward force from ops LH and his own lock.

But he may be the cause of the problem. In the days of Win The Hit engagement (before CBS) props crouched over their toes and dove forward on "Set" to win the hit. They could do this as there was space between the front rows so that after engagement they were positioned with their thighs vertical and so presented a good platform for their locks.

Now, with 'ear to ear' position pre set, props who set up over their toes now have to shift their feet back after engagement to get their thighs vertical. If they don't then their lock slides down under them and the lock, to get back to level, will drive up. Meanwhile, to keep the TH hips/shoulder level the LH must be driving up too.

Answer to the OP is reset scrum, no PK here. After engagement look for THs posture and feet position. If he didn't get his feet back don't let the ball go in. Did the ops get an early shove? Pressure before the ball can lock a front row into a bad position.

Lots of variables in this scenario but start with the set up.

 

[Pegleg]

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?151-Scrum

 

[Ian_Cook]

Some questions for you active referees.
Keep in mind as you read this that I played at LHP (among other positions) and refereed at a time when front rows managed their own "fold in". Both hookers would always stirke for the ball, and tightheads (winning the strike against the feed) were a lot more common than they are now.

Scrummaging has changed out of sight since that time, and while I am a good observer of what goes on in the scrum (the basics of binding, pushing, hooking haven't changed much) there are certain "nuances" of modern scrummaging that I have no personal experience in, either as a referee or a player.

Questions
[LAWS]20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each
front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) This means that the front row players must have both feet on the ground, with their weight
firmly on at least one foot. Players must not cross their feet, although the foot of one player
may cross a team-mate’s foot. Each player’s shoulders must be no lower than the hips.
Sanction: Free Kick
(c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position
to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on
at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that
team’s props.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

If all front row players are in a position to shove - 20.2 (a) - how can the hooker also be in a position to hook - 20.2 (c) - ? I see this as a contradiction.

If, as Marauder says, "...with 'ear to ear' position pre set, props who set up over their toes now have to shift their feet back after engagement to get their thighs vertical" how can the hooker remain in a position to hook when his foremost foot cannot be in front of the feet his props?

Some observations
Very often in showbiz rugby, I can clearly see the foot of the hooker of the team throwing in, but there is no sign of the opposing hooker's strike foot, presumably because he has no intention of striking and its back ready to shove. This seems to give the non-throwing team the advantage of 8 v 7 pushing, the result of which is that now, with CTSY9, we quite often see the team throwing in getting pushed back in the scrum until their hooker can get his strike foot back; something that didn't happen as much when CTPE was used. Sometimes, the opposing shove is so quick and hard that, if the hooker cannot get his foot back in time, then he cannot get it back at all because his whole scrum is going backwards. It appears to be a matter of fractions of a second in reaction time as to whether the team throwing in are able to "get away" with their ball.

Do you enforce this 20.2 (c) in the games that you referee?

Would it be a viable idea to adapt the NRC trial line-out Law, (straight thrown-in not enforced if opponents do not contest)? In this case, only enforce a straight throw-in if the non-throwing in hooker also has his feet in a position to hook? (on the basis that if he isn't going to strike for the ball then there is no point in a straight feed)

Thoughts?

 

[talbazar]

Very interesting Ian...

To be honest, I don't enforce it myself. Not that I don't believe it's important, but rather due to my current "routine" at scrums. In a nutshell, I currently use the CBS sequence to check the above of the scrum (binding, body positions, offside line, etc...) and just at a glance at the feed on the Y9...

I probably can add the check of the Hookers' and props' feet position before the Y9 but gosh that's a lot of things to look at :biggrin:

 

[ChrisR]

I played a lot of TH & hook. As a TH, against mediocre ops we would take a lot of their ball by our hooker blocking and me striking. In one memorable game we won every scrum, theirs & ours. But that was southern California in the early 70s and very few skilled front rows.

I think that the new protocol, stationary & stable, can bring back competition for the ball but not if referees don't enforce S & S and allow an early shove.

Ian makes some good points about hooker feet positioning. How can a hook be in a position to strike if neither foot can be in fronts of his props?

However, I think that allowing squint feeds are a slippery slope. I feel the same way about lineout throws.

 

[Pegleg]

The contradiction in the laws Ian quotes are possibly / probably (take your pick) down to being poorly written. & players must be in a position to shove and the hooker to hook. Other wise you end up with what we saw a few times last season at elite level. The ball on the mark and two packs unable to reach it until one pushed the other back.

A hooke with feet in a shove position can't hook.

 

[FlipFlop]

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2014/10/hubert-buydens-pops-up-jason-marshall.html?m=1

For those that haven't seen this happen in a game - see the above link.

For me - the PK is the wrong way. Black TH hasn't actually done anything wrong, and is off the ground before he "stands up".

Green LH - gets under Black TH, and dives across and up. (Even changes his bind, once he has changed to drive in - last angle shows it best)

 

[menace]

I agree. This seems to be a process of the unions expecting that referees are to reward the dominant team, or PK the team under pressure. It seems some referees forget that that dominance still needs to be and remain legal.

 

[talbazar]

Agree with both of you.
Wrong call for me too... And yes, dominance must remain legal!

 

[Pegleg]

No disagreement here. A poor call.

 

[ChrisR]

Think that was bad?

Try this: NZ vs. Canada 2011 WC at 1:02:00 on the film clock.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFm1jZa_wgQ

Earlier 38:20 the THs feet come off the ground, the scrum goes 180 and the ABs get the turnover, no reset.

How can the referee ignore this?

 

[ChrisR]

Regards previous post, would you bin the ABs LH?

 

[Browner]

Regards previous post, would you bin the ABs LH?

No.
I judge that Red 2nd row caused the Red THP to lift. Awful bind position under his arse.

 

[Pegleg]

Blame the referee. 2nd row is poorly set, and the ref then lets a dangerous situation develop and abdicated HIS responsibility.

Ref could have reset seeing the second rows position and / or blown when the prop takes his flying lessons. To miss the one (the first) is mildly excusable the second is as clear as 100 dancing bears.

 

[RobLev]

Think that was bad?

Try this: NZ vs. Canada 2011 WC at 1:02:00 on the film clock.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFm1jZa_wgQ

Earlier 38:20 the THs feet come off the ground, the scrum goes 180 and the ABs get the turnover, no reset.

How can the referee ignore this?

On the first occasion, the overhead shows the AB LH ends up boring in. Did he start that way, or was he pulled in by the Canadian TH imitating a Harrier?

 

[OB..]

... the second is as clear as 100 dancing bears.

I see what you did there.