Scrum - offside line for backs

[PaulDG]

Someone has just posted a question on the RFU forums which I thought I knew the answer to but looking at both the IRB ELV publication and the Hants Refs powerpoint I'm now not so sure.

For a 5m scrum (or a scrum pushed back) is the offside line for the backs the goal line or do they have to stay 5m back from the back foot?

I thought it should be the goal line but I can't see anything confirming that.

 

[IanMack]

The offside line for the defending scrum backs will be the goal line as you cannot have a scrum/ ruck or maul in goal. Both back rows however cannot disengage until the scrum is over ie the ball touches or crosses the goal line.

Hope that helps.

 

[Phil E]

Someone has just posted a question on the RFU forums which I thought I knew the answer to but looking at both the IRB ELV publication and the Hants Refs powerpoint I'm now not so sure.

For a 5m scrum (or a scrum pushed back) is the offside line for the backs the goal line or do they have to stay 5m back from the back foot?

I thought it should be the goal line but I can't see anything confirming that.

It has to be the goal line because the in-goal area is not part of the field of play, so how can you have an offside line thats not in the field of play?

 

[PaulDG]

It has to be the goal line because the in-goal area is not part of the field of play, so how can you have an offside line thats not in the field of play?

There are offsides in the in-goal - "offside in open play" applies.

 

[PaulDG]

The offside line for the defending scrum backs will be the goal line as you cannot have a scrum/ ruck or maul in goal.

I believe it should be the goal line, but just because you can't have a scrum in the in goal doesn't mean the offside line can't be behind it.

When the back foot of the defending no8 is 0.5m in front of the goal line, the scrum is not in-goal and the defending backs are required to be 5m back.

So their offside line appears, in Law, to be 4.5m inside the in-goal.

I can't believe that's what's intended but I can't find a legal reference to confirm either.

 

[Davet]

Interesting, indeed in the current laws there seems to be nothing in 20.12 that allows players in-goal to be in front of the back feet of the scrum. Which is how its played currently.

 

[Dixie]

The Aussies spotted this some years ago. The resultant iRB Law Ruling (Ruling 7 of 2005 - http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/law20scrum_5825.pdf page 4) is remarkable mainly for proving without a shadow of doubt that the Designated members have no idea what they are talking about.

The decision was that the offside line remains the goal line, even if the back foot of the scrum goes beyond the goal line. This is clearly right; it's the reasoning that causes such belly-laughter.

 

[Davet]

Dixie, agreed - very silly.

The offside line for the scrum is not relevant - it was always the ball anyway, not the back feet.

 

[SimonSmith]

Dave - not sure I understand. Can you clarify?

 

[OB..]

The offside line for the scrum half is not relevant - it was always the ball anyway, not the back feet.

I think a word was omitted?

 

[Dixie]

Dave - not sure I understand. Can you clarify?

The aussies noticed that a tidy-up had deleted a definition from the scrum laws: “If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal-line, the off-side line is the goal-line." They wanted to know if this was no longer the case.

The Designated Members said it WAS still the case, and this could be shown clearly from the fact that the SH could legally ground the ball as soon as it crossed the goal line. To quote from the decision: "The off-side line must be the goal-line in the above situation otherwise the scrum half would not be able to physically get to the ball to ground it."

This shows that the Designated Members were unaware that the offside line for the SH at a scrum, unlike that for his fellow non-scrummagers, was the line of the ball rather than the back foot of the scrum. And these people get to rule on the Laws!

 

[PaulDG]

The aussies noticed that a tidy-up had deleted a definition from the scrum laws: “If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal-line, the off-side line is the goal-line." They wanted to know if this was no longer the case.

What I feel I will never understand and what is a constant source of irritation to me is why can't this sort of thing get sorted out and put in the Law Book where it belongs?

There have been several editions of the Book since that ruling (and since the original error of dropping the previous explicit statement), why couldn't the correction have been put in?

 

[KML1]

Because that would have been too easy.....

 

[Davet]

Dave - not sure I understand. Can you clarify?

Simon - as OB says - it's my typing, and laziness combined. The word half should have followed the word scrum.

 

[Phil E]

Simon - as OB says - it's my typing, and laziness combined. The word half should have followed the word scrum.

This reminds me of a Naval Signal.

The Flagship sailed into a Mediterranean harbor, where the Admiral was due to move ashore for a few days. The Senior Naval Officer at the port received a strange signal.

"Please advise, who would you suggest as Admirals woman."

Not quite sure what to make of this and knowing that the Admiral was a happily married man, he asked for clarification.

The signal came back.

"Amendment to my previous signal, please insert washer between Admiral and Woman." :biggrin:

 

[SimonSmith]

Simon - as OB says - it's my typing, and laziness combined. The word half should have followed the word scrum.

Thanks. Understanding descends!

 

[chopper15]

What I feel I will never understand and what is a constant source of irritation to me is why can't this sort of thing get sorted out and put in the Law Book where it belongs?

There have been several editions of the Book since that ruling (and since the original error of dropping the previous explicit statement), why couldn't the correction have been put in?

Of course it should be done, on reprint!

But who is there to pressure them?

 

[Davet]

Most rulings seem to be more concerned with proving that the Law was clear in the first place, than in actually clarifying it.

They seem frequently to twist and chop logic rather than admitting that the original text was meaningless bilgewash that wouldn't get past the rules committee of an under-11 tiddlywinks society.

It's known colloquially as an A*rse covering exercise.

 

[Phil E]

the rules committee of an under-11 tiddlywinks society.

Is this something you have an intimate knowledge of? :biggrin:

 

[chopper15]

What I feel I will never understand and what is a constant source of irritation to me is why can't this sort of thing get sorted out and put in the Law Book where it belongs?

There have been several editions of the Book since that ruling (and since the original error of dropping the previous explicit statement), why couldn't the correction have been put in?

What reply does the ref society get when your respective home union is asked to discuss this 'over-sight' with the IRB?