Scrum - offside line for backs

[Dexter Kozen]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think there is a glaring error in the wording of the new ELV Law 20.12(e) as given on p. 14 in the IRB publication available at http://www.irb.com/mm/document/NewsMedia/0/080711IRBELVGuideEN_5897.pdf

The purpose of this law is to specify the offside line for the non-ball-winning scrum half if he moves away from the scrum. According to the explanation on that page above (Example c), the offside line for the scrum half if he moves away from the scrum is 5 meters back. However, the wording of Law 20.12(e) seems to set the offside line through the hindmost foot.

I brought this up with the IRB and received the answer that if the scrum half moves away from the scrum, then he becomes a "non-participant" in the scrum, and Law 20.12(g) then applies, which obligates him to retire 5 meters back. However, Law 20.12(g) EXPLICITLY excludes the scrum half, so this can't be right.

It seems to me that Law 20.12(g) was meant to set the offside line for players not in the scrum and not the scrum half, and Laws 20.12(d) and (e) were meant to set the offside line for the scrum half. Laws 20.12(g) and (d) are correct, but (e) is not. I think it should read something like:

"20.12(e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum and then remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half, that is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres
behind the hindmost foot of a player of that scrum half's team in the scrum."

So am I crazy???

 

[PaulDG]

"20.12(e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum and then remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half, that is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of a player of that scrum half's team in the scrum.

Perhaps more like:

"20.12(e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum. If he or she does move away from the scrum they are no longer a participating player in the scrum and must immediately retire to the offside line for non participants, a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of a player of that scrum half's team in the scrum or the goal line if closer."

(Actually, that "goal line if closer" is needed in several places including in the current Laws. Typical IRB drafting.)

 

[Dexter Kozen]

Yeah, that's much better wording. The "goal line closer" issue is a separate issue, but I completely agree with that, too. However I think the problem I am talking about is a lot more serious because it is not just an omission, it is just plain wrong.

I think what must have happened was that someone cut-and-pasted the sentence down from 20.12(d) and then forgot to change it. So it is just a typo that went unnoticed.

I tried to convince the guy at the IRB about this, and that they should fix it now while it is still early, but through several email exchanges all I got was pushback. He refuses to admit there is an error.

 

[OB..]

There is a conflict between the implication of Examples (b) & (c) and ELV 20.12 (e).

Example b
The non-ball-winning scrum half may
also move to the offside line at the
hindmost foot of the scrum but must
not move away from the scrum and
must not overstep that offside line.
The non-ball-winning scrum half can​

move between the positions a and b.

Example c​

The non-ball-winning scrum half may

decide to move to or beyond the
offside line 5 metres behind the
hindmost foot of that player’s team,
but once there, must remain behind​

the offside line until the scrum is over.

20.12 (e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the
scrum and then remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half that runs through the​

hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.

The two examples seem to imply that the non-ball winning sh must drop back to the 5 metre line if he moves away from the scrum (usually taken to be 1 metre), whereas the wording of the ELV does not.

The ball winning sh is not restricted in moving away from the scrum, and I think it would be a mistake to place a greater restriction on his opponent.

The ELV wording differs only very slightly from current (just!) law, so I don't really see any need for the change.

 

[David J.]

The two examples seem to imply that the non-ball winning sh must drop back to the 5 metre line if he moves away from the scrum (usually taken to be 1 metre), whereas the wording of the ELV does not.

The ball winning sh is not restricted in moving away from the scrum, and I think it would be a mistake to place a greater restriction on his opponent.

Well said. :clap:


I hope this isn't the wording (or at least the interpretation) we end up with.

 

[FlipFlop]

I've been told that the defending sh must stay behind the no.8, and between the flankers (as a rough guide), but the ball winning sh is allowed a wider definition of "near" - to allow the no8 pick and go.

 

[chopper15]

I've been told that the defending sh must stay behind the no.8, and between the flankers (as a rough guide), but the ball winning sh is allowed a wider definition of "near" - to allow the no8 pick and go.

And where/whom should you go for authoritative and positive guidance?

 

[FlipFlop]

That was from a RFU Ref development officer, at a ELV talk for coaches. So it should be fairly authorative.