ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I think the actual offence is releasing their bind.Standing up in the scrum?
His signal at 2:08/2:09 looks to be for standing up, not unbinding.I was thinking the Argentina #8 unbinding and being offside as he digs for the ball. Is that the referee's signal?
So what do you think the Referee is signalling?The Argentine tight head collapsed and brought the scrum down on the far side. The LH does stand up but his bind is still intact.
The No 8 is allowed to release his bind to pick up the ball and can now pick up from the 2nd Rows feet.I was thinking the Argentina #8 unbinding and being offside as he digs for the ball. Is that the referee's signal?
So what law has been broken?His signal at 2:08/2:09 looks to be for standing up, not unbinding.
So what law has been broken?
All those Law 9 offences would be used against the opponent of the prop who stands up... But normally the person who is penalised is, in fact, the prop who stands up.
Their ‘tactics’ were not illegal. Their initial action was a straight push and A collapsed under pressure. The L/H (and others) in the process of ‘standing up’ released their bind. The L/H still had ‘hold’ but he did not have a ‘bind’. See definitions. The same could be said of the second row of the A pack. By not maintaining bind snd losing their shape the scrum went up and negated the SA dominance. This was not a case of both sides coming up under pressure. I.e reset.Isn't it illegal to drive the scrum up, therefore penalise SA under that law? Regardless of whether their scrum is dominant or not, if they demonstrate that dominance using illegal tactics they should be penalised, not the opposition.
People who have followed my posts over the years
is that a thing like following Kanye on Insta?
he's pinged Blue for bailing out of the scrum by standing up (ie not pushing straight). That's the accepted signal for that event.