When can defenders un-bind when scrum is pushed into in-goal

[CrouchTPEngage]

As a pushover scrum is being attempts, at what point can the defenders unbind.
Is it when they are over their own goal-line?
Or must they stay bound until the ball crosses the goal-line.

I reffed a game the other week where a defender (not in the scrum) managed to save a try as he waited on the try-line until the ball was just coming into the in-goal and he then dived to get his hand onto it before the attacking No. 8.
I awarded a 22 DO , much to the anger of the attackers who claimed the defender was offside.
My view is that the offside line is the goal-line so he was perfectly legal to do what he did. I think the No.8 was a little embarrassed as this should really never happen.

Anyway, just wondering about the other (forwards) in the scrum - Can they unbind as they are pushed into the in-goal area ?

Thanks

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Oooh hoo!

Nice question!

I will hold off answering in case I make a (bigger) dick of myself!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Having read the LotG I I'll venture that the defender should remain bound until the ball touches the line. As such in the scenario in the OP he was offside and as I read it it should be a PT and a YC.

[LAWS]20.10 Ending the scrum

(b) Scrum in the in-goal. A scrum cannot take place in the in-goal. When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground the ball for a try or a touch down.[/LAWS]

Sits back and waits to be shot down. :chin:

Hang on. Shit! I've misread the OP. The defender is not in the scrum. I think I got confused with the title of the thread and then the scenario which was not an unbinding issue.

As such I think you were correct.

 

[FlipFlop]

It is one of the crazy situations where the scrum participants have to remain in the scrum, but the offside line for non-participants is in front of the back foot. Normally there is at least 1 of the defending scrum unbinding, so you have a PK (minimum) to revert to if the scrum is not scored.

 

[ChrisR]

CTPE, you got it right.

FlipFlop. a scrum going backwards into goal from 5m has a high probability of disintegration to some degree with back row players unbinding. The question is "Did the unbinding players have a material effect?" If the try was prevented by a non-scrum player and the unbinding players played no part then I'd not be thinking PK or PT.

 

[FlipFlop]

Players unbinding almost certainly have an effect. 8 pushing against 8 and going forward, then it is 7, so they go faster (harder to control), and then 6 - even harder to control.

Why was the 8 unable to ground the ball - unbalanced by the players unbinding? Unable to control the ball by the change in speed caused by the change in weights due to the unbinding? The uneven unbinding causing a rotation - making it harder to control/keep straight?

Players breaking off cause all sorts of issues. Always a PK minimum in this scenario in my book (in reality - in theory I accept it is possible for the scrum to disintegrate and not have an impact, but that doesn't happen in real life).

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Thanks. To clarify on my situation ( I accept my initial post left some ambiguity ).
The defender who remained on the goal-line was the defending number 10.
So there was no unbinding.
I agree that unbinding could have a material impact to the attacking no. 8 's ability to control the ball. So I would have given a penalty-try , if I had seen this.
In my case, I think the attackers expected that I would blow for a penalty as they simply couldnt beleive their No.8 was so slow to put it down. I think he wanted one more touch with his feet, just to make sure the ball was totally over the line.
I guess you have to admire the skill and reward the defending 10 for diving at the ball with his hand before the (much slower and heavier ) 8 could get down there.
I hesitated , just for a second, as I replayed what I'd just seen in order to announce the 22 DO decision - and this hesitation is what probably lead to the attacking team shouting "But he's got to be offside sir!" and "He was in front of the back foot, Sir !"
That was the first time I've ever seen this, and I bet I wont see that again for a while.