rugbyunion
Latest News:

Opinions expressed on this message board are solely those of the individual author. No endorsement of such opinions by the editors, Sportnetwork or Sale Sharks can or should be inferred.


Technical reffing question from yesterday
Flumpty (IP Logged)
04 February, 2019 08:24
I've a technical reffing question from yesterdays game.

At the scrum,once the ball was in, the Falcons #8 broke his bind between the 2 locks and then rebound between the Flanker and the #8.
My understanding is that he shoul have stayed bound on my at least one arm at all times, but by doing what he did, he was leaving the scrum before it had comnpleted and then rejoined the scrum , which sould be a PK to the opposition. He did it at least 3 times in the first half.

It just didn't look / seem right, although Hamish Smales (once of this parish) and the AR Ian Tempest (the pantomime villain at Kingston Park), didn't have an issue/didn't see him doing it.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
JohnJ of HM (IP Logged)
04 February, 2019 08:36
19.7.d All other players in the scrum bind on a lock's body with at least one arm

Sanction Penalty

19.11.d All players' binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.

Sanction Penalty



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2019 08:51 by JohnJ of HM.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
Flumpty (IP Logged)
04 February, 2019 22:59
Quote:
JohnJ of HM
19.7.d All other players in the scrum bind on a lock's body with at least one arm
Sanction Penalty

19.11.d All players' binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.

Sanction Penalty

That was my understanding (& my sons understanding) as well - it was obviously a planned move, because he kept doing it and he got away with it.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
PoyntonShark (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 04:05
I have a vague recollection of someone else doing habitually too, but can't recall who. The only caveat I can see is that Law 19.11 seems to relate to the two opposing sides binding together. 19.7 seems to relate to the same team binding to each other. The phrase "All players' binding" seems fairly self explanatory though.

Can't find any more clarification, other than a ref forum, discussing some other aspect of binding one ref does state that the No8 can still bind between the two locks as standard, or on outside of one of the locks, but must choose before scrum starts, he cannot change his mind once scrum is in progress.

I don't know the level of this ref.



Unhappiness, where's when I was young
And we didn't give a damn
'Cause we were raised
To see life as a fun and take it if we can

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
clutch (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 10:57
Not the only team to do it. One of those laws that refs donít worry too much about. Understandably I guess. Enough to be worrying about.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
emerging shark (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 14:43
N material effect....probably answers the question.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
H's D (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 15:24
Surely it may well have material effect in terms of preventing or causing a wheel of the scrum. How can one judge what would have happened without the change in position?
If it makes no difference why do players do it?

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
FarnhamShark (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 15:32
Quote:
H's D
Surely it may well have material effect in terms of preventing or causing a wheel of the scrum. How can one judge what would have happened without the change in position?
If it makes no difference why do players do it?

Agreed. The scrum wheeled a number of times on Sunday - and it seemed to be usually Sale who got penalised. Coincidence?

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
Flumpty (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 15:47
Quote:
FarnhamShark
Quote:
H's D
Surely it may well have material effect in terms of preventing or causing a wheel of the scrum. How can one judge what would have happened without the change in position?
If it makes no difference why do players do it?

Agreed. The scrum wheeled a number of times on Sunday - and it seemed to be usually Sale who got penalised. Coincidence?

It caught my eye in the first half and it was an easy spot from the North Stand, less so from the side of the pitch scrum.

Farnham - if the wasn't gaining an advantage for his team by (repeatedly) doing it, why would he do it and risk giving away a PK ?

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
JohnJ of HM (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 16:19
I must admit, I didn't spot it from side-on, on the half way line, and I've been reffing for 44 years. So well spotted Flumpty. If I'd spotted it in one of my games, I would have spoken to them before penalising them.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
DaveAitch (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 17:11
It's another of the long list of things that are just ignored. In the Scotland-Italy game Strauss, at number 8, briefly packs down properly then lifts his head, stands up and vaguely holds the second row with his hands. Anyway I doubt, even with the allowable squint standing scrum half, that the ball was put in straight. It was, I think, the first scrum of the game and probably went on for close on three minutes.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
clutch (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 17:35
If the refs applied all laws to the latter we wouldnít have a watchable product. They have to ignore.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
StalyShark (IP Logged)
05 February, 2019 20:27
The power of scrums these days means that if it does go in straight then the team putting it in can get a shove on when the opposing hooker has his foot in the air.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
PoyntonShark (IP Logged)
06 February, 2019 02:24
Other way round Staly, it is only the hooker of the side putting the ball in that HAS to strike. Other than that I don't believe your statement to be correct. I think that a straight put in and competition for the ball would solve many scrummaging problems, rather than causing new ones. If your scenario turned out to be true, then it could easily be corrected by making it mandatory for BOTH hookers to strike for the ball.

As an aside, whilst looking at scrummaging laws I noticed something that I had never known. I had always believed that the ball had to be put in on the attacking teams left hand side, apparently the scrum half chooses which side to put the ball in. I can't think of a good reason not to put it in on your loosehead side, but might cause some confusion for a while.



Unhappiness, where's when I was young
And we didn't give a damn
'Cause we were raised
To see life as a fun and take it if we can

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
DaveAitch (IP Logged)
06 February, 2019 11:40
It's always been the case that the scrum half can choose which side, but, in the old days*, it was always sensible to use the side that gave your team the maximum chance of winning the ball. I can't think of one occasion (games I've played in or watched) when a scrum half has chosen the other side.

* the old days, when the ball had to be put in straight and in the middle of the tunnel. True, sometimes a team would go for an 'eight man push' but good hookers would always win their own ball. The great hookers would also win opposition ball too.

As you say, Poynters, it would be relatively easy in the laws to insist that both hookers strike for the ball.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 11:48 by DaveAitch.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
Crutch (IP Logged)
06 February, 2019 12:36
Presumably the standard use of the left side entry to the scrum is on the assumption that Hookers are right footed.

Thatís certainly how I was coached, although being left footed I did also steal a large percentage of scrums against the head by swinging across with the left foot smiling smiley

Personally I think the idea that the scrum is shoved back if a hooker actually hooks is nonsense. The movement takes a second at most and the hookers weight is still there, just not as braced for a short period.

When TT was playing we regularly had a perfect hook to the back row with no clear impact on the scrum going backwards.

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
Flumpty (IP Logged)
06 February, 2019 12:52
Quote:
DaveAitch

As you say, Poynters, it would be relatively easy in the laws to insist that both hookers strike for the ball.

Steady on old chap, the law has only recently been changed that the team in posession must strike for the ball !

p.s. when I'm refffing /coach-reffing Junior rugby I quite often have 9's wanting to put the ball in on the "wrong side"

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
emerging shark (IP Logged)
06 February, 2019 22:08
Again a thread changes from the original to hookers putting the ball in. What's that got to do with the No 8 changing positions? If any of you were at David Rose's excellent sessions at EP some years ago you would understand 'material effect'. He showed a clip where there were 20 offences in the first 2 minutes... I rest my case...HsD you should know better...

 
Re: Technical reffing question from yesterday
DaveAitch (IP Logged)
07 February, 2019 19:19
Quote:
emerging shark
Again a thread changes from the original to hookers putting the ball in. What's that got to do with the No 8 changing positions? If any of you were at David Rose's excellent sessions at EP some years ago you would understand 'material effect'. He showed a clip where there were 20 offences in the first 2 minutes... I rest my case...HsD you should know better...

Doesn't it seem odd to you that if there were 20 offences in 2 minutes and these offences had no material effect that they are still laws of the game?


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?