• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

[Scrum] Scrum PK

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.
 
I was thinking the Argentina #8 unbinding and being offside as he digs for the ball. Is that the referee's signal? My WiFi speed is low so video is poor.

I thought it could have gone the other way for SA driving up.
 
Release of bind (standing up under pressure). No drive up. There was a dip by both front rows but the initial movement of the SA tighthead’s back and hips was forward and not up. L/H simply lost shape.
 
beckett50 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So what do you think the Referee is signalling?

ChrisR said:
I was thinking the Argentina #8 unbinding and being offside as he digs for the ball. Is that the referee's signal?
Click to expand...
The No 8 is allowed to release his bind to pick up the ball and can now pick up from the 2nd Rows feet.

Jarrod Burton said:
His signal at 2:08/2:09 looks to be for standing up, not unbinding.
Click to expand...
So what law has been broken?
 
Taff said:
So what law has been broken?
Click to expand...

This is a great question. Applying the Laws of physics to a scrum, if you have both sides shoving with equal force then (eventually) a hinging effect will occur and this is manifested by the FR players going upwards in motion. However, one has to judge - as a referee - whether this has happened as a result of equality or whether one set of FRs are feeling the strain and move upwards deliberately.

The Law reference is either 19.19 (although a little tenuous I grant you) or a choice of 9.11, 9.19 (Foul Play) or (at a stretch) 9.27
 
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.
 
crossref said:
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.
Click to expand...

. . . and I have a problem with that. It rewards misbehavior.

"The No 8 is allowed to release his bind to pick up the ball and can now pick up from the 2nd Rows feet." But he advanced beyond the hind foot (lock's foot).

It is a tricky situation as SA didn't lift the Argies front row off their feet, they just drove them up, but it was clearly a potentially dangerous situation so a re-set would be appropriate but SA should be reward for their dominance but under what law?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Zebra1922 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

People who have followed my posts over the years will perhaps support the fact that I do not like referees guessing at the scrum and I also believe that we would get less issues at the scrum if there was more penalisation of driving up. In this case there was, as far as I am concerned, no deliberate action of ‘driving up’. There was continuous driving that resulted in the SA front row having to go up. The tighthead had nowhere to go. When the L/H popped his head outside was lifted the T/H’s shoulder. If the T/H had been deliberately driving up and trying to drive up I would have expected the L/H’s other shoulder to have raised and the T/H’s arm to be kept down to assist the lift. Players at this level don’t tend to decide to drive up in isolation since it could destabilise the scrum. Therefore in a concerted attempt I would expect the opposition hooker to come up early. He didn’t in this instance, and could be said to have been the last to raise his head.
 
Last edited:
Dickie E said:
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.
Click to expand...

being silly here ... this is NOT serious ;-)

but they were pushing straight - staright upwards at a slight angle... the laws don't define straight as meaning paralell to the ground etc do they?

:)
 
[LAWS]19. Players may push provided they do so straight and parallel to the ground.
Sanction : Penalty.
[/LAWS]

I interpret "straight" as as parallel to the long axis of the scrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top