View Full Version : Question Reference Number: 357
Question Reference Number: 357
If, prior to the engagement at a scrum, the head of a player is lower than their hips, play is restarted with [BLANK].
Incorrect - You answered D.
The correct answer is: B.
20.1g : The front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player's head and shoulders are no lower than the hips. The penalty is a free kick.
the question asks "prior to the engagement at a scrum". The scrum has not engaged. No "restart" is required as the scrum hasn;t started. What is needed is surely some word of advice to the player to get his head up BEFORE engagement commences?
Why would you ALLOW such a oplayer to enagage inm order to award a penalty ratrher than prevent a possible collapse in the first place?
Didds, imho I would call this if this was not the first time I had to correct this with a front-row player. I agree it should be a management opportunity first (and maybe second). If this is U19 or below, here in the US, I'd use the opportunity to do "coach" the proper position as well.
The Laws Quiz does not factor in player management or empathy. It is asking you to apply the strict letter of the law to every scenario. If a winger is offside, the question may be for what options the non-offending team has. There is no mention that it was the blindside winger which had no effect on subsequent play...
I agree the question is badly worded. It even quotes "when they meet" in the answer, despite "prior to the engagement" in the question.
Under the current engagement procedure, you obviously expect to adjust such points before allowing engagement. If a player persistently crouches wrongly, you could give a FK for delay, and eventually a penalty for deliberate infringement.
[QUOTE=OB..;22409Under the current engagement procedure, you obviously expect to adjust such points before allowing engagement. If a player persistently crouches wrongly, you could give a FK for delay, and eventually a penalty for deliberate infringement.[/QUOTE]
I think this is due to the question being written from reading the Law book and not from understanding the game.
Both the scrum and Line-out Laws list a number of pre-requisites for setting up the relevant restarts. Both list a "free kick" as the penalty should various conditions not be complied with.
But many of those conditions are a nonsense by themselves - they are transient stages in setting up the set-piece.
I was told on the RFU forum that this came from an earlier rewrite of the Laws - the old version being a list of "how to form a scrum" followed by the statement "penalty for failing to comply: Free Kick" (or something like that).
When the Laws were re-written, the attempt to introduce clarity by listing the penalty at every stage has left some anomalies.
One is apparently indicated by this question.
I happen to know the person who did the original questions. One reason he did them was to provide an avenue for people to learn rugby laws, the other reason was for _him_ to learn more about the laws. He was not previously a player, saw the game on Fox Championship Rugby here in the US, fell in love with the game, and decided to become a part of it by refereeing. That was almost 4 years ago.
The questions _are_ taken pretty much straight from the Law book and many have generated debate (and as you would expect a number of corrections from first his Society of Texas Rugby Referees peers, then from the community at large). He is no longer involved with LearnRugbyLaws.
IMHO he contributed a great service to the game and to refs and got a whole lot of questions out there. Kudos to him!! And kudos to the person who picked up LearnRugbyLaws.com, too.
Ther is a clue in the name of the website chaps. It is to help you learn the laws. How you apply them is up to you.
CHALLENGE: Take ten questions in a row and see how many you score, read the questions very carefully as in any exam.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.