PDA

View Full Version : Munster V Clermont Auverne



Account Deleted
18-11-07, 16:11
Munster no 8 hold ball between his feet atthe scrum and "hopps" forward. taking both feet of the ground.

Was Law 20.9(b) being broken? Anybody think so?

David J.
18-11-07, 17:11
Probably. But what's the relevance?

Account Deleted
18-11-07, 18:11
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I'm just asking a question!

What is the relevence of Law 20.9(b)?

OB..
18-11-07, 20:11
This is the first time I have ever seen this bit of law raised. I can track it back to the 1949 Laws, but the next earlier one I have is 1908, and it is not in there.

The 1905 All Blacks had a technique for wheeling the scrum which involved the second row (there was only one in their 2-3-2 formation) dipping so as to pick up the ball between his knees. I suppose the law might have been introduced to stop that. I shall have to look it up next time I am in Twickenham.

Account Deleted
19-11-07, 09:11
Would it be a safety thing due to the 8 having both feet off the ground and thus being supported by the second rows being likely to cause a collapse of the scrum?

Account Deleted
20-11-07, 08:11
To put David J's querstion another way:-

"Probably. But what's the reason for the NO 8 doing it?

The answer to why he broke the Law (if he did) may tell you what the relevence was!

Speedbird
20-11-07, 20:11
there is an interesting article on the SA Referees website - with video footage!! - and they seem to OK it...

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/story_191107160755.php

20.9 (b) says you may not use your legs in a scrum - but feet seem to be ok.

Account Deleted
21-11-07, 08:11
I guess it depends on why the law is in place. If it is a safety thing then either legs or feet seem equally problematic. If it is not safety, why is the law there?

Dixie
21-11-07, 10:11
20.9 (b) says you may not use your legs in a scrum - but feet seem to be ok.
Seems more pragmatic than accurate. I doubt this could be done without ankles involved, and I doubt that it would be practicable to do it with the leg higher than the ankle. Either the law is a complete waste of space (which OB's comment suggests) or it includes feet. In either case, it's a good candidate for repeal and immediate oblivion.