Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102

Thread: Front row player forced up

      
  1. #31
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,116
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    296

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Balones, great analysis but what is the offense and is it worthy of a PK.

    And, lastly, is this how we want scrums to end? Just a vehicle for a PK?

  2. #32

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    579
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    146

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    Balones, great analysis but what is the offense and is it worthy of a PK.

    And, lastly, is this how we want scrums to end? Just a vehicle for a PK?
    The offence is strictly speaking 'release of bind', 20.3a for front rows and 20.3f for the rest. It is just an unfortunate situation that as a shorthand referees have got into the habit of saying 'standing up' or they give the correct signal which gets interpreted by spectators as standing up when in fact the signal refers to 'breaking up' - release of bind. In the games I observe I do tend to correct referees or take them to task about their wording in the report or the after match debrief, and stress that 'standing up' in the scrum is not a specific offence. In fact to disallow standing up is quite dangerous because it would put a player under a lot of pressure to not stand up for his own (If that makes sense.) The forces involved in the front row are immense and to prevent that safety valve would be negligent. I always advise referees to find some other way of/reason for penalising than 'standing up'.
    Overall if a dominant scrum causes the opposition to 'break up' (release bind) then they deserve to be rewarded. (As long as they do it legally.) If sides didn't want to break up then they should be prepared to be driven back but hold their bind and position. Unfortunately scrums don't tend to take this option because someone somewhere in the scrum will try to negate the drive by illegal means. I.E. not giving a shoulder to push against. Etc.
    Last edited by Balones; 02-07-17 at 22:07.

  3. #33
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by winchesterref View Post
    Standing, but close up and heads interlocked. In the position that we put them in for a scrum.

    Why do we bother with crouch? Why not just stand together then lads, off we go?
    You mean like we used to? When scrums were less of a problem.

  4. #34

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    In either case he is liable to penalty because it negates the drive.
    Excellent analysis by Balones - but what law reference is " it negates the drive"

    didds

  5. #35

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    The offence is strictly speaking 'release of bind', 20.3a for front rows and 20.3f for the rest. .
    The definitions part of 20.3 before which does require "whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body "

    I don't see a standing FR player losing hand to shoulder contact with their team mate typically.


    Meanwhile

    (c) Binding by loose head props. A loose head prop must bind on the opposing tight head prop by placing the le20.3ft arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight head prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loose head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop. The loose head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
    [and similar for TH].

    Again, I don't really see standing props losing this bind element on their oppo ie on a shirt, on the back or side. No mention I can find (somebody find it for me?) requiring hand to shoulder contact etc?

    So frankly 20.3 is being shoehorned into practise as a way to penalise standing up. That's not to say sides should be permitted to stand. But its all a bit... "convenient".

    didds

  6. #36

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,455
    Thanks (Received)
    107
    Likes (Received)
    962
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    I have spoken to several Premiership referees on this subject.
    What does the hinged arm signal mean in the laws of the game. I ask because I have to interpret their signals for our big screens and have no button for it (because all our buttons are referenced to LOTG).

    The answer always comes back that the FR in question have lost the FR battle and are standing up to negate the shove (because they have no other option except drop the scrum). Note that the team driving forward must be square and flat.

    All the referees said the offence in law is releasing the bind, but the signal shows how they did this and is understood by everyone. The secondary signal is not technically correct, but we all know what they mean.

    The team with the shove on usually end in a driving up position, but this is only because if the opposition stand up, then the driving FR will naturally have to go up with them.

    We are not going to reward negative play.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  7. #37

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,001
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    I don;t think anyone is suggesting negative play is penalised.

    what we are seeing is one law being shoe horned to make that call.

    didds

  8. #38
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    977
    Thanks (Received)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    The offence is strictly speaking 'release of bind', 20.3a for front rows and 20.3f for the rest. It is just an unfortunate situation that as a shorthand referees have got into the habit of saying 'standing up' or they give the correct signal which gets interpreted by spectators as standing up when in fact the signal refers to 'breaking up' - release of bind. In the games I observe I do tend to correct referees or take them to task about their wording in the report or the after match debrief, and stress that 'standing up' in the scrum is not a specific offence. In fact to disallow standing up is quite dangerous because it would put a player under a lot of pressure to not stand up for his own (If that makes sense.) The forces involved in the front row are immense and to prevent that safety valve would be negligent. I always advise referees to find some other way of/reason for penalising than 'standing up'.
    Overall if a dominant scrum causes the opposition to 'break up' (release bind) then they deserve to be rewarded. (As long as they do it legally.) If sides didn't want to break up then they should be prepared to be driven back but hold their bind and position. Unfortunately scrums don't tend to take this option because someone somewhere in the scrum will try to negate the drive by illegal means. I.E. not giving a shoulder to push against. Etc.
    Where did this phrase "standing up" creep in?

    My experience was that, under the shove, for the #2 there can realistically be no such thing as standing up or even a safety valve as such.

    I can recall being forced upwards but never managing to pop out and this was all from a day when things were simpler. I have the constant reminders.

  9. #39
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Standing up is a standard "safety valve" used in the front row.

  10. #40

    Referees in England
    Balones's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Leics
    Grade
    NP Performance Reviewer
    Join Date
    24 Oct 06
    Posts
    579
    Thanks (Received)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    146

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckieB View Post
    Where did this phrase "standing up" creep in?

    My experience was that, under the shove, for the #2 there can realistically be no such thing as standing up or even a safety valve as such.

    I can recall being forced upwards but never managing to pop out and this was all from a day when things were simpler. I have the constant reminders.
    Can't really remember when the 'standing up' reason started to be given but its use certainly accelerated when referees came under pressure to stop resetting so many scrums. (10 years?)

    Front rows tend to 'pop' because they have eight players shoving towards them and five players shoving from behind. The hooker is particularly vulnerable because he has less scope for evasive action. Hence the 'safety valve'.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •