Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 102

Thread: Front row player forced up

      
  1. #41

    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 didds View Post
    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
    There is also the matter of 20.1g where the props must remain bound to their opposition. When 'standing up' this bind tends to be released.

  2. #42

    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

    This is just a personal observation/opinion.
    I have touched on this in a previous post.
    I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
    Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.

  3. #43

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,009
    Thanks (Received)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    768

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    There is also the matter of 20.1g where the props must remain bound to their opposition. When 'standing up' this bind tends to be released.
    really? All this is required is a grasp of the other props shirt on the back or side. I'm not convinced a prop standing up will necessarily lose this simple grasp.

    Like I say - I don't have an issue with standing up being penalised in itself. But it needs a proper law that says so, not other laws being shoe horned to acheive it, when it may not actually have been broken.

    didds

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Balones View Post
    This is just a personal observation/opinion.
    I have touched on this in a previous post.
    I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
    Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.
    and that I do agree with

    didds

  4. #44
    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
    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'.
    The hooker has pretty much no scope for evasive action and is in essence a passenger throughout.

    So to call it a safety valve unfortunately understates the risks. If you've you have ever been lifted with your neck curled to your chest, your feet off the ground and your arms trapped out back, you'll no doubt appreciate what I mean.

  5. #45
    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, this is an example of the law of unintended consequences.

    The law requires the referee to halt and reset a scrum.

    See 20.3(h) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air , or is forced upwards out of
    the scrum
    , the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

    Extra note: 2017 Advantage law was changed to allow advantage, and scrum to end, if forced up player still has feet on the ground, ie. 'standing'. WR forgot to change scrum law.

    So, to reduce resets it was decided to penalize the player standing up even though there is no prohibition against it. Now there is a reward for the team that can force an opponent up out of the scrum.

    So scrums have gone from a restart and competition for the ball to squint feeds and opportunity for manufactured PKs.

    When I read all the blather about 'rewarding the dominant scrum' we are really talking about rewarding them with PKs, not ball possession.

    Here's what I suggest you pass along to you student referees:

    The scrum is a competition for the ball, not PKs.
    If a front row player stands up he has disadvantaged his own team, not his opponent.
    If the ball can be played away from the scrum then allow the scrum to end.
    If a front row players feet come off the ground and his head is still bound then whistle immediately.

    The surest way to eliminate foul play in the scrum is to stop rewarding it.


  6. #46

    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
    The hooker has pretty much no scope for evasive action and is in essence a passenger throughout.

    So to call it a safety valve unfortunately understates the risks. If you've you have ever been lifted with your neck curled to your chest, your feet off the ground and your arms trapped out back, you'll no doubt appreciate what I mean.
    Been there. Fully appreciate the situation. One of the reasons why I don't want referees to automatically blame the hooker. I tend to go towards looking very closely at the actions of the opposition if this happens.

  7. #47

    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

    Because it is a forum and we are not discussing the scrum face to face it is difficult to get every nuance across.

    ChrisR
    I would say that we are entirely on the same page and in essence what you have written is what I do.

    The scrum is a competition for the ball, not PKs. Of course.

    If a front row player stands up he has disadvantaged his own team, not his opponent.
    Partially agree. Yes he has disadvantaged his own team but he may well have disadvantaged the opposition as well. I encourage referees to just hold off on the whistle a little and see how the situation develops. (But blow immediately if there is a safety issue.) It is what happens after he has ‘popped’ that should be penalised rather than the ‘pop’ itself. If you read my previous posts you will see that I do not condone simply identifying the hooker as being at fault. Usually his ‘pop’ is the result of something else happening.

    If the ball can be played away from the scrum then allow the scrum to end. Yes. Recent guidance supports this and I expect the referee to comply.

    If a front row players feet come off the ground and his head is still bound then whistle immediately. I would be quite harsh with a referee if he didn’t

    The surest way to eliminate foul play in the scrum is to stop rewarding it. I think this has been covered by my previous posts on wanting referees to be a bit more robust about penalising driving up.

    I would like to think that some of my posts do indicate some sensitivity and understanding of the pressures and difficulties involved. If I observe a referee just penalising ‘standing up’ for the sake of it, without clear supported reasoning behind it, I do take him/her to task.

  8. #48
    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
    This is just a personal observation/opinion.
    I have touched on this in a previous post.
    I believe that if more referees penalised the driving up (20.8i) then we would see fewer penalties overall at the scrum, especially in relation to 'popping', 'standing up' and even perhaps 'release of bind'.
    Just my observations and experience of the games I have been officiating at.
    Don't see two many ex front rowers taking up the whistle?

    Can't swap yourself out at 60 minutes of hauling oneself around the pitch one might suspect!

    Easier to go rogue and take the coaching route!

  9. #49

    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
    Don't see two many ex front rowers taking up the whistle?

    Can't swap yourself out at 60 minutes of hauling oneself around the pitch one might suspect!

    Easier to go rogue and take the coaching route!
    Not really true with my society. I would say that we are well blessed with ex-front row refs. However, and here is the controversial bit, we rarely see any advance to the top end of of the game because there are question marks over speed, mobility etc. And dare I say quite often a front row player tends to play on a little bit longer than a lot of players? Perhaps enjoy playing more? Certainly we all now some front row players that can continue to make a valuable contribution to a side despite not being able to run around like a gazelle for 80 minutes.

    Perhaps they should go a different route to the top end of the game and become ref coaches of Match Observers.

  10. #50
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    429
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    85

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I don't have an issue with standing up being penalised in itself. .

    didds
    I do Didds, massively.

    You have to consider these LAWS apply to all levels of the game.

    If your 18Yr old Novice [but still STE] Prop has great forces being applied ahead & from behind him cannot cope what should he do?, what are his safe options?

    a] drop/hinge/twist?
    b] bend double?
    c] stand up to relieve his spine bend risk?

    Assuming [as you suggest] he's penalised for his pressure release and then he repeatedly does it, then what? eventually YC/RC for repeated offending ? Team offences?

    Replacement comes on to the same plight, same outcome? - No, no, no.

    At the moment the pro's are inventing their own game [& some parts are simply made up outside of law] , so unless someone can come up with a LAW that works safely at all levels of the game then we have no practacable alternative.

    Stand up for safety sake.
    Last edited by VM75; 03-07-17 at 17:07.

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
  •