[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Thu, 06 March 08 16:38 GMT
|
double posted due to useless website! So irritating!
This message edited on Thu, 06 March 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Thu, 06 March 08 16:38 GMT
|
Wyndy, it seems to me you are confusing two things. We are agreed that by unbinding the No.8 has terminated the scrum. We are not told how long the ball had been at his feet before he did that -so we are not in a position to determine whether or not the U.19 variation has been violated.
Once the ball is out, then by rebinding the No.8 can be said to have either got involved in T&T (as you suggest) or taken the ball back into the scrum (which is less accurate, because the scrum is over). None of this goes to the question of whether the ball was at the No. 8's feet for too long.
The question of materiality was raised, and was rejected by most participants. However, if a ref did choose to bring materiality into play, he should then (as you spotted) award the free kick against the No.8 for retaining the ball at the base. But as the original offence is clearly material, this would be the incorrect call.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
wyndy ox
|
Thu, 06 March 08 11:11 GMT
|
Surely you are all missing the point, that at U19 the ball must be released from the scrum and cannot be held.
This is not a matter of materiality. When the ball gets to no 8's feet, it has to go. If he unbinds and then rebinds, it is a penalty for truck and trailer, end of story. (There may be a PS, that you would give a free kick for holding the ball in the scrum).
Otherwise why would there be the variation? It is a safety situation, to minimise the time the ball is in the scrum and so minimise exposure to risk.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 06 March 08 09:15 GMT
|
I appreciate that the original post did not mention oppo backlines, back rows and Sh's movbing up etc, and maybe it doesn;t happen every time... BUT... if you start claiming that an 8 unbinding then rebinding is immaterial, then this presumes nobody has ever done the above. I would find it very difficult to believe that in general a back row and a SH are unlikely to be drawn into a defensive action in the time an 8 unbinds then rebinds. Unless they are REALLY bad of course!
didds
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 06 March 08 09:12 GMT
|
sorry - I did mean WB!!
sorry OB!
(and possibly also sorry WB! ;-)
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 06 March 08 00:27 GMT
|
D_J - "I've seen 8 men unbind briefly ..."
For a moment I took that literally!
|
|
|
D_J
|
Tue, 04 March 08 18:30 GMT
|
None of that about the defensive line coming up or the oppo SH jumping ahead of the ball, was in the description of the situation.
I've seen 8 men unbind briefly without any of those things happening.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 04 March 08 14:38 GMT
|
OB - Didds is obviously thinking Whistleblower = Old Buqqer = OB.
I get it all the time!
This message edited on Tue, 04 March 08 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Tue, 04 March 08 13:26 GMT
|
didds - "to add to OB's S/H confusion"
Who? Me?!
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 04 March 08 13:17 GMT
|
to add to OB's S/H confusion... not to forget the oppo back row that have now unbound, the oppo centres and 10 that have come up in front of the back foot to start their defensive push...
Totally material - how do you sort that lot out unless you penalise?
cheers
didds
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 03 March 08 19:32 GMT
|
Materiality - can you imagine performing that routine without confusing the scrum half, or perhaps drawing him into an offence?
If so, the team urgently needs to replace its scrum half!
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
D_J
|
Mon, 03 March 08 17:36 GMT
|
Does Materiality come into effect here?
|
|
|
wyndy ox
|
Sun, 02 March 08 20:40 GMT
|
Strictly speaking, he hasn't returned the ball to the scrum. As soon as he unbinds, the scrum is over and he has to pick up the ball and move away. By rebinding he then forms a truck and trailer in a new phase of play.
Either way, penalty is correct decision
This message edited on Sun, 02 March 08 by wyndy ox
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Sun, 02 March 08 18:25 GMT
|
Yes. He's effectively returned the ball to the scrum.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
pg
|
Sun, 02 March 08 15:08 GMT
|
I penalised an U19 No.8 (who had the ball at his feet) for unbinding, changing his mind and rebinding in a set scrum today. Was this the correct decision?
|
|
|
|
|
|
