[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
zackly
|
Fri, 19 September 08 13:18 GMT
|
Whistleblower et al. My head is spinning - perhaps from too much . . . . . port ? !
This message edited on Fri, 19 September 08 by zackly
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 09 September 08 21:51 GMT
|
Zackly, I think you are misrteading it. An RFU presentation of 9 July inckluded this wording on the subject:
"Non-ball-winning scrum half must not move away from scrum and then remain in front of offside line i.e. hindmost feet".
If, as the iRB now asserts, the moving away is itself a FK, then the fact that the player is ahead of the limited-length offside line is secondary, and of no relevance. The simple fact was, as Simon mentioned, they allowed the Youth OPportunities Scheme trainee to make a decision while the grandees were busy passing the port to the left. But that decision was not one of devising the law, which was perfectly well written; it was an interpretation, which decided that the words "must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line. For that scrum half, that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum." meant: "must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and MOVE AWAY FROM THE SCRUM AND overstep the offside line. For that scrum half, that DOES NOT run through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum AS IT CLEARLY SAYS, BUT RATHER IS THE SAME AS THE ONE GOVERNING THE THREE-QUARTERS - I.E. 5M BACK FROM THE HINDMOST FOOT, AS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO, LIKE ME, GOT TO THE CASE OF PORT FIRST - RESPEC' (HIC)."
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
zackly
|
Tue, 09 September 08 17:24 GMT
|
Curiously the OLD Law 20.12(e) regarding the Scrum Half used the phrase " . . must not move away from the scrum AND THEN remain in front of the offside line. . . . " and for years we seemed to accept that as meaning "near the scrum". Now, however, the ELV 12 Example (b) is more explicit " . . . . The non-ball-winning scrum half may also move to the offside line at the hindmost foot of the scrum but must not move away from the scrum and must not overstep that offside line." By presenting a contrast, this wording makes the NEW Law 20.12(e) (no more than a sexed-up rewording of the OLD) seemingly contradictory - easily interpreted as meaning that the non-ball-winning SH MAY move away from the scrum as long he does not remain in front of the offside line.
The wording of ELV 12 Example b probably makes better Law - without the need for an iRB Ruling !
PS The French & Spanish versions of ELV doc. say the same - ". . . et puis . . ." and ". . . . y luego . . ."
|
|
|
simonthomas
|
Tue, 09 September 08 09:55 GMT
|
Zackly - I don't believe the Youth Opportunity Trainees who appear to write the Law &d ELVs are included in the grandees lunches in Dublin.
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 08 September 08 13:29 GMT
|
Clearly an admin. shambles - or just a good lunch beforehand ? Re-education all round methinks.
I wonder what the Spanish & French language versions say ? . . . . . and so on . . .!!
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 08 September 08 13:05 GMT
|
Zackly, it is indeed unfortunate that the iRB have opted for an "interpretation" of the SH offside ELV that is in direct contradiction of the written word. In recompense, they have gone some way to clarifying what they want with this ELV ruling:
"ELV Ruling 2, 2008
August 7, 2008
The FIR has requested a Ruling from the Designated Members with regard to
ELV Law 20.12 (d) and (e).
ELV Law 20.12 – OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM
(d) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line for that scrum half that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
(e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum and then remain in front of the offside line for that scrum half that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
The above considered we submit the following queries:
(1) Is the scrum half whose team has won possession of the ball allowed to move away from the scrum, from the throw-in side without crossing the offside line that runs through the ball or from the opposite side without crossing the offside that runs from the hindmost foot of his team’s hindmost player in the scrum so he can receive a pass from his team’s number 8 playing the scrum,
provided the same number 8 does so with no delay whilst the scrum half moves away from the scrum?
(2) Must the scrum half whose team has been awarded the scrum remain at a distance no greater than 1 metre from the scrum on both sides, namely the throw-in side and the opposite, until his team’s number 8 plays the ball from his feet in the scrum?
Ruling:
The Designated Members have ruled:
(1) The scrum half of the team who has won possession of the ball is allowed to move away from the scrum without crossing the offside line that runs through to the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the scrum so that the scrum half can receive a pass from the no. 8
(2) The scrum half of the team who wins possession does not have to stay at a distance of no greater than 1 metre from the scrum as indicated in (1) above, but the scrum half of the team that does not gain possession must stay close to the scrum."
The knowledgeable Community ref will note that the Designated Members seem to be under the misapprehension that the offside line for the ball-winning SH is the back foot, rather than the ball. They may then deduce that perhaps the Designated Members are not the right people to be arbitrating these sorts of matters. You might think that - I couldn't possibly comment!;-)
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
simonthomas
|
Mon, 08 September 08 11:28 GMT
|
"must not move away from the scrum" is a good hint, altohugh it would be nice to see the 1 metre definition used for both scrum halves, both just as a negative in the Law Ruling
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 08 September 08 11:09 GMT
|
Beware tho' the SH who "knows his Law". The relevant ELV for Law 20.12 as written says
" (e) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move away from the scrum AND THEN remain in front of the offside line. For that scrum half that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick "
No mention of a "within 1M of the Scrum" restriction. I wonder how others interpret that Law's particular phrasing around the globe ?
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Sun, 07 September 08 18:56 GMT
|
>Provided the defending SH stays within 1m of the scrum, can he move right around the scrum (to the non putting in side) provided he remains behind the ball OR can he only move as far as his own No8 (back foot)? Leave aside the fact that he can retire to the 5m, offside line.
If he goes round, he can come no further forward than the back foot of his No 8.
This is clarified in the RFU ELV FAQs on this website (go to the home page and follow the ELV links.)
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
sportsref
|
Sun, 07 September 08 17:00 GMT
|
I have just registered so apologies if this has already been discussed.
My only real concern with the ELV's relates to the scum and specifically the defending SH. I have the offical published material, I have read various message boards and I have discussed with other referees.
Provided the defending SH stays within 1m of the scrum, can he move right around the scrum (to the non putting in side) provided he remains behind the ball OR can he only move as far as his own No8 (back foot)? Leave aside the fact that he can retire to the 5m, offside line.
If there is a definitive, black and white, ruling on this I would appreciate it if someone could tell me where I can find it.
Many Thanks
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
