Penalty Should Be Awarded For Not Binding Scrum

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 15, Issue 65, 5 July 1950, Page 5

Penalty Should Be Awarded For Not Binding Scrum

When a rugby scrum collapses the hooker did not bind himself with the other front row players, a penalty should be awarded.

This is the opinion of the New .Zealand Rugby Union. A special sub-committee reported to the council of the union their interpretation of the term “binding’' as requested in a letter from the Otago union. The committee’s report was adopted. It read, in part: “The New Zealand Rugby Union requests that front row players should, in the spirit of the law, bind together. Binding is defined this: The player in the middle of the front row should bind with both arms over and round the players on either side of him and continue to do so while the ball is in the scrum-

mage. The players on the outside of r the front row should bind the player in the middle.” Law 15 (j), section 2, states: “It js illegal for any player to handle the ball, pick it up by hands or legs, or intentionally fall or kneel while the *ball is in the scrummage •except as provided in Law 26 (b).” The report of the sub-committee said the term “collapsing” did not ■occur in the laws, but a practice had developed of the middle player in the front row not binding himself with the other front row players, and in his endeavour to hook the ball, causing the scrum to collapse. The report is to be sent to all unions and the Referees’ Association.