The IRB should cut Paddy O'Brien

Did I ever say that binding was the be all and end all? No I didn't...... -- "Binding is the absolute foundation of the scrum. It is A core component of scrummaging that if not executed properly, or is mismanaged by the referee, can lead to serious, even life-threatening injuries." -- There are many other components that come into scrummaging that are important, you have mentioned some of them, body position, a correct crouch, head and shoulder above hips, and good engage etc, but binding is the key. Without it, even a good scrummage will likely fall down, while with correct and legal binding, a poor scrummage can be kept from collapsing. Even Brian Moore agrees with me; I know because I have asked him!! Also, my point about enforcing binding is that it is the easiest thing to spot. Body position is not all that easy to see with the different (but not too different) body shapes of props. Often its down to referee's judgment, However, binding happens right in front of your eyes, either the player has his bind in the right place or not. Its unequivocal because the law specifies exactly where a prop CAN bind (side and back) and where he CANNOT bind (chest, arm, sleeve or collar). Almost all the most common scrum infringements after the engage.stem from allowing incorrect binding... boring, twisting, lifting (driving up), dropping (collapsing), wheeling. Most of these are either impossible or made very difficult when the props are bound correct with a full arm.

To answer your first question, the change was not a specific ELV on front row binding, but rather part of a general ELV on reducing more technical infringements from PK to FK. Another example is 10.1(e). When this general reduction of PKs to FKs ELV got knocked on the head, they all reverted back. It was all or nothing. My point still stands - had the lawmakers thought of this not as a technical infringement but rather the cornerstone of the scrum as you make out, they never would have changed it in the first place! I'm sorry you found my supposed 'crack' insulting. Still, have a read of your posts again. You seemed to be saying that it's all oh-so-simple: referees everywhere should take a leaf from the Ian Cook playbook and all you need to do to get a 'running game' of football is to 'ping' people left right and centre for the first period of any match, as you did. Frankly, I found that (mildly) insulting. A little modesty might not have gone astray (even if this is an opinion website!), and nor would some realisation that refereeing is not always that simple (if it was it wouldn't be so rewarding). I was not criticising your "style" as such but rather your insistence that it is the golden key to refereeing - when there are many different types of games and at least as many different approaches to refereeing. Personally I think a happy medium can be found where the referee is tough to set standards at the start of a match, but still applies the principle of material effect.

Yikes If the lawmakers really disagreed (with me) over the importance of the bind, why did they decide not to proceed with that particular ELV? I am fully aware of the importance of body position and head & shoulders above hips. That is one of the reasons I coach the ground touch; ( and advocate its allowance by referees) so that props know when the are at the right height, in the right position, and get to feel what it feels like. I find your crack about my "memory of my own abilities" insulting. If you cannot get your point across in a debate without resorting to the use or personal (and professional ) insults then its a poor show on your part.. I was a good enough referee to have a number of seasons at Senior and Senior Reserve level in two major unions in NZ. I had some representative honors as well, but didn't progress because of an accident from which I never recovered full fitness While I see that your knowledge of scrummaging seems pretty reasonable, I doubt that you have ever played in the front row to any reasonable level. Also, your un-called for criticism of my "style" makes me suspect that you have probably never been a referee either.

Now I know why Rugby was invented. A game to give Counsel something to get their teeth into whenever business is a bit slow. I can just imagine the complexity of the discussion within the halls of the IRB. No wonder nothing will ever change. And, yes I take back everything negative I said about you Stu - and Jonathan for that matter. I will let my case rest and start watching a game that is easy to understand.

Ian, The issue of materiality is a big one - do not worry about the splinter in your hand when someone has taken your leg off with a chainsaw. Your fixating on the rather minor issue of the THP bind is causing you to miss the bigger picture of issues with body position, angle and keeping head and shoulders above hips. The point about the frontrow bind being a FK under ELVs is not to find out which ELVs you supported (!) but rather to point out that the lawmakers you praise actually disagree with you as to its relative importance. On the issue of the first bind - my point is not that the THP cannot physically bind first, but that that the onus is on the LHP first given the relative positions under Law. Especially for the non-feeding side, the LHP can be the bane of the referee's existence. There is a specific reason that the Law was changed to prevent the LHP from having his hand on his leg and instead require him to bind. As to whether or not it is legal to have the arm on the ground - I did post Law references to justify my position. There is nothing specifically on the issue - but neither does it say anywhere in the Law that you can't take an AK47 onto the field and machine-gun your opponents. It's just generally assumed to be covered by 10.4(L). I take issue with you as to whether the Law intends to mandate proper binding only from the moment that the ball enters the scrum. The Laws says this is when "PLAY in the scrum begins…". Is this the 'start' of the scrum itself, though? What other scrum Laws don't apply because the scrum hasn't started yet? We will have to agree to disagree - as we will on the issue of whether the hand on the ground keeps your head and shoulders above hips! Finally, while I don't deny the basic underlying principle behind "firmer, sooner" in your comments to westy, and agree it is vital, the notion that materiality itself is not relevant in the 'first part' of the game, which you say might last up to 20 minutes depending on the players, is a little absurd. What you call "setting your stall out early" might just as easily be called "painting yourself into a corner" depending on the situation. If only all games were as easy to referee as your memory of your own abilities makes out.

westy "i find a tendency for referee’s (perhaps for understandable human reasons) to display too much tolerance early on in a test allowing multiple resets when it would seem to me someone is infringing and a penalty is warranted." I want to address this comment of yours because it is a good one and is very relevant, and it goes to Yikes' comment about materiality. As a referee, I believe that for the first part of any game, materiality is not relevant. I never warned during this period, only penalised. Players ahead of a kick - no telling them to wait, just ping, players offside in the backs or ahead of the hindmost foot and around the fringes of the ruck and maul - ping, hands on the ball in a ruck - ping. Props not binding correctly - ping etc. If a player wilfully plays the ball on the ground in front of his own posts, even in the first minute of the game,.. penalty kick and sin-bin. This period can last for as little as a couple of minutes and for as long as twenty depending on the game and the attitude of the players. If it gets much beyond that, you may need to start dishing out cards until they get it. This is called "setting your stall out early" The players understand right from the get-go that you are not going to tolerate cheats, and they know what to expect if they try. However, if you are a keen weekend referee, be aware of what might happen if the keep players onside and you keep the scrums a fair contest, and you don't allow players to cheat. Beware because you will need to be very, very fit. Unless both sides have outstanding defences, You will have a running game on your hands.

Agree with Cattledog here. I'm all for referee accountability. But I am also against referee managers or assessors discussing the details of an assessment in public. That's not their job. If the media or armchair critics want to publicly discuss the details of a referee's (or a player's) performance then that's their right. But that's not the job of an assessor or referee manager. In fact it is an abuse of their position. We don't expect coaches and player management to "go public" to the media with their assessments of their players' games. If there's a problem we expect the coaches and team management to sort it out internally rather than taking their dirty linen to the press. Exactly the same goes for referee assessors and managers in relation to referees' performances as for coaches and team management in relation to players. Feedback and criticism and if necessary being dropped? Yes. Airing the details of their assessments in public? No.

Yikes I am fully aware of the meaning of materiality. I am also fully aware that referees all over the world do take pre-emptive steps to prevent offenses from occurring. A well known referee called Clive Norling once stated that there were "over 20 penalty offenses in the line-out, all of which were preceded by closing the gap, which only merited a free kick, so he refereed accordingly". Incorrect binding has a huge material effect if it is allowed to continue (as we saw in this match). Honestly, I cannot see how you can possibly believe that at the first scrum (from which the still was taken) it was the Black LHP who was driving up when he is clearly a passenger. The Italian THP is lifting his opponent's upper arm (on which he is illegally bound) and driving in towards the black hooker. This is blindingly obvious to anyone with just a moderate knowledge of scrummaging. Also, I take issue with your statement about "inside" and "outside". Yes the LHP has his arm inside and the THP outside, but it does NOT mean that the LHP has to bind first. That is just pure bunkum. Having played both sides of the scrum, I can testify to that personally. The arms come forward at the engagement and cross each other, they aren't wrapped from the outside. You are inferring that the THP cannot bind properly if the LHP doesn't bind first. That is just utter rubbish. You may be correct at very low levels of the game, i.e. juniors, where scrummaging is being learned, but not at the elite level. And yes, I am aware that the ELV's made scrum binding a FK, and it also made it LEGAL to collapse mauls, and that IS dangerous. Wiser heads prevailed, and both have gone back to a penalty kick. I was a supporter of the ELVs generally, but not those two. Also, I AM going to tell you that it IS legal for a prop's hand to touch the ground. If you believe otherwise, please quote the Law that says he cannot. 20.3 (a) Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the START to the FINISH of the scrum. 20.7 (a) Play in the scrum BEGINS when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum half. Yes, the props have to bind continuously from the from the BEGINNING to the END of the scrum as defined above. Once the bind has been set, the props cannot let go, although they are allowed to adjust their bind i.a.w. Law 20.3(e). There is no law that specifically states a prop cannot put his hand on the ground prior to binding. In fact, the use of a hand on the ground just prior to binding is a good technique for stopping the scrum from dropping immediately. Its something the All Blacks have used a lot in the past when playing Australia, to try and stop them dropping the scrum on the engage, à la Al Baxter. I see scrum coaches teaching the ground touch a lot, and I teach it myself. At the engage, a prop, esp. the LHP will momentarily put his hand down, then up into a correct bind. Not only does this help to steady a scrum that might be going down, it also helps to make sure that the scrum is not set too low. A full length arm on the ground measures that the scrum is set i.a.w. Law 20.1 (g) "....when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips." I also see props drop the bind, steady, and rebind, as they are allowed in Law 20.3 (e). Provided this is done immediately, and before the scrum-half puts the ball in, there is no problem. It is normally the LHP that does this because it's his team's feed, and he knows when the ball is going to be put in.

Who would be a rugby ref? I was a brilliant rugby player[its true I swear] and a completely incompetent ref . Knowing this I would never criticize any ref under any circumstance unless they get something wrong .

Yikes i do not lack the confidence to say that ian and your knowledge of the scrummaging laws puts me in the shade. What i will comment on is as aspectator or viewer. I have stayed up to watch each of the wallabies tests. i find a tendency for referee's (perhaps for understandable human reasons) to display too much tolerance early on in a test allowing multiple resets when it would seem to me someone is infringing and a penalty is warranted. I am afraid you either impose your requirements early or fail as a referee. The yellow card is there not only for purported or real shoulder charges or interfering with a player in the air but for repeated scrum infringements. Any referee who allows srcrums collapses resets and ensung penalties to exceed 25 minutes of game time in a test basicaly damages the game as a spectacle. My charge against current test referees is they lack the confidence to issue a yellow card for repeated scrum infringements with the same confidence they display for high tackles /shoulder charges/ and interfering with a player in the air. I only hope this hesitancy is not due to a lack of knowledge as to what is going on.

Oh, and before we move on, please do not try and tell me that it is legal for the LHP's arm to hit the ground. The Law says the LHP "must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum" and it tells the LHP where to bind. This is even more important for the LHP given he gets the first bind. Furthermore the body angle of a prop whose arm is on the ground would certainly not be scrummaging square and straight from the start of the scrum. It might be allowed as a momentary stability factor at the community level of the game to facilitate a game, but this is an International we're talking about.

Sorry Ian. I disagree with your 'analysis' of what went on at scrum time. I agree the Italian bind was often illegal. However, while you may be up with some parts of Law 20, you're not up with the concept of material effect. The image you posted in the midst of your one-eyed 'analysis' shows the NZ LHP clearly at an angle driving in on the Italian! This is of far greater import at scrum time. I am not downplaying the importance of binding, but you have to keep things in perspective. It might come as a surprise to you that front row binding WAS a FK for the whole of the last 2 S14 and 3N series during the ELV trial, PRECISELY because it was deemed a minor issue by comparison to 'dangerous play'. Which pretty much blows your entire point out of the water. I note your own analysis is miraculously free of references to the NZ LHP's arm hitting the ground and failing to get the first bind, which happens on a couple of occasions including the very FIRST SCRUM! Perhaps you are unaware of the consequences of Law 20.3 (c) and (d) which indicate that the LHP binds inside and the THP outside which means the LHP must bind first. Not to mention that on a couple of occasions you cannot see where the NZ LHP is binding because he's pulling the jersey down so low it is out of camera view. Were the Italians illegal? At times, yes. Was the NZ scrum weak and also illegal under pressure? At times, yes. Is Mike Cron going to whisper sweet nothings in Paddy's ear about how his front row got demolished? No. I might add, on your point about Stephen Hildich’s assessment - have you seen a copy? If you know as much as you say you do, you might know these assessments take time to write and provide. I'd be surprised if either Dickinson or O'Brien had seen any report on the game by the time O'Brien opened his big mouth. If it was a spoken opinion, what evidence do you have for this other than assumption?

When I had the whistle matey, their arms stretched somewhat. They learned fairly quickly when their side was 0-9 down and they had given away all nine points!

Exactly, he bound immediately on the upper arm (illegal) at every scrum. Any 3rd rate prop is capable of putting his arm onto the opponents side. I'm 53 years old (Golden Oldie) and I can STILL get my arm up and over onto my opponent's back!!! If I can do it, a young, fit player like Al Baxter ought to be able to.

Baxter did bind immediately, he did so on the arm of Woodcock.

Good analysis, Ian. Agree that if all props were to take a long grip, there would be a 100% improvement on scrums. Have you noticed, though, that most props these days have an arm the length of most peoples forearm!! Or that's what they would tell you!

Your not expected to immediately bind with the opposition front rower. Baxter wasn't given the chance to bind by Joubert because NZ folded so it went down and they got the penalty. That doesn't seem right.

Ian, whilst I agree in principle to your thoughts, I am totally against any referee manager debating a referees performance in the public arena. It surprises me you believe this to be acceptable. It goes against all tenants of management, leadership and loyalty. This has been recognised and appropriate apologies to the appropriate bodies and individuals has occurred. I don't disagree with referees being accountable, as we all need to be in whatever profession we undertake. However, I wouldn't expect my boss to outline to me any shortcomings through a general email to all. Nor would he do such a thing! There are accepted procedures for this. Appropriate action can be taken in these instances without voicing it publicly. It was wrong, it's now been dealt with. We're moving on.

Yes I am a strong believer that Joubert got it right in the first Bledisloe Cup match. He was pinging Al Baxter for incorrect binding (I'll explain the importance of correct binding in a moment.). That was confirmed in the second BC when Kaplan pinged him for exactly the same thing, and further confirmed when Robbie Deans pulled Baxter after 30 minutes. Even further confirmation, as if any was needed by now, was the fact that Deans didn't select him at all for the last two BC games, because he knew Baxter was a liability. And Baxter has since admitted that he has a lot to work on and must change his technique. (At last!!!) Some people regard incorrect binding as a minor offence, but its not. Binding is the absolute foundation of the scrum. It is a core component of scrummaging that if not executed properly, or is mismanaged by the referee, can lead to serious, even life-threatening injuries.Thats why Law 20.3 is very specific about where binding takes place; it spells out EXACTLY where the props must bind. It is also the reason why incorrect binding is a Penalty Kick offence, not the Free Kick offence it would be if it was considered by the Lawmakers to be "minor". Illegal binding is the easiest thing to spot when its on your own side of the scrum. Its right in front of your eyes. If you want to do one thing as a Saturday afternoon referee to minimise your chances of having a "bad scrum day" INSIST on a long, straight bind by ALL props on the back or the side of their opponent. Its the easiest pre-emptive step a referee can take in managing the scrum. Do not allow binding on the upper arm, because this allows that prop the extra leverage he needs to pull or twist his opponent in any direction he likes. Get in and show them where you want them to bind to if necessary, and if you don't get co-operation, ping them until they do. If all four props are made to bind in accordance with Law 20.3, esp. (b) and (c), the scrum will stay up, and it is very difficult for any of them to bore-in, twist or drop it.

All through this thread is an implication, mostly from Australian posters that it was O'Brien who decided that Dickinson's performance was poor, that he got things wrong in those last 10 minutes, and that because he is a Kiwi he somehow favours the NZ team. I am pointing out that it was not O'Brien's assessment, it was Hildich's. People forget how, when Wayne Barnes copped a huge backlash from Kiwi fans, it was O'Brien who stuck up for Barnes and effectively told Kiwi fans to get over it; hardly the words of a biased man. people should also recall that OBrien gave NZ referee Paul Honiss a bollocking in 2007. No favoritism there either. Now whether or not O'Brien should have publicly rebuked Dickinson is not for me to decide, but I am in favour of it. IMO, ALL elite refs should have to face the media at the post-match media conference the same way that coaches and captains do, and give an accounting for the decisions they have made. They are paid professionals, and are major part of rugby at the elite level, so it goes with the territory, As for Dickinsons' performance, it was one of the worst examples of scrum management I have seen. If you want to see a detailed and accurate assessment of the last 10 minutes, look here... http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98556&postcount=6 I have been a referee and a coach, and have been involved in both for over 30 years. I have also played all three positions in the front row. As a referee, I was a Senior and Senior-Reserve Club Rugby referee in Canterbury and Auckland (one level below Provincial/Rep rugby), as I said earlier, I think elite refs ought to be accountable. I never had any problems answering questions and justifying my decision in the bar after a game, and I was never afraid to front up. When my assessor gave me a serve, I would cop it on the chin, as Dickinson should have.