2018 Super Rugby Semi Final - Lions vs Waratahs - Saturday 28 July @11.05pm AEST

[Braveheart81]

There's an argument to be made that if a backpedalling scrum can stay straight and square for more than 5 metres then the attacking team is called to use it and no penalties can be called at that point.

It would still allow pushover tries from 5m scrums, allow teams to get an advantage from having a dominant scrum but remove the ability of teams to gain a penalty advantage from their scrums and keep playing each time.

It is a big advantage where you can effectively milk a penalty advantage whilst still having the ability to keep the ball and play under advantage. It is worth significantly more than just getting awarded a penalty.

 

[Rebels3]

Wrong sorry - I'm a prop and love a good scrum but the reality of the situation is they are a method of restarting the game. If you throw a bad line out but still win it should you be penalised??? If you can get the ball out of the scrum without collapsing but lose 10 metres why do the opposition deserve a shot at 3 points.

Bit of a silly comparison. A bad line out means the opposition didn't have a chance to contest the ball. A scrum that gets demolished, both teams started equal. Rugby is about the contest for the ball, both scrums had equal chances to contest it.

We all cry out for refs to have more feel for the game, this is exactly one of those times where it applies.

The Laws of the game don't call for penalties against a back peddling scrum. There are enough disadvantages for that team as it is - flankers unable to sprint off the side of the scrum, loss of field position, backs moving backwards and slow to move up in defence, and potential to commit an actual misdemeanour like popping or hands in the scrum.
The "vibe" of the game doesn't cut mustard.

The opposition had enough chance to not disadvantage itself but was clearly seen to be incompetent in this element of the game, hence the ref calling penalties. Or would you rather the scrum to just continue to back pedal 10-15m without the opposition collapsing?

 

[barbarian]

But penalties aren't there to stop 'incompetence', they are there to stop infringing.

You can be incompetent and still play within the laws of the game. Indeed many Aussie Super Rugby teams have made it an artform.
.

 

[Bandar]

I'm sorry why should you be penalised because the other team is better at one facet of the game???

Sorry Mr winger your opposite is that much faster than you so he deserves a penalty? Your half back can only pass 10 metres - the other one can pass 15, every third pass will be a penalty...

 

[Quick Hands]

There's an argument to be made that if a backpedalling scrum can stay straight and square for more than 5 metres then the attacking team is called to use it and no penalties can be called at that point.

It would still allow pushover tries from 5m scrums, allow teams to get an advantage from having a dominant scrum but remove the ability of teams to gain a penalty advantage from their scrums and keep playing each time.

It is a big advantage where you can effectively milk a penalty advantage whilst still having the ability to keep the ball and play under advantage. It is worth significantly more than just getting awarded a penalty.

It's the only part of the game where you're allowed to contrive a penalty.

It's the biggest blight on the game to see a team have push the other team back 2 metres, 3 metres or further with the ball at the feet of the no 8 - clean, front foot ball so the scrum has done it's job. Why should that team be allowed to keep the ball in until the referee can find a penalty. I challenge anyone to try to stay straight and/or not fall over when being pushed backwards. It's a physical impossibility.

As soon at the ball gets to No8 and the scrum is either moving forward or stationary, the ref should call "use it" after that point the only penalties available are for offside and foul play. (exception attempt at pushover from a 5 m scrum)

If a team keeps the ball in, they run the risk of getting untidy ball or even losing it. The reasoning is to reward positive play and to create a disincentive for negative play (it's why for instance half backs were stopped from throwing dummy passes in order to contrive an offside penalty)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I've only seen highlights of Lions v 'tahs but re: 'tahs getting penalised when Lions front row "popped", same thing happened in CruSadists v 'canes game: Taylor stood up but To'omaga-Allen got pinged for angling in. Maybe Jackson made the same ruling.

Totally agree with QH above & what's more it's even in the Laws that a scrum is a means of re-starting play after a non-penalisable infringement. 90% of scrum penalties are IMO bullshit but until such time as the likes of Ringinland no longer "earn" four or five or more of them per match nothing will change.

 

[barbarian]

I also think refs are too quick to award penalty tries when there is a dominant scrum close to the line.

I've spent some time at #8 of a dominant pack (nothing to do with my contributions, I can assure you) and found that executing a pushover try is bloody difficult. You have to control an oval-shaped ball with your feet while your body is in a position not suitable for performing the task. Meanwhile you have to keep aware of your surroundings, which again is difficult when your head is between the arse of two second rowers.

It's so rare that you actually see a pushover these days, given refs now run under the posts before you even get within a metre of the line.

My point is that it shouldn't just be assumed that a dominant scrum will result in a pushover try.
.

 

[Dan54]

I've only seen highlights of Lions v 'tahs but re: 'tahs getting penalised when Lions front row "popped", same thing happened in CruSadists v 'canes game: Taylor stood up but To'omaga-Allen got pinged for angling in. Maybe Jackson made the same ruling.

 

[Gnostic]

Law 19 States:-
"25. If a scrum collapses or if a player in the scrum is lifted or is forced upwards out of the scrum the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.
26. When the scrum is stationary and the ball has been available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds, the referee calls "use it." The team must then play the ball out of the scrum immediately.

Sanction : Scrum"

There is no mention of a penalty for standing up or being forced up. NB - this would be covered under Law19 S20 not pushing straight and parallel to the ground, but in my view of the opening statement of Law19 which is to paraphrase the purpose of the scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor offence or stoppage, the most appropriate action is to call "use it" as the ball in every instance had been won and the contest was completed.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I

BR - when was the last time you saw a prop penalised for boring in? It never happens any more, not sure why.

I don't want to get into the Jacko discussions, but the refereeing of the scrums in that game reminded me of a recent discussion in the refereeing thread.

Scrums are moving towards silliness now, where the dominant side will look to milk a penalty at every chance, and the refs are slightly too keen to provide them. It's not about restarting play, or setting up your backline.

Jacko blew a penalty which summed this up perfectly. The Tahs scrum was going backwards, sure, but they stayed straight and together. The Lions props popped up eventually and Jacko blew them a penalty for their dominance. But had the Tahs done anything wrong? I didn't see anything that suggested they did. Steve Hoiles picked that up too - a scrum is allowed to go backwards.

It's getting to this binary point where dominance=penalties and that's it. I don't hate that approach necessarily (it's better than the random penalty generator it used to be) but I'm not sure we have the balance right.

And I've thought that all season, not just because the Tahs got rolled in the scrum this week.
.

I mostly agree with B. The game would be a much better spectacle if the side winning the ball in the scrum was made to use it immediately. Even as a Brumbies supporter, I would prefer to see quick ball served up to the backlines rather than have the two scrums going at each other until one wilts.

On your point re boring in, I'm sure that Jackson did award a penalty to the Lions for exactly that reason. That was why I qualified my statement about Tom Robertson by saying "again".

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If someone told me after the Tahs last season we would get to the semi finals and do so by beating a kiwi team I would have taken that every day of the week.

Overall we can say progress on last season as oz sides had some wins against kiwi sides, and we had an oz side go past quarter finals. Progress.....lets see two sides next year get to the final 8 and see one of them get to the final.

Baby steps....

 

[Dan54]

Do we really want the game to move even more towards league by making teams play the ball immediately, and so making a good prop not as important as they are in game? In rugby the ball hasn't necessarily been won until it has cleared the No 8s feet, as there is nothing to stop opposition from putting in second shove. There is actually another game where they are just used to restart a game!

 

[Gnostic]

Do we really want the game to move even more towards league by making teams play the ball immediately, and so making a good prop not as important as they are in game? In rugby the ball hasn't necessarily been won until it has cleared the No 8s feet, as there is nothing to stop opposition from putting in second shove. There is actually another game where they are just used to restart a game!

The competition for the ball, which is the nature of the game of rugby is over when the ball is at the back of the scrum to be played. If the scrum has become static or unplayable as outlined in Section 25 the ball should be played. This idea of playing for a penalty is not in keeping with the "Principle" of the scrum Law as outlined in the Laws. This dopes not negate the vale of a prop, or the importance of the scrum. Indeed if we enforce the Laws as written, including enforcing a straight feed and "Striking" for the ball it will enhance the competition for the ball which is the whole point of the set piece and the point of difference with league.

 

[Quick Hands]

Do we really want the game to move even more towards league by making teams play the ball immediately, and so making a good prop not as important as they are in game? In rugby the ball hasn't necessarily been won until it has cleared the No 8s feet, as there is nothing to stop opposition from putting in second shove. There is actually another game where they are just used to restart a game!

Ok Dan, tell me how many times in professional rugby that you have seen at ball at the feet of the No 8 and the opposition pushes them off the ball.

You're nornally rairly sensible, but with the greatest respect, what you are saying is nonsense. Every time a change to the scrum laws has been proposed we hear the same sort of thing - you'll take props out of the game. Making scrums a possession winning situation, rather than being a penalty winning situation should make props more important not less.

In fact for all this waffle that I hear about the scrum being this titanic contest, how many are actually won by the team with the loose head and feed in comparison with their opposition. I'll be kind and say 95% to 5% - hardly a contest really is it?

Have you actually read the rugby scrum law? I'm sure that you have, but in case you haven't, the very first sentence (under the heading Principle) says:

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

 

[Dan54]

Ok Dan, tell me how many times in professional rugby that you have seen at ball at the feet of the No 8 and the opposition pushes them off the ball.

You're nornally rairly sensible, but with the greatest respect, what you are saying is nonsense. Every time a change to the scrum laws has been proposed we hear the same sort of thing - you'll take props out of the game. Making scrums a possession winning situation, rather than being a penalty winning situation should make props more important not less.

In fact for all this waffle that I hear about the scrum being this titanic contest, how many are actually won by the team with the loose head and feed in comparison with their opposition. I'll be kind and say 95% to 5% - hardly a contest really is it?

Have you actually read the rugby scrum law? I'm sure that you have, but in case you haven't, the very first sentence (under the heading Principle) says:

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

Ok QH, I agree it be great to take a lot of scrum penalties out, it shits me the number of them too, I just worry when we get suggestions of even more law changes that take contest out of game. But how do we have a contest without laws to make it so. By the way I agree 110% with what you and Gnostic are saying on playing for penalties, I just can't see how we can stop it. I think the law kind of covers things now by saying you have to play ball in 3-5 seconds when scrum is stationary, and so can't for the life of me work out how the laws can be changed. The one thing we don't want is them to be changed to stop a dominant team from pushing other team back 5-10 metres.(And boy being a Canes man at times you wish they would do)
I think we overeacting to the Tahs scrum being pushed around a couple of times which I think was probably just lack of concentration to be honest, because generally their scrium looked ok!

 

[Quick Hands]

Ok QH, I agree it be great to take a lot of scrum penalties out, it shits me the number of them too, I just worry when we get suggestions of even more law changes that take contest out of game. But how do we have a contest without laws to make it so. By the way I agree 110% with what you and Gnostic are saying on playing for penalties, I just can't see how we can stop it. I think the law kind of covers things now by saying you have to play ball in 3-5 seconds when scrum is stationary, and so can't for the life of me work out how the laws can be changed. The one thing we don't want is them to be changed to stop a dominant team from pushing other team back 5-10 metres.(And boy being a Canes man at times you wish they would do)
I think we overeacting to the Tahs scrum being pushed around a couple of times which I think was probably just lack of concentration to be honest, because generally their scrium looked ok!

I'm all for keeping the scrum as a contest. And I'd make an exception to the law change which would still allow a pushover try attempt from and attacking 5m scrum (i.e. no change to that for the present situation)

Note this clip

And then compare it to a 1964 scrum (1st scrum at 1.14)

On another thread I proposed some amendendments to law 19 (26) which would fix it I believe. You still need a good solid scrum to get the ball to No8 and move it forward.

My additions in red.

Law 19 (26)

When the scrum is stationary or moving forward and the ball has been is available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds, the referee calls “use it”. The team must then play the ball out of the scrum immediately. Exception - a 5 metre attacking scrum where the attacking team is attempting a pushover try.Sanction: Scrum.

 

[Dan54]

I can your point QH, it not the worst idea I have seen.