Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The scrum law has always been this way. All that's changing is that useless need to say pause. Which will help refs a lot. Simple sollutions are sometimes the most effective.
IRB and Unions Sanction New Law Trials
- Thread starter RedsHappy
- Start date
- Status
Nusadan
Chilla Wilson (44)
The onus would be on that front row to say to the referee to warn that they weren't ready just prior to that 'set' call. . .the referee wouldn't call 'set' if it is obvious to him that a front row wasn't ready. . .he'd whistle it up to reset the scrum then. . .
Otherwise that 'unready' front row would have a free kick awarded against them!
That would be my action on that situation should I be on the field as a referee. . .
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
What then, Nusadan, is the meaning or purpose of the sentence that Dam0 and I were discussing? The sentence makes it very clear that a front row progressing into a state of readiness can occur post the "set call".
Where in the Laws can I find the clause which puts an "onus" on a "front row to say to the referee to warn that they weren't ready"? I can't find it.
.
Nusadan
Chilla Wilson (44)
Common sense prevails there, same as the half back putting his hands in the ruck to get at the ball and not pinged by the referee yet there is no proviso in the laws to cover that.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Given that front rows aren't supposed to shove before the ball comes in. The law makes sense.
The reason there is confusion behind some sentences is because we don't apply the laws as they were intended. Losing the scrum "hit" is suicide in today's game, so that makes everything about front rows "coming together" at their own pace irrelevant.
This isn't always a bad thing, we can't be competely changing the laws every 2 years. As long as the correct interpretation of laws is frequently communicated it should work OK. (the IRB are getting better in that regard anyway)
The reason there is confusion behind some sentences is because we don't apply the laws as they were intended. Losing the scrum "hit" is suicide in today's game, so that makes everything about front rows "coming together" at their own pace irrelevant.
This isn't always a bad thing, we can't be competely changing the laws every 2 years. As long as the correct interpretation of laws is frequently communicated it should work OK. (the IRB are getting better in that regard anyway)
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I am not convinced of the need for the catechism of crouching, touching, engaging, setting, or any new "ing" that the law makers have introduced.
We all know why they have been: the power hit needs a stable launch platform so that when two payloads of 900 plus kgs explode into each other to win one of the shortest races in sport, they can meet with stability. This is despite the inherent instability of the payloads not contacting each other symmetrically because the left hand side of each payload is outside the right hand side of the other.
Moreover the payloads have to meet just so vertically: too low and they shear down (the scrum collapses), or shear up (players stand up) - and this is without any silly buggers from the players.
The law makers observed the 35 year evolution of the power hit, from its early lurchings to what it became in the professional game, and resolved to manage the process of it. As scrums collapsed, then were reset, or were ended by the whistle before the ball emerged anyway, the law makers tinkered all the harder and referees fussed all the more getting the launching pads right. Over time the minutes wasted in scrummaging during an average game increased and ball in play time decreased.
The better solution is to go back to the future and watch the grainy films of scrums engaging. It was nothing more than players folding into each other waiting for the scrumhalf to pick up the ball. Then he would mosey over to the scrum and put the ball into a clear channel at which time the hooking contest and the power shoving contest, not the power hitting contest, would start.
There was no priest-like catechism from the ref, not even a word, just the setting of the mark - basically the same process as setting a lineout now. Any front row that didn't engage in good time must have got pinged for time wasting but I can't remember ever seeing such an event.
No posturing, no not readies, no early engages, no not taking the hits, no guessing who went early, no neck disk injuries from the power hits, nowhere to hide for the weaker scrum, no dudding of the dominant scrum.
Don't manage the power hit, just change law 20.1 (i). Presently it says:
- Charging - A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play.
Change it to:
- Charging - A front row must not charge against opponents. This is dangerous play.
Simple.
.
We all know why they have been: the power hit needs a stable launch platform so that when two payloads of 900 plus kgs explode into each other to win one of the shortest races in sport, they can meet with stability. This is despite the inherent instability of the payloads not contacting each other symmetrically because the left hand side of each payload is outside the right hand side of the other.
Moreover the payloads have to meet just so vertically: too low and they shear down (the scrum collapses), or shear up (players stand up) - and this is without any silly buggers from the players.
The law makers observed the 35 year evolution of the power hit, from its early lurchings to what it became in the professional game, and resolved to manage the process of it. As scrums collapsed, then were reset, or were ended by the whistle before the ball emerged anyway, the law makers tinkered all the harder and referees fussed all the more getting the launching pads right. Over time the minutes wasted in scrummaging during an average game increased and ball in play time decreased.
The better solution is to go back to the future and watch the grainy films of scrums engaging. It was nothing more than players folding into each other waiting for the scrumhalf to pick up the ball. Then he would mosey over to the scrum and put the ball into a clear channel at which time the hooking contest and the power shoving contest, not the power hitting contest, would start.
There was no priest-like catechism from the ref, not even a word, just the setting of the mark - basically the same process as setting a lineout now. Any front row that didn't engage in good time must have got pinged for time wasting but I can't remember ever seeing such an event.
No posturing, no not readies, no early engages, no not taking the hits, no guessing who went early, no neck disk injuries from the power hits, nowhere to hide for the weaker scrum, no dudding of the dominant scrum.
Don't manage the power hit, just change law 20.1 (i). Presently it says:
- Charging - A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play.
Change it to:
- Charging - A front row must not charge against opponents. This is dangerous play.
Simple.
.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Even by your customarily high standards, LG, that was a particularly well argued post.
- Status