New Scrum Laws and Interpretations

[Scott Allen]

I thought I'd migrate some comments that appeared on the end of the Reds v Brumbies thread into a new thread as I think this issue deserves its own thread and will be ongoing as we see how the trial of the new call and the new interpretations develop.

Yes, I'm quoting myself in some of these posts but wanted to keep the conversation in context as it proceeded along in the other thread.

 

[Scott Allen]

Done that said: ↑

​

"I think that they need to allow the scrums to engage more quickly .It's no use removing "Pause" from the process as has been done this year , if it is included​

serreptitiously somewhere else .There were a number of penalties awarded for engaging "too quickly ".​

Let them get on with it."​

 

[Scott Allen]

Froggy said:

"At one point, Leeds said that he wasn't going to call the 'set' until both packs were still, and in his opinion, there was still movement when he was delaying the 'set' call. Now I don't know whether that's the instruction for the Super refs, or Just Leeds' interpretation, but it seems the Brumbies got that and played to it, whereas the Reds didn't."

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott Allen said: ↑

​

"I have been to a number of pre-season sessions with Super referees present and they have been instructed not to call Set until they are satisfied the packs are still.​

​

There is to be no set cadence to the call and the referee will wait as long as necessary for the packs to become still before they call Set. The onus is on the two packs to get steady - all the teams know this."​

 

[Scott Allen]

Ash said: ↑

​

"Have they been instructed to very quickly escalate to penalty for early engagements as well?​

​

Noticed that Lees called a penalty against the Reds for their second early engagement, which was a full fourty minutes after the first. However, the way he did it was almost an afterthought (as he actually signalled a half arm then quickly changed), which implied it was a directive that a just remembered at the last second.​

​

Curious to see if this will be applied in other games or not. Another poster mentioned that it's already being done elsewhere."​

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott Allen said:

"No longer up to the ref to escalate - it is now set that you only get one short arm in a match for early engagement, then it's full arm penalties from then on.

This is a direction to all of the referees so we should see it in all matches.

Lees looked like he was trying to remember whether he'd given a short arm previously against the Reds in the match and once he remembered that he went with the full arm penalty."

 

[Scott Allen]

Scoey said: ↑

"Geez, I'm not sure I like that. That was a gift 3 points for what is a very subjective (at times) call. The next scrum we got a half arm for the Brumbies early engage and at the time I thought that was a get square for a harsh call from the ref because I certainly didn't think the Brumbies went earlier than the Reds in that scrum."​

Scott Allen said:

"We talked to Laurie Fisher about this last night on the Podslam and he said the teams have no problem with it - they all knew about it going into the season and the packs will just have to practice better discipline and hold their own weight back."

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Scott Allen said:

"No longer up to the ref to escalate - it is now set that you only get one short arm in a match for early engagement, then it's full arm penalties from then on.

This is a direction to all of the referees so we should see it in all matches.
."

This interpretation is for Super Rugby only.

 

[Scott Allen]

Braveheart81 said:

"It seems alright to me. It stops the weaker scrum from doing it repeatedly trying to win the hit and make their scrum better than it is.

This would seem to be something a weaker scrum could have taken advantage of on defensive scrums because they'd know that giving away a short arm for an early engagement was just likely to lead to another scrum in the past."

 

[fatprop]

Was it Laurie Fisher who gave a good explanation of the new ruling on the podcast.

Sounded sensible

Crouch
Touch
Wait for stable (please the faux commentators read up on this )- Set

With one free kick for early before they turn to penalties

 

[Scott Allen]

RoffsChoice said:

"If it was the front rows going down I'd feel like it was a bad thing. However, essentially every ref sets his pace for the scrum and then sticks with it. Early engage is entirely avoidable and if you've done it before, full arm is justified."

 

[Scott Allen]

Done That said:

"Ultimately the interpretation of the laws is up to the referees , whether it is those who are on the field , or those who direct them.

It is up to them to interpret the laws in the way that best serves the overall interests of the game of Rugby.
Rule changes are introduced with the aim of benefiting the spirit of the game , the players & the spectators.
Last year the number of yellow cards handed out was ridiculous .
As the season progresses I will be most interested to see whether the changes in the scrum rules introduced this year , have the benefit which they were intended to have.
God knows referreing is a difficult & often thankless task , but just as some players are better than others , so to are referees different in their abilities.

If some rules are too difficult for referees , & players (& spectators who have been involved in & watched many games ) to fully understand & implement , & the number of penalties in some games suggests they may be , then simplify them until this is not an ongoing problem with Rugby."​

 

[Scott Allen]

Lindommer said: ↑

"As a former referee and now spectator I think it's reprehensible referees engineer any sort of penalty at scrum time due to their vocal instructions. I couldn't give a shit about the SANZAR referees' guidelines on crouch/touch/set, especially they "mustn't set any sort of cadence about their calls". How about they consider getting on with the game and facilitating a quick and fair contest for the engagement they're supposed to be adjudicating?"

 

[Scott Allen]

Sully said:

"Couldn't agree more Lindommer Ho did we end up here. From something originally designed to protect us into something very dangerous and and dancing to the beat of a demented puppeteer. a blight on our game and fixed so very easily."

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott Allen said:

"The instruction is for the referees to call "Set" once both packs are steady. There is no engineering any penalty by delaying the "Set" call - if teams get stable quickly prior to engage, the "Set" call will come quickly - if they are not steady the call will not come until that is achieved. The timing of the "Set" call (and therefore the cadence of the whole call) is totally in the hands of the two packs.

It is all about reducing the chances for scrum resets - it is the resets that waste more time than any slight delay in calling "Set".

If you want a fair contest at the engage neither team should be engaging early - if a team is not steady prior to the engage they are likely to engage early as they tip in due to their instability. If they do that more than once I see merit in them copping a full arm penalty.

Having both packs steady will produce better outcomes as when packs are not steady before the engage there is a much greater chance they will not be stable as they engage and will go to ground immediately on the hit.

If you accept that having both packs stable before engaging is a good idea then there can be no set cadence because that would mean calling "Set" at a given time regardless of whether that stability had been achieved.

As Laurie Fisher points out this will force discipline from the packs to support there own weight and get steady.

Having spent tonight's training session coaching these very points it didn't take long for players to get it - they made mistakes early but it's really not that hard to get steady and stable. If it's going to cost your team a full arm penalty, you'll learn very quickly."

 

[Scott Allen]

Ash said:

"Thanks for the replies Scott. Really interesting.

Personally, so long as it is applied consistently I don't have a problem. The sad thing about no longer playing the game is that you miss out on these ref directives at the start of the season so stuff like this tends to come as a surprise.

Unfortunately for the Reds it cost them a gift three points on the weekend from what I think was their own feed. Hopefully the players adjust quickly. And hopefully it will reduce scrum resets."​

 

[Scott Allen]

Was it Laurie Fisher who gave a good explanation of the new ruling on the podcast.

Sounded sensible

Crouch
Touch
Wait for stable (please the faux commentators read up on this )- Set

With one free kick for early before they turn to penalties

That covers it exactly.

 

[biggsy]

At the Tattersallls club last night where James Horwill was a guest speaker.
It was bought up about the new scrum laws and brake down laws, and said there was a lot of confusion with players last week. Even pocock was shaking his head...
Give it a few weeks and I hope the players will get into.
But as annoying as kern's is he did put these new brake down laws in perspective. "The McCaw laws" hinting as he will be the only one to get away with it.
I dont think last weeks ref was on the ball and watching the game for me frustrating....

Neither was Harris

 

[Nelse]

From my understanding, Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage was also not supposed to be said in any particular cadence. The ref was supposed to be waiting for the front row to crouch, then touch. The pause is really irrelavant, thats why it's been removed. Then Set is quicker to say than EN-gage. With the previous method, the scrums could come together on the first E. With the set, as its one syllable, it becomes harder for the timing to be off.

I think ref's got into a habit of saying the crouch, touch, pause, engage in a certain way. Now with the change, it forces them to think about what theyre doing. Over the course of a game, the timing may start to become rythmic as both teams accustomise to each other and have a pattern to what they're doing. As in they will start to crouch and touch in the same rhythm, causing the ref to call it in the same rhythm.

So it hasn't really changed apart from the Set and the first infringement being a short arm. Its probably better now it makes the refs think about what they're doing, as every scrum I'm still expecting to hear the pause, engage

 

[Scott Allen]

Its probably better now it makes the refs think about what they're doing, as every scrum I'm still expecting to hear the pause, engage

I wonder if any of the refs will stuff up and use engage instead of set? Bet they've all been reciting the new call over and over to make sure they avoid that.