• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Got a question. I wholeheartedly agree with rc for tip tackles because we can see players paralized etc, and has happened.
Should we be looking at same with collapsed scrums that from memory have probably caused as many broken necks etc as tackles?
Just a thought, I was at a park in Levin back in 80s when I first saw what can happen when a scrum collapses, a young fellow is still in Wheelchair, and I wonder should we be doing similar there?

Don't really think so myself but .......
 
Last edited:
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Dan54 said:
Got a question. I wholeheartedly agree with rc for tip tackles because we can see players paralized etc, and has happened.
Should we be looking at same with collapsed scrums that from meoary have probably caused as many broken necks etc as tackles?
Just a thought, I was at a park in Levin back in 80s when I first saw what can happen when a scrum collapses, a young fellow is still in Wheelchair, and I wonder should we be doing similar there?

Don't really think so myself but .......
Click to expand...
Good question - even if RCs were able to be awarded for dangerous scrummaging (can they be already?), I think attribution of blame would be really tricky to get right. Too much mystery and dark arts going on that probably can't be fully picked up by officials on field, and even if the TMO was breaking down each and every collapse.

We've already seen a big shift in attitude towards scrum safety in recent years, which is great. As I'm sure you know, stability and 'high impact' collapses were the driving force behind the changes to the engagement sequence. Rugby AU also rolled out the Smart Rugby coaching accreditation program a few years ago, which has a big focus on the dangers of scrums, techniques, and strength exercises (particularly important in younger players). From memory they also asked schools and clubs to place more emphasis on developing safe scrums and scrummagers.

I wonder when the last time we saw a collapse-related serious neck/back injury at pro-level was? I can't really recall one, thankfully.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
LeCheese said:
Good question - even if RCs were able to be awarded for dangerous scrummaging (can they be already?), I think attribution of blame would be really tricky to get right. Too much mystery and dark arts going on that probably can't be fully picked up by officials on field, and even if the TMO was breaking down each and every collapse.

We've already seen a big shift in attitude towards scrum safety in recent years, which is great. As I'm sure you know, stability and 'high impact' collapses were the driving force behind the changes to the engagement sequence. Rugby AU also rolled out the Smart Rugby coaching accreditation program a few years ago, which has a big focus on the dangers of scrums, techniques, and strength exercises (particularly important in younger players). From memory they also asked schools and clubs to place more emphasis on developing safe scrums and scrummagers.

I wonder when the last time we saw a collapse-related serious neck/back injury at pro-level was? I can't really recall one, thankfully.
Click to expand...
Yep I was just thinking about it is , and as I said I not keen on the idea by any means. I noticed in 1st XV rugby here in NZ you not allowed to push other scrum more tha a metre, and if you do a free kick to opposition or they get an uncontested scrum (which the team took in this case)

And I was thinking about a former Reds prop who was speaking at a lunch I was at, who broke his neck (thinks it was scrum) and travelled back to Aus and was having a scan when everyone started pressing buttons and telling him not to move, he had flown back to Aus etc with a broken neck without anyone knowing.
If I was younger I would remember his name.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Scrums are pretty safe these days at all levels due to the changes that been implemented over time with the packing. It would seem that they are not really a cause for the catastrophic spinal injuries that occasionally happen in the game anymore.

I also think this is the biggest reason we'll never see the sort of rapid fire scrum setting that happened in the 90s and earlier where the forward packs bound and packed within a few seconds.

Slowing down the process and making sure everyone is set and ready is imperative in making them safe.
 
fish59

fish59

Frank Nicholson (4)
Dan54 said:
Yep I was just thinking about it is , and as I said I not keen on the idea by any means. I noticed in 1st XV rugby here in NZ you not allowed to push other scrum more tha a metre, and if you do a free kick to opposition or they get an uncontested scrum (which the team took in this case)

And I was thinking about a former Reds prop who was speaking at a lunch I was at, who broke his neck (thinks it was scrum) and travelled back to Aus and was having a scan when everyone started pressing buttons and telling him not to move, he had flown back to Aus etc with a broken neck without anyone knowing.
If I was younger I would remember his name.
Click to expand...
I remember Dr Karl mentioning it on one of his programs - the strength of his neck muscles was holding the vertebrae in place. Anyone else probably would have been paralysed.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Was interested to see on rugby pod the other night them dicussing exactly what a few of us were dicussing at rugby clubrooms last week.
The new goal line drop out seems wrong. Teams seem to be just letting players come over line as long as they can get under ball, as they then get to send them back to halfway with a kick fron line. Now I pretty sure is not why law was bought in, too make it easier for defensive team, and what is the answer? Bryn Hall suggested the held up team should get a tap on 5m line, perhaps a tap on 22m? Just seems more and more players are getting pulled over line as a way to stop tries and will only get more of them I reckon!
 
Eyes and Ears

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
I think the intention of the Law was to remove some of the 5m scrums - that is definitely working. I don't particularly like the rugby league style collision from the long dropout. I think what is tricky for the referees is we are starting to see defending teams drag the tackled player into the in-goal. It is a tough call for the referee to make as to whether a try was scored if they get the ball down but their momentum had previously stopped.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I like that it gives the defensive team a better chance of stopping tries and think that being held up in goal should be a reward for the defending team, not the attacking team (which a 5m scrum is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mst
Pfitzy

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
There are three strings to this bow:

Attacking side knocks on in-goal - their mistake, so I think a dropout is fine as they get possesion and a chance to go again.
Defending side grounds in-goal - attacking side has put enough pressure on to pin them back. Line dropout is a good compromise.
Attacking side held up - they've done the hard yards, but couldn't execute. I'm borderline about this one, but see what they're getting at.

In all cases, the attacking side retains territory which is the intent.
 
Proud Pig

Proud Pig

Tom Lawton (22)
Eyes and Ears said:
I think the intention of the Law was to remove some of the 5m scrums - that is definitely working. I don't particularly like the rugby league style collision from the long dropout. I think what is tricky for the referees is we are starting to see defending teams drag the tackled player into the in-goal. It is a tough call for the referee to make as to whether a try was scored if they get the ball down but their momentum had previously stopped.
Click to expand...
Well we saw a classic example of that a couple of weeks ago when Matt Philip was dragged over the line by the Chiefs. He had a clear grounding and in my opinion it should have been a try because he didn't promote himself but the defensive team did. Make that a try and you won't see the defensive team dragging players over the line anymore.
 
Wilson

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Worth noting sides in the Northern Hemisphere have been taking full advantage of the drop out as the perfect opportunity to slot a quick drop goal. I doubt any of them would feel hard done by as the attacking side.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Proud Pig said:
Well we saw a classic example of that a couple of weeks ago when Matt Philip was dragged over the line by the Chiefs. He had a clear grounding and in my opinion it should have been a try because he didn't promote himself but the defensive team did.
Click to expand...

Do you know when in the game it was? I'd be interested to take a look.

Surely if there was a clear grounding the try would have been awarded?
 
Froggy

Froggy

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I know it's a topic that's been done to death, but in the Tahs/Blues game last Saturday we saw another example of where one scrum establishes an early dominance, they get the rub of the decisions from then on. After Holtz was clearly popped by his opposite number the Blues scrum could do no wrong. On two occasions the Blues THP clearly over-extended and 'pancaked', but the ref just let it go, and another time both Holtz and the Blues hooker came up out of the scrum at exactly the same time, but Holtz was penalised.
Perhaps the referees director could have a quiet word about trying to look at each scrum objectively and on its' own merits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top