Scrum changes: success or failure?

[TOCC]

I think it is time to revisit the Scrum engagement process again. In the NRC game on Thursday night and the test tonight, the ref is wasting time trying to stop the front rows pre-engaging.

Just do away with the bind call and let the front rows engage, then the scrum becomes a pushing contest as it has always been except for the last decade. This silly little "hit" we currently have is a hang over from the power hit era and is completely unnecessary. The lack of a power "hit" has increased the enjoyment of watching scrums immensely and I think it would only improve once again with the bind step removed.

Is this not an issue of 'referee education' rather then rewriting the rules again, i believe the current rules are suffice, however the official interpretation of those rules can vary which is what needs to be smoothed over.

 

[Lorenzo]

My firm belief is that the scrum is fundamentally unsound and that its design never considered the opposing forces that are present in a modern day test match scrum. It's such a fine line between a scrum that may just succeed (ie not collapse) and one that goes down. There's a lot going on in there and it's the most laughable thing that refs think they know why the failure was to the extent that they feel comfortable penalising one of the teams for it.

My only solutions are that the clock should stop for resets, and that scrum penalties should not result in kickable shots at goal. I think the ref decisions are far too much like guess work.

 

[mxyzptlk]

But with the scrums contested as they are now, Cron's wider channel is essential to allow the ball to be hooked safely (or sometimes at all).

Without that official wider leeway, the refs have seen common sense and just provided it anyway. They've given up on being "hot" on dead-centre feeds. It's good that they are doing so.

Another angle to this is that by forcing the team awarded the scrum to feed it directly down the center, you're actually not awarding the team for the penalty -- you're giving the other team as much of a shot at the ball, plus you're making the hooker over-extend into a dangerous position just to take advantage of the penalty they were awarded.

Is giving the other team an equal or better shot at the ball after they've been penalized entirely fair? Widening the channel seems to actually favor the team that was awarded the penalty, and makes hooking the ball safer.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Two things that would help an already-improved scrum:

Stopping the clock for resets or even until the ball is fed on every scrum. That would discourage slow scrums and deliberately messing with them to waste time on the clock, and you could introduce penalties if a team takes too long to get to the scrum in the first place (10 meters or a free kick).

Have an extra ref -- preferably a former front-rower -- come on just for scrums and stand on the opposite side of the ref. Right now the ref can only see part of what's going on, and none of the referees or touch judges really seem to know what's happening in there in the first place. Having one of their own keep an eye on things might help clean them up. There would probably be a big spike in scrum penalties at first, but after a few rounds, little previously-unseen tactics would start to be weeded out because they'd ideally become too costly.

 

[Pfitzy]

Two things that would help an already-improved scrum:

Stopping the clock for resets or even until the ball is fed on every scrum. That would discourage slow scrums

It would increase props calling injury breaks between resets though. Scrum packs, goes down. Ref wants a reset. Prop wants a breather. "My neck ref!" then a minute break as the trainers spray the magic spray.

NRC system is working well. Rams v Stars yesterday kicked off at 3 and was done well before 5PM. Amazing.

 

[fatprop]

I enjoyed the ref in the NZ v Boks game miming to the props to open their stance

More training for refs would help, I enjoy the Kiwi matches where Kees Mewes is providing commentary (I learn heaps), get a few of these guys to give the refs a bit more knowledge

 

[mxyzptlk]

It would increase props calling injury breaks between resets though. Scrum packs, goes down. Ref wants a reset. Prop wants a breather. "My neck ref!" then a minute break as the trainers spray the magic spray.

I think that's where you could put a time-limit to get set or reset -- say 45 seconds. If you need to call injury, either get someone else on, or forfeit a free kick or lose some meters or the scrum feed goes to the other team.

But yeah, I kind of like the direction the NRC is going. I watched that Rams-Stars game as it streamed on YouTube -- got a kick out of the one announcer sounding like an Aussie Howard Cosell and calling the scrum the play-the-ball (twice). That's not a criticism -- it made me chuckle. I loved being able to see the game and thought Bar TV did a fine job of it.

 

[Dctarget]

Hey with this time limit thing - what actually is it? Like what happens when the time runs out?..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mxyzptlk]

Hey with this time limit thing - what actually is it? Like what happens when the time runs out?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if the ref decides a team is wasting time getting to the scrums under 30 seconds, the ref can award a free kick, and move up to penalties from there.

 

[Dctarget]

Have we seen it in action yet? or is the action coming from teams not wanting to infringe and therefore scrum faster by not fucking around?

 

[Pfitzy]

The ref can go straight to a yellow card for anyone he thinks is being unsportsmanlike when it comes down to it, but a free kick on a mark where a prop with a potential neck injury is being attended to isn't going to make you many friends.

Player welfare is the first concern for the ref.

 

[Westie]

Another angle to this is that by forcing the team awarded the scrum to feed it directly down the center, you're actually not awarding the team for the penalty -- you're giving the other team as much of a shot at the ball, plus you're making the hooker over-extend into a dangerous position just to take advantage of the penalty they were awarded.

Is giving the other team an equal or better shot at the ball after they've been penalized entirely fair? Widening the channel seems to actually favor the team that was awarded the penalty, and makes hooking the ball safer.

Yeah but the team awarded the penalty chose the scrum. Always seemed stupid to me to give your opponent a shot at the ball after you win the penalty.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Yeah but the team awarded the penalty chose the scrum. Always seemed stupid to me to give your opponent a shot at the ball after you win the penalty.

They don't choose a scrum if the other side knocks-on, do they? That's just an automatic scrum.

 

[Westie]

They don't choose a scrum if the other side knocks-on, do they? That's just an automatic scrum.

Yeah I get that I'm just talking about the times when a team is awarded a penalty and then chooses a scrum.