Scrum Talk

[Tomikin]

Brumbies scrums been good with Dan Palmer running the show

Sent from my D6503 using Forum Fiend v1.3.1.

 

[TOCC]

The first thing I noticed in the first scrum I saw (that broke the Force LHP's shoulder) was the change in the binding of the Reds LHP at the time (Slipper?). I mean he bound and began the push then changed his bind from the long bind to an under/short bind then drove through the Force THP. which sheered sideays and collapsed on the Force LH side. Was the change in binding responsible? I don't know but, I was of the belief that it is illegal to change the bind.

Gnostic, i just watched a copy of the game and the footage doesn't show the that side of the scrum, it was actually the second scrum of the game and all you can see is that Force THP/Reds LHP side of the scrum collapsing but nothing about binds.

For the record though, props are allowed to alter their binds as long as its in accordance with the laws, that is binding on the side or back of the opponent.

 

[Ruggo]

I was amazed that the Reds could be awarded a penalty try with Daley doing all of his pushing on his knees!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As a Reds fan I will take it but it was a bullshit call without doubt. Blind Freddy could work that one out me thinks.

 

[Pfitzy]

"ARs are pillocks" is your answer.

 

[Strewthcobber]

By the letter of the law it should have been reset, but as with so many parts of the scrum, the team going forward is going to get the benefit of the doubt.

We've seen it time and again with the Wallabies.

At pro level, given the string of scrums that preceded it, that's going to be a penalty try under most refs.

 

[Quick Hands]

By the letter of the law it should have been reset, but as with so many parts of the scrum, the team going forward is going to get the benefit of the doubt.

We've seen it time and again with the Wallabies.

At pro level, given the string of scrums that preceded it, that's going to be a penalty try under most refs.

Too true.

Just another example of the haphazard way in which the scrum is refereed. Every reset, the pressure on the referee increases to "find" a penalty. When the scrum is close to the try line, the pressure goes up a notch or two on the referee and what seems to happen is that they stop watching the attacking team altogether. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the penalty will go to the attacking team. Once the referee gives a penalty, then up goes the pressure again and more attention goes to the defending team and then we get a penalty try.

My argument is that if we're going to decide matches on scrum penalties, we need to police the scrum feed in the same way. In many of these penalty/penalty try situations the first infringement is an incorrect scrum feed - from that point onwards the team which has incorrectly put the ball into the scrum should not received a penalty at all. They haven't been made to contest the ball, they've committed the first infringement - why are they rewarded with a penalty or penalty try.

 

[Strewthcobber]

They haven't been made to contest the ball, they've committed the first infringement - why are they rewarded with a penalty or penalty try.

Agree with all of that - but....

In this case it was actually a force feed, and a tight head - making it even more likely a reds penalty and PT.

 

[Quick Hands]

Agree with all of that - but..

In this case it was actually a force feed, and a tight head - making it even more likely a reds penalty and PT.

True, I was talking more generally rather than last night.

Given that Michael Foley is a good scrum coach, the Force scrum has been a bit of a surprise. A little ironic that a Foley coached team conceded a penalty try after 10 mins of resets and penalties.

 

[Quick Hands]

"ARs are pillocks" is your answer.

That's the answer to quite a few questions.

 

[Brumby Runner]

My argument is that if we're going to decide matches on scrum penalties, we need to police the scrum feed in the same way. In many of these penalty/penalty try situations the first infringement is an incorrect scrum feed - from that point onwards the team which has incorrectly put the ball into the scrum should not received a penalty at all. They haven't been made to contest the ball, they've committed the first infringement - why are they rewarded with a penalty or penalty try.

While I agree wholeheartedly with this viewpoint, I have to remark that as far as I could see, Will Genia actually fed the ball right into the tunnel in that sequence of scrums (at least more so than the vast majority of scrum feeds we see otherwise). He really didn't roll the ball in though, rather placed it in front of the LHP. So, I would say there was no infringement relating to a crooked feed, but is there a requirement to make sure the ball reaches the competing hookers?

 

[Omar Comin']

Simplest solution in my mind to fix the modern scrum: remove any possibility of penalties at scrum time (with the exception of foul play). Free kicks only for every scrum infringement, and no upgrading them to penalties. The reward for a dominant scrum should be a) a strong platform to attack from on your own ball, and b) disruption of the oppositions ball and the occasional tighthead.

The scrum is now basically a contest to win penalties, rather than a restart of play. That's what leads to so many of the collapses and messing about.

 

[Quick Hands]

While I agree wholeheartedly with this viewpoint, I have to remark that as far as I could see, Will Genia actually fed the ball right into the tunnel in that sequence of scrums (at least more so than the vast majority of scrum feeds we see otherwise). He really didn't roll the ball in though, rather placed it in front of the LHP. So, I would say there was no infringement relating to a crooked feed, but is there a requirement to make sure the ball reaches the competing hookers?

The scrum half must stand one metre from the mark on the middle line so that player’s head does not touch the scrum or go beyond the nearest front row player.​

Sanction: Free Kick

(b​

The scrum half must hold the ball with both hands, with its major axis parallel to the ground and to the touchline over the middle line between the front rows, mid-way between knee and ankle.​

Sanction: Free Kick

(c)​

The scrum half must throw in the ball at a quick speed. The ball must be released from the scrum half’s hands from outside the tunnel.​

Sanction: Free Kick

(d)​

The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders.​

Sanction: Free Kick

(e)​

The scrum half must throw in the ball with a single forward movement. This means that there must be no backward movement with the ball. The scrum half must not pretend to throw the ball.​

Sanction: Free Kick
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=20.6

EDIT: Interestingly, referees never seem to be able to find any infringement of these requirements, despite them all being easier to spot than who has collapsed the scrum in many instances.

 

[Quick Hands]

Simplest solution in my mind to fix the modern scrum: remove any possibility of penalties at scrum time (with the exception of foul play). Free kicks only for every scrum infringement, and no upgrading them to penalties. The reward for a dominant scrum should be a) a strong platform to attack from on your own ball, and b) disruption of the oppositions ball and the occasional tighthead.

The scrum is now basically a contest to win penalties, rather than a restart of play. That's what leads to so many of the collapses and messing about.

And no scrum option either.

If the free kick option is too hard for the purists to swallow, goals from scrum penalties worth 1 point and must be taken by a drop kick. (I'd like to see all penalties taken by drop kick, but that's for another thread)

 

[DrewB]

The laws weren't designed for scrums to be like this and the NH scrum afficianados have been allowed to give the scrum an importance in the game above any historical precendent.

Agreed. But the argument becomes invalid from any Wallabies supporter, because we suck come scrum time.

The law book states "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.", yet it is allowed to become a 3 point generator. For a minor infringement.

 

[Quick Hands]

Agreed. But the argument becomes invalid from any Wallabies supporter, because we suck come scrum time.

The law book states "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.", yet it is allowed to become a 3 point generator. For a minor infringement.

The problem is that scrum afficianados have repeated the mantra about how important they think scrums are for so long everyone now accepts that scrums have been like this for 150 years, when they never were.

Note the scrum awarded at 1min 12 seconds into this clip - the scrum is formed and the ball is out at 1 min 29 seconds. That's right, the whole thing over and done with from infringement being whistled to half back passing the ball in 17 seconds. (And about 5 seconds of that 17 was taken up by the half having to run and get the ball to feed it)

The 21st century scrumeisters would have us believe otherwise, but this is how scrums looked for most of rugby history. What goes on now is an abomination.

 

[drop kick]

(I'd like to see all penalties taken by drop kick, but that's for another thread)

That's a hell of a responsibility your asking of an old man. I'm honoured, but the travel would kill me.

 

[Pfitzy]

That's the answer to quite a few questions.

I say this with the full knowledge that I just did my certification online again. So for the next few years I'm fully qualified to hold up a flag and get told by the ref that he doesn't need help despite his clear shortcomings.

 

[Quick Hands]

Going back and reading the scrum laws has highlighted another fiction which has crept into to the way the laws are enforced.

We often see referees penalising teams for wheeling the scrum (for which their is no penalty sanction) and/or for walking around as they call it. Neither are described in the laws as being infringements.

If anyone can find them in law 20, please point them out to me.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=20

 

[Strewthcobber]

The catchall for a lot of the colloquial scrum penalties is usually for 20.2 (a)

the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove

 

[DrewB]

I say this with the full knowledge that I just did my certification online again. So for the next few years I'm fully qualified to hold up a flag and get told by the ref that he doesn't need help despite his clear shortcomings.

Well get the full qualification and blow the whistle if you can do better. You're there anyway, may as well give the players the benefit of your superior ability.