The New Scrum Laws

[Rassie]

This is a good example of what is happening in the professional world.

Ferreira was having a hard time in the scrums. But despite that he was trying to scrum legally and with a positive attitude.

The Bulls front rower was binding illegally for starters by binding on the arm. Then Ferreira try to grip his shirt but couldn't get grip. So he got grip on Stegmann. As the scrum started Stegmann chopped his hand of meaning his balance is of and he still tried to make a effort in keeping it stable by putting his hand on the ground. Ferreira was penalized after Stegmann broke off and point to the referee which is another illegal thing.

Moral of the story? Do not show your the weaker scrum. Go down rather than backwards cause if you show you are the above is going to happen

 

[ChargerWA]

As much as we love to give the IRB the shits, you can't deny they do eventually make the correct rule changes.

 

[Rassie]

Rules changes is for advantage of the game and for everyone. When you start making changes in laws that will be only be a advantage for a few then its not fair towards everyone. And I am not referring to the scrum laws with that statement.

 

[badabing59]

Just making sure the props have a bind prior to engagement will be a big plus. How many scrums go down because of a weak or non-existent bind? With the tighter and tighter jerseys and the fact that they are being designed to make them harder to grab makes getting a bind very difficult indeed.

Hopefully then we will see the return of a jersey designed for the plus-sized gentleman with the generous frame. No more of this skin tight BS for the front row. No more having to suck the stomach in when the camera pans around

 

[topo]

Hopefully then we will see the return of a jersey designed for the plus-sized gentleman with the generous frame. No more of this skin tight BS for the front row. No more having to suck the stomach in when the camera pans around

I was watching a game with a prop the other day. At one stage Dan Palmers jersey got pulled up revealing his generous proportions. The prop says: " That's a Mayday call right there."

 

[JSRF10]

These new laws will reportedly be used in this years Rugby Championship. Hopefully they'll bed in quite quickly and we won't be seeing 4 minutes taken up trying to get a scrum steady.

 

[Rassie]

Incorrect, the grip by the Bulls THP is legal. A bit of insight into the English way of thinking.

The dominance is present before the binding and this is where the Australian referees are far more inconsistant than European referees in assessing the scrum. One of many points that can be evaluated better IMO is the;

- Head position of both props on the engagement impact. (After the new 'set' call)

In your example the Bulls THP has his chest/shoulder behind the neck of the LHP which causes him to change the position of his head in the scrum and his bind. The Bulls THP therefore has won the battle on the engagement in this instant.

Example scrums 2:00 & 2:48 mins. Disregard the title prior to showing examples.

The referee in these clips has determined that the Australian engagement is dominant because Alexander changes the head position of Marler, like example above. The THP body position is going forward and has established dominance on the engagement. The argument that his bind is on the arm is incorrect in these instances. On engagement the LHP must bind correctly on instant impact as well, instead in both examples Marler drops when the pressure is put behind his head. This causes Marler to hinge at the hips which is the first infringement due to dominant Australian hit.

In the Sharks example the LHP has an incorrect bind on engagement impact, not binding on the prop. The flanker has all rights to slap his hand away. The bulls were also dominant on the engagement impact. The referee must award dominance and pressure.

Example scrum 2:23 on video above - Shows when THP has a dominant hit on engagement and LHP - Robinson is able to counter by superb body position and taking the pressure. TPN accused of knees on the ground, however he is sinking the scrum helping Robinson to stay underneath Cole.

This next example is of a dominant LHP scrum engagement in which should be easier to adjudicate on.

Example scrums 3:36 & 4:46 mins.

A dominant LHP establishes his bind quick on engagement and changes the body position of the THP on impact. Unlike the LHP the THP has a number of ways of getting penalised on the hit. These include;

- Hips kicking out / Head facing into the hooker (incorrect scrummaging)
- Knees on the ground
- Standing up

These scrums evidently show that the LHP is much more superior on engagement in which the referee adjuicates correctly. If the engagement hit is even other indiscretions are adjudicated on and that is another discussion in itself.

Legal? On what planet? Certainly not under the current laws of rugby union on planet earth

Binding by loose head props. A loose head prop must bind on the opposing tight head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight head prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loose head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop. The loose head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Binding by tight head props. A tight head prop must bind on the opposing loose head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose head prop. The tight head prop must grip the loose head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back or side. The tight head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition loose head prop. The tight head prop must not exert any downward pressure.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^^ Sometimes takes a while for old habits to die.

There are some Gaggerlanders who still haven't changed their log on name to reflect CTS call or the soon to be CBS call.

 

[youngone]

End of the day, coaches are more clever than the ruling bodies and will create a way to make their scrum seem dominant, read as: win (either through penalties or dominance).

The only solution I could imagine would be more front rowers being given a whistle.

 

[Scott Allen]

Here's a great explanation of the new scrum laws for next season.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=16&page=1

I think these are really positive changes.

Scrums will be more about hooking for the ball and power after the ball is fed, not so much about the hit.

 

[fatprop]

Just requiring/allowing for a decent long bind will go a long way towards stability, I am sick of seeing a unit bind on the arm and armpit

 

[Brumby Runner]

Here's a great explanation of the new scrum laws for next season.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=16&page=1

I think these are really positive changes.

Scrums will be more about hooking for the ball and power after the ball is fed, not so much about the hit.

Thanks Scott. One modification I'd suggest is a full arm penalty for not feeding straight. It looks like most of the scrum problems could be eliminated with these changes (at least the ref will have the opportunity to hold the scrum until any visible problems are addressed) but I predict there will be No9s on teams with weaker scrums deliberately feeding crookedly if it only earns a short arm. Also, I wonder how some of the changes will impact on your contention that the flanker and adjacent lock should form a pod and push inwards (if I understand what you mean). The coach/player tips for the Set instruction say to keep the core tight and spines in line throughout. The refs tip says to ensure players are pushing straight and not on an angle. These seem to be inconsistent with your description of how a scrum should operate.

 

[Craig Riddington]

Any thoughts on which players will be the winners and losers under the new laws?

 

[USARugger]

Any thoughts on which players will be the winners and losers under the new laws?

Front rowers will return to the more traditional body-type and role. If Dan Palmer can fix his foot he could be a potential beneficiary of this, just one example.

What I've been wondering about for the past couple of days is how this will change Cheika's attacking pattern with the Waratahs. As is his pattern benefits greatly from having at least 2/3 of the front row being mobile enough to support rapidly after the tackle and/or get set in the wider forward pods. If the game is leaning back to having two more 'pot plant' type players propping again will he choose to give a little bit at scrum time to compensate for this?

Brumby Runner

I've never seen a lock or flanker get penalized for angling, what matters is the ultimate angle of the prop. By creating an 'A-frame' through the Lock-Prop-Flanker pod the opposing forces generated by the Lock and Flanker push the Prop, more or less, straight forward. It's the same concept as to how in a line out you have two lifters pushing towards one another, which as a combined set of forces sends the jumper directly skyward.

 

[Scott Allen]

Part 3 of my Wallaby scrum article published today includes my analysis on the impact of the new trial laws on the scrum.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/analysis-wallabies-scrum-v-lions-part-3/

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Here's a great explanation of the new scrum laws for next season.

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=16&page=1

As JSRF10 mentioned, I can confirm that these new scrum laws will be used in the Rugby Championship.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Link may have some work to do with the Wobs piggies to be ready for TRC scrums under the new rules.

Will the referees be ready?

 

[Pusser]

Link may have some work to do with the Wobs piggies to be ready for TRC scrums under the new rules.

Will the referees be ready?

Will hookers know how to hook?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There needs to be a public awareness campaign on this.
Less than fully absorbed rugby tragics are completely unaware of this. That unawareness, which not doubt presently afflicts many of them anyway, is a barrier to wider interest in the code.
These new laws seem likely, at least initially, to remove some of the mysteries that cause the uninitiated to bleat: we, as evangelists, should seek to capitalise on this opportunity to overcome their fear of scrums.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gnostic]

http://www.quins.co.uk/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=16005

Of interest for this thread.

As he (John Kingston Coach of Harlequins for those who haven't viewed the link) says in this interview anybody who says they can judge the full impact of the changes is probably lying or doesn't really have a full grasp of what is happening. I really feel that the changes will support a return to a more traditional body shape and type for Hookers. There will be no need for Hookers to be like a third prop. I have said a few times in this forum that I think we could well see a rise to dominance of players like S. Fainga'a. Those who have the technique and agility to actually hook the ball instead of the brute strength dominance to drive their scrum past the ball. This of course hinges on the directive that has been spoken about the ball being fed straight, actually being enforced.

We should also consider that the locks and backrows will also have to be retrained in how to actively channel the ball back from the hook instead of walking past the ball.

This will for me be one of the most intriguing parts of the RC.