World Rugby to introduce law trials

[terry j]

Either adjudicate the scrums properly, or return them to what they used to be, a simple restart after a minor transgression in which the non-offending team has a clear advantage, no penalties (except for foul play), in and out and on your way.

I only quoted you to like this part very much.

It's funny how much you forget and only be reminded after seeing it again, but bring back the scrums as they were during the early world cup years. bang, done and dusted.

only mention the early world cup years as that is what has been being played.

 

[Lee Grant]

Either adjudicate the scrums properly, or return them to what they used to be, a simple restart after a minor transgression in which the non-offending team has a clear advantage, no penalties (except for foul play), in and out and on your way.

That was more or less the solution that rugby league used when their scrums were diabolically bad. The main purpose of the scrum in league now is to get six from each side together so that seven blokes from the non-offending team can have a go in the uncluttered space created by the absence of twelve players.

We both know that will never get up in our code because the set-piece is God in rugby and the Euros and South Africa, and the unions they influence, will not agree to it—and the tree huggers will moan about 'all shapes and sizes'; and so would I.

But I have faith that there will come a time when a brilliant individual or group will come up with a workable plan that retains the integrity of the scrum set-piece, and that it will coincide with the presence of another gifted individual or group to direct the referees like a Toscanini - and that there will also be other back-room stars to draft the legislation properly.

Pigs may not fly but maybe a few of them can dance.
.

 

[wamberal]

Lee, the only flaw in your argument is that our scrums used to be like that - and we had all shapes and sizes.


Loig had to get rid of the scrum contest because there was so much skull-duggery going on, hookers with a "loose arm", not to mention outright violence out of sight of the referee.

Plus of course the centre of their code is Australia, where simplicity and transparency is king. And why shouldn't it be thus in our code?


I really believe that the Australian sporting market is a bit like the canary in the mine. We only need to look at what interests the kids these days, colour, movement, continual action. It will take time, but what I have propounded will happen. Changing preferences in entertainment needs will see to it.

I only hope I am still here to post "I told youse all so!!!!"

 

[Braveheart81]

I really don't see any great changes in the scrum happening. Unless you depower it altogether there are going to be collapses.

You can't speed it up too much because it becomes a safety issue. There are very strong players with good technique trying to push as hard as they can. If you rush the setting up, teams will still try to do the same but it will be dangerous.

When scrums are packing low and there's a lot of pressure there will be collapses and resets.

The adjudication has definitely become easier with the new engagement laws because there are less scrums that collapse immediately because there isn't a hit.

I don't think you can reasonably look at a clip from 30+ years ago with a really quick setup and scrum completion and suggest that scrums should be the same today. The professional game has moved on and it will never be that way again for all the reasons that have been pointed out.

 

[Lee Grant]

Lee, the only flaw in your argument is that our scrums used to be like that - and we had all shapes and sizes.

There is no flaw really.

I know they were like that because I played even before the time that video was made, and I have mentioned such things starting in the late 90's when the first rugby forums emerged.

But we didn't have professional rugby in the days of that video nor fatties who could afford to spend hours in the gym developing physically to get the edge at scrum time, as instructed by their professional coaches and as supervised by professional trainers.

Before the professional era, and especially at the time of the video and before that, players just tried to get back to where the scrum should be, so as not to be offside before the ball was thrown into the scrum.

I have a video of the scoreless draw between France and the Springboks and France in 1961 and a fellow actually bound after the ball was cleared after not getting back in time.

These were amateur days, before the gym changed the physique of players, and when home test teams could not even convene until the Thursday before the Saturday match.

But the scrum even evolved after that video and before the professional era started in 1995. You can track it through videos.

Looking at the videos I have of the 50's, 60s, 70s and 80s (the earlier ones being videos from films) you can see that the power hit and its consequent collapses had its genesis in the later 1970s when scrums lurched toward each other.

There become a realisation that an advantage would accrue - "no we weren't pushing early Sir !!" - when the lurch became a hit. It accelerated in the nineties and went ballistic in the pro era.

Scrum collapses became chronic when rugby turned pro but but you can't compare the good old days of the video with the way it is being played now after 20 years of professional rugby.

What they did 50 years ago in the video will never come back - nor would it be possible - even though we close our eyes, click our heels together and say three times, "There's no place like home".
.

 

[Quick Hands]

What they did 50 years ago in the video will never come back - nor would it be possible.
.

But what can occur is that the administrators write and referees apply laws in ways which don't allow the scrum to consume the game as it is doing.

Even though it's clearly written in the laws, administrators, referees and the scrum mafia have forgotten that the scrum is meant to be a fair way of restarting play after a minor infringement. It was never meant for the ball to be held in until a penalty is found. Referees and administrators have allowed this to develop to the point where it is the new norm.

Never, until the last 5 years (or less) would play be called back after the ball had been cleared for a scrum penalty (unless it was for breakaway offside). Almost never, until the past 5-10, years would a team take a scrum option at a free kick or penalty, whereas it is becoming more and more common. When the scrum option is questioned, the scrum mafia respond that a team with a dominant scrum should be rewarded - and they should be with possession won from the scrum, not with an endless stream of penalties.

The place which the scrum has now achieved in the game has no basis in either history or law and yet we seem stuck with it.

 

[PiXeL_Ninja]

This has already been trialed in SA. My take is that the way it is now is great as your scoring is a lot more dynamic rather than the borefest of even numbers, which will result in more draws.

/2c

 

[qwerty51]

This has already been trialed in SA. My take is that the way it is now is great as your scoring is a lot more dynamic rather than the borefest of even numbers, which will result in more draws.

/2c

It's a good point, I've noticed that in the NRC as well. Scoring is in either 5s or 8s and little stale like NRL.

 

[Quick Hands]

The only way scrums can ever be fairly administered is if there is an overhead camera at every game, and the TMO is empowered to advise the referee when the sort of ludicrous infringing that ruined the Third Lions Test occurs.


Either adjudicate the scrums properly, or return them to what they used to be, a simple restart after a minor transgression in which the non-offending team has a clear advantage, no penalties (except for foul play), in and out and on your way.

We'll probably never get to the situation where referees get all -or even most - scrum calls right. What we can do is:

Try to stop these mistakes deciding matches - free kicks from scrum infringements

Try to eliminate unecessary scrums - no scrum option from free kicks or penalties

Return scrums to being a contest for possession - once a team has won possession and the ball reaches No.8, no penalties or free kicks, except for foul play and offside

The only time a team is allowed to hold the ball at the back and obtain a penalty/penalty try is from an attacking 5m scrum.

The best super rugby match I saw all year was early in the season between the Hurricanes and another NZ team (I think) - the first scrum was at the 38 minute mark of the first half and up until that the skill level on show from forwards and backs was unbelieveable. Naturally when the first scrum occurred it collapsed and had to be reset and managed to soak up the last minutes of the half.

There is a place for the scrum in rugby, but it was never meant to be the centrepiece of the game.

 

[wamberal]

I totally agree that there is a place for the scrum. At its best, it provides a bit of texture in a game. Light and shade sort of thing. It allows for a variety of attacking options. Some of the best tries ever scored have been scored from scrums.


As well as some of the worst, particularly when the non-offending side gets dudded.

 

[qwerty51]

New rule just introduced, can no longer kick a ball out of someone's hands.

 

[Quick Hands]

New rule just introduced, can no longer kick a ball out of someone's hands.

Your own or someone else's?

 

[qwerty51]

Your own or someone else's?

World Rugby's. http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-clarification-no7/2830495/

It's technically not a new law but I count any clarification as law changes.

 

[Quick Hands]

And some more interesting law change suggetions from SA refs.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/possible-law-changes/2830490/

 

[Lee Grant]

And some more interesting law change suggetions from SA refs.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/possible-law-changes/2830490/

Thanks for posting that.

There's a lot of good stuff there including a few things tried in the ARC but did not go further. I'm glad that the suggestions came from the Republic and not from Oz Land; they may get legs in the NH that way.

The allowance of hands in the ruck is one from the ARC. No hit on the set - good luck with that - but I hope it gets up. The current hit (set) is not as destablising as the power hit but if left alone will get back to the bad old days and people will wonder why scrums are still going down.

The abiding matter that should be worried about more than tweaks to the laws or another bout of clarifications or rulings is to enforce the compliance of referees to a few key items which are already law.

As I see it, these two are the key matters:

Feeding the ball into the scrum straight. If this not possible because the tunnel is compromised before the ball is introduced to the scrum, by legs moving around, or whatever, the reason for that has to be addressed first, without mercy.

It was the poor tunnel that gave rise to the crooked feed to the clear space behind the hooker's feet; one couldn't blame the scrummies.

How was the tunnel corrupted over 20 years? Instead of enforcing the law that there should be no push in the scrum before the ball was thrown in, referees allowed the early push (later the power hit) which meant they had to allow the crooked feed.

Madness.

Staying on feet at ruck time - One of the articles mentions stapling. Whatever you call it the players are leaving their feet.

This was always illegal, yet as the the years have gone by you can see supporting players going in lower and lower with no possibility of staying up.

There was a crack-down on the matter in the Super 12 in the early 2000s and it lasted three weeks as I recall. If I remember correctly one of my favourite referees ever, Peter Marshall, didn't even bother to comply. He probably thought that the crack-down had no chance and, if so, he was right.

Today's referees have a horrid legacy inherited from their fathers and grandfathers. Their forebears tried to speed the game up by being lenient to attackers who charged in low to defend their ball—attack was good thought the refs—but defenders retaliated and the game was slowed down.

Just as scrums need height, so do rucks. The players have to be forced into playing within a new paradigm, and in order to do that the referees have to change also.

It is time for their World Rugby minders to make the referees go back up the wrong path they have been on and go down a new one.

On their feet.
.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

^^ Re: staying on feet at ruck time and level of entry, a lot of it evolves from supporting attackers at the cleanout trying to clear off the tackler who has yet to release the tackled player, and to also help turn the tackled player into a position of advantage. This seemed to come to major prominence in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when attacking was heavily predicated on having good support to clean out.

There was allegedly a crack down on 'bridging' where players supported their weight on their hands or on players on the ground, though I never really saw evidence of the crack down during my mediocre playing days.

So today we're left with players being able to enter rucks at similar trajectories to a Cathay Pacific approach to Kai Tak.

FWIW, I think hands in the ruck will result in a lot of finger and metacarpal fractures, and will slow the game down. Fixing the breakdown is a fairly simple matter - the laws aren't difficult - the tackler must release the tackled player, and the tackled player must play the ball without delay. That includes wrestling to try and turn the player. Players arriving at the ruck must do so from behind the hindmost feet. Bam.

The breakdown will never be perfect, but I'd sooner have an imperfect breakdown with 'the dark arts' than boring, predictable mungoball.

 

[Lee Grant]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nobody wants mungo ball but if there is there a will by the minders of referees to enforce referees to make players stay on their feet at the ruck, the game will improve.

Many people whinged about the power hit in the scrums being outlawed, in effect, because it was always part of the game and they didn't want it watered down.

It was never part of the game except in the pro era and it shouldn't have been then.

Some people think that what is happening in rucks with players leaving their feet should be allowed now because it was always part of the game (not saying that you are).

It wasn't - you didn't have to end on the ground all the time to play tough rugby: it was tougher then - and flopping was cheating.



Not many ruck crackdowns have worked. but some have.

Before it was an art of a defender to tackle a player in a way that by the time the two got to ground the tackler was between the tackled player and his team mates, knowing that he was safe from sanction. If he was pinged, commentators brayed: "How could he get out of there?".

It was always the wrong question.

In the forum I called it the "McCaw Snake tackle" after a player I had, and have, a high regard for. He twisted the "tackled" player, not yet on the ground, and slithered to the deck with him on the "wrong" side and … "he couldn't get out of there".

Then they had the crackdown on the "Snake" and he changed and so did everybody else. Now players are doing a fast crawl if they find themselves on the wrong side.



My point about that long-winded digression was that players started being penalised, in effect, for what they did before the tackle was complete. If they landed on the wrong side it was deemed to be their fault whereas before, it wasn't.

Leaving the feet in tackle/ruck defence, or attack, should be treated the same by the referees. If the effect of what they do before contact means that they went to ground afterwards and compromised the contest for the ball, they should be pinged for it - whether it be for intent or a lack of skill to stay on their feet.


I didn't think the "wrong-side of the ruck" crackdown would work, but it did.

I have high hopes therefore that a "leaving the feet and spoiling the contest" crackdown will work this time after being unsuccessful in the early 2000s in the Super 14.

Players should be penalised for the results of their actions. Players skilled enough to avoid flopping, yet still be effective, should be held in higher regard.

Stop the flop.
.

 

[Dan54]

I think if you were to clamp down on ruck, you would consider making a tackled player release the ball IMMEDIATELY, not get tackled and roll over to present it to your own team, if someone is good enough to tackle a player making him fall the wrong way, should he get rewarded??

 

[wamberal]

Dan, what about when a player is tackled just short of the try line?



I like the idea that the tackled player can place the ball, but then he should get his mitts right off it.

 

[dru]

I particularly like the RSA ref suggestions on cards. No of players on the field not to change. The individual is punished not the team.