Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Why does the ref need to get involved in this situation??
Law Amendment Trials
- Thread starter MrTimms
- Start date
- Status
Why does the ref need to get involved in this situation??
Because if one of McCaw's teammates then drops the ball, who feeds the scrum?
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
McCaw's team. The player he tackled should have protected the ball. If he lost possession of it and it went forward then why would you reward him for not being able to keep possession?
Dam0
Dave Cowper (27)
He doesn't.
If you look at the first video here. http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/
You can see what they are saying. I think it is fairly uncontroversial that it should have been play on, but a lot of refs (myself included) have been guilty of ruling that sort of thing as a knock-on.
In the weekend I had one like that and I called out "advantage", then I quickly changed my mind and said "no advantage, play on". No harm no foul; fortunately.
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
In the same instance i don't think a player who 'rips' a ball off another player and the ball goes loose backwards should be awarded. He should have taken it off him clean also.
End of the day if you ever get yourself in a position to get your arms around the ball you should just get your arms around it and hold onto the ball and don't give it to anyone. You get awarded a scrum if you hold it up anyway.
I say play on unless the ball gets propelled forward after the contest. Too many stoppages already.
End of the day if you ever get yourself in a position to get your arms around the ball you should just get your arms around it and hold onto the ball and don't give it to anyone. You get awarded a scrum if you hold it up anyway.
I say play on unless the ball gets propelled forward after the contest. Too many stoppages already.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I can't see how this law change is going to make the ref's job any harder. The maul checklist is also big, yet the 5 second rule doesn't cause any disasters. Most refs already tell halfbacks to hurry up when it's been there too long.
It's not about counting to 5 either. After the ball has been there for a while the ref will just say "that's 3 seconds Blue, USE IT".
Also, about the long list. The pro refs will just focus on a select few of those. For example, if you decide to watch if players are coming from the correct angle to a ruck, you don't need to bother checking if they are "rolling away", because obviously they have if they enter the ruck.
A brief checklist would be:
(1) Correct entry?
(2) Tackle release?
(3) Ruck formed?
(4) Has it been available for 5 seocnds?
You can't really go wrong with this. Once you get correct entry and a tackle release it's easy to manage.
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
So i am a bit confused, there is already a facility to award scrum for the 5 seconds? I understand that there is a rule already for a tackled ball to the team going forward, is the change that the defending team will get the scrum if they don't 'use it'?
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
There is no current law that says you can give a scrum for not playing it fast enough. But there is:
10.2
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick
This law trial is just a way of turning this ^^ into a law refs actually use more often. Players in recent years have really been pushing the boundaries here. (and they have been taking forever to set up their structure, this will speed the game up as well)
10.2
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick
This law trial is just a way of turning this ^^ into a law refs actually use more often. Players in recent years have really been pushing the boundaries here. (and they have been taking forever to set up their structure, this will speed the game up as well)
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
If an attcking player puts possession of the ball in danger then I don't see why they are rewarded for a soft carry.
And I would rip the ball out 10 times out of 10 if I have an opportunity as opposed to just holding on going for the scrum feed. It's the safest option and quick turn-over ball is usually the best to attck from.
I can't watch the video at work unfortunately but in the case that you described, I would definitely play a short advantage. The first infringement is to the attacker who couldn't keep possession and lost ir forward.
Anyways....just my opinion....
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
Problem with that tactic is that you'll may find yourself isolated, in a bad body position. Plus the bloke you just took it off, can always come back and take right back.
Hey if you are good enough at doing it, do it. But safer option is to lock that ball up, hold on like your life depended on it and wait for your forwards to get there to drive in on you which will compress the ball and make it yours.
Very good - and this is exactly why we can't change the laws without trials - and especially trials at the professional level.
Be warned that we will find that some of the changes will work, for example, at the (basically) amateur level of Oz club rugby but not in Super Rugby and especially not NH pro rugby.
And I'm not just talking about instructions from the coaches, and cunning ideas from the players for that matter: we can't rely on professional referees doing what we think they will do either.
Putting thoughts aside about whether the free kick ELV was a good thing, or not, who can forget how professional referees butchered the free kick sanctions experiment in the Super14 by not issuing cards for cynical play after amateur referees had done so earlier in amateur club rugby, appreciating correctly that cards underwrote the success of it?
It will be good to talk about these matters because they keep us off the streets, but until we see them in practice we are pissing in the wind, as fun as that is sometimes, standing upwind.
.
Definitely. The last thing we want is you and Bruce Ross roaming the streets at night causing trouble.
PS - has the IRB addressed significant matters in this trial directive?
In my business life we had these head office guys organising conferences and some of them weren't too bad. The ones that were best were those which asked first: what are the significant issues facing our business? Part of that was asking: what do our customers want?
What are the significant law issues? For the vast majority of matters we have to ask the players, but in professional rugby, where players are paid, we have to ask the people who pay them. These are the people that pay at the gate or watch on TV to get good ratings for the broadcasters who have paid the organisers of the competition to get the rights, who pay the teams who pay the players.
Or something like that.
What do these paying people want? The first thing to do is to ask them.
I will not guarantee what a customer survey will say because I have been astonished in the past when customers thought differently to what management thought they should have thought. But I have a feeling in my bones that they want a better spectacle than what they are paying for.
As part of that, not the whole part, I'm predicting that they would like more rugby played in 80 minutes. I'm also predicting that they will point out that too much time of their 80 minutes is wasted on scrum resets and they want that time back. And they won't want a league like solution: if free kicks or penalty kicks keep getting awarded true rugby fans will be miffed because they have missed out on a scrum.
Let's not argue to the customer that there is nothing wrong if the scrums are done right under existing law. They already know that because they have seen some matches where that is so, even sometimes when the team in gold jerseys has played. Their problem is that there aren't enough of those games.
What the IRB should have thought about with scrum law trials was not the CTPE sequence. They should have looked at it holistically - something like applying an 80/20 target: that, with the changes, 80% of games have a good scrum outcome. To be part of that 80%, scrums in a match should be completed 80% of the time without collapses, pre-crouch stalling, early engages, free kicks or penalty kicks because the reasons for them are no longer present, as they were not in years gone by.
If they have this idea as a beacon they will realise, deep down, that something different has to be done. Really different; not fiddling around at the margins of the problem.
["Something like" - don't take it as gospel.]
Please do not talk scrum solutions here; take this to the scrum talk thread. Neither talk about good crowd figures in the NH or elsewhere for their "product", scrum resets included. Those people want scrums fixed up too.
My point in this post is that the latest IRB directive addresses marginal matters only. It will not make the elephant in the room disappear.
.
In my business life we had these head office guys organising conferences and some of them weren't too bad. The ones that were best were those which asked first: what are the significant issues facing our business? Part of that was asking: what do our customers want?
What are the significant law issues? For the vast majority of matters we have to ask the players, but in professional rugby, where players are paid, we have to ask the people who pay them. These are the people that pay at the gate or watch on TV to get good ratings for the broadcasters who have paid the organisers of the competition to get the rights, who pay the teams who pay the players.
Or something like that.
What do these paying people want? The first thing to do is to ask them.
I will not guarantee what a customer survey will say because I have been astonished in the past when customers thought differently to what management thought they should have thought. But I have a feeling in my bones that they want a better spectacle than what they are paying for.
As part of that, not the whole part, I'm predicting that they would like more rugby played in 80 minutes. I'm also predicting that they will point out that too much time of their 80 minutes is wasted on scrum resets and they want that time back. And they won't want a league like solution: if free kicks or penalty kicks keep getting awarded true rugby fans will be miffed because they have missed out on a scrum.
Let's not argue to the customer that there is nothing wrong if the scrums are done right under existing law. They already know that because they have seen some matches where that is so, even sometimes when the team in gold jerseys has played. Their problem is that there aren't enough of those games.
What the IRB should have thought about with scrum law trials was not the CTPE sequence. They should have looked at it holistically - something like applying an 80/20 target: that, with the changes, 80% of games have a good scrum outcome. To be part of that 80%, scrums in a match should be completed 80% of the time without collapses, pre-crouch stalling, early engages, free kicks or penalty kicks because the reasons for them are no longer present, as they were not in years gone by.
If they have this idea as a beacon they will realise, deep down, that something different has to be done. Really different; not fiddling around at the margins of the problem.
["Something like" - don't take it as gospel.]
Please do not talk scrum solutions here; take this to the scrum talk thread. Neither talk about good crowd figures in the NH or elsewhere for their "product", scrum resets included. Those people want scrums fixed up too.
My point in this post is that the latest IRB directive addresses marginal matters only. It will not make the elephant in the room disappear.
.
Bruce is a problem - he looks at young blokes' hamstrings walking down the street.
I thought he was more interested in their gluteal activation?
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
LG, some excellent thoughts and agree that things need to change.
Some key ingredients that go into making a sport popular for mine are;
- The ball is regularly in play and easily visible to fans
- There are fair and frequent battles for possession
- The rules are easy to follow and don't change too frequently.
Sure there other reasons why soccer is so popular, but these 3 ingredients certainly help it's global appeal.
It's also why AFL is, relative to rugby, more action orientated and simpler to understand that rugby.
I'm a rugby fan, but we need to make some changes such as;
- Get rid of legalised shepherding of the ball being buried in boring mauls. Give teams 1 chance to go forward and then the ball must be passed or a runner emerge with the ball unattached from any team mates.
- Ban kicking the ball out on the full from anywhere on the field.
- Simplify the rules, particularly the scrum and at the breakdown.........LG's ideas and others..........help!!!! Over time we have reduced some 'battle for possession' opportunities through changes like lifting in the lineout, and eliminating rucking, so we need to be careful to keep the balance right
- Whatever needs to be done to make tries a much better scoring option for teams than penalty goals
- Strongly encourage referees to use Yellow and Red cards for blatant negative infringements. I don't like speed cameras but the police have trained me to not speed because there are CONSEQUENCES. Coaches and players will soon learn too.
There's a few ideas in the Scrum Talk thread:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/scrum-talk.4363/page-20
Somewhere in there, there is an idea by yours truly:
Presently Law 20.1 (i) says:
"Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play."
Just change that to: "Charging. A front row must not charge against opponents. This is dangerous play."
With an IRB directive on how that should be refereed, (i.e. not even a short charge, as happens now) that wording change should get rid of the power hit and it's consequent malignancies, especially collapsing. Instead there will be a power push but only once the ball is fed in, as the law prescribes. Then the tunnel will be clear and the straight feed can be enforced and hookers hook for the ball. Both of them.
It's an old song I sing. Any discussion of this should be in the Scrum Talk thread.
.
- Status