^ what is your suggestion to fix that Wamberal?
If you could change the laws of rugby, what would you change?
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
T
TOCC
Guest
Slim, if it is it's rarely enforced, I'm proposing that It should be enforced even if the scrum is still moving.
Teams intentionally use the scrum to milk penalties, if that's not negative tactics then what is? Whilst some people will enjoy watching continuous scrum resets until a penalty try is awarded, I can assure you a greater number of people will enjoy it more if a try is scored via that set piece, whether that's through forward or backs.
Scrums need to remain, as a means of restarting play quickly and safely, not to milk penalties.
If the rule was trial'd that the team must play the ball if available to the number 8 or halfback, what would be lost to the game? Because there are definitely positives but so far the only negative is the loss of penalty tries.
Teams intentionally use the scrum to milk penalties, if that's not negative tactics then what is? Whilst some people will enjoy watching continuous scrum resets until a penalty try is awarded, I can assure you a greater number of people will enjoy it more if a try is scored via that set piece, whether that's through forward or backs.
Scrums need to remain, as a means of restarting play quickly and safely, not to milk penalties.
If the rule was trial'd that the team must play the ball if available to the number 8 or halfback, what would be lost to the game? Because there are definitely positives but so far the only negative is the loss of penalty tries.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
There's a perfect game for you that does just that.
I don't disagree with you on the whole although I don't see how this relates to Wamberal's point and my question of how he thinks that should be fixed.
T
TOCC
Guest
I always enjoy a smart arse, look at the title of this thread and tell me I'm out of place...
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
What would be lost?! Real scrums!
Watching that Brumby scrum on Fri nite was a thing of beauty. The way the Rebels scrum fell apart against them was something that sets rugby apart from every other game on the planet.
Ballboy
Chris McKivat (8)
- fix the advantage rule , too much dead rugby , two tackles over the ad line and advantage over , if you go back get the penalty
- at least 1m back from last feet of ruck , get some space between them
- halfbacks not alowed to talk , unless captain and then only at stoppage in play
- at least 1m back from last feet of ruck , get some space between them
- halfbacks not alowed to talk , unless captain and then only at stoppage in play
I'm pretty sure I get why you're saying this, but rather than encouraging more attacking rugby, I think it would result in endless pick and drives because all of a sudden there's easier metres to be made every time.
T
TOCC
Guest
No, you're either not reading my posts or you're misinterpreting it.. Absolutely nothing would be removed from the scrums themselves, there is no 'depowering', no removal of the hit, the only thing which would change would be the definition of when the scrum is complete..
Furthermore in line with the above rule change I would prefer to see the referee enforce straight feeds of the ball more, bring back the hooking competition.. Get away from the rubbish feeds that happen currently and make it a true comp for the ball.
Rugby prides itself on the concept that everything remains a competition for the ball, once the ball is anchored at the back of the scrum the competition is over, it's a flaw within the rules which teams have learnt to exploit.
Anyway that's my opinion and thats what I would like to see trialled, if it doesn't work then so be it, I don't expect everyone to agree with it.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Only issue with holding the ball in scrums is teams that do it for a fourth, fifth, sixth shove and so on. They hold it in there so long that a collapse is inevitable. Then they get a scrum reset and try again. The Italians come to mind when thinking of this tactic.
Refs need to call use it more often for scrums that have been stationary for the 5 or so seconds. If it then collapses, tough luck to the team who left it there.
Refs need to call use it more often for scrums that have been stationary for the 5 or so seconds. If it then collapses, tough luck to the team who left it there.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
So we have to get rid of mauls too?
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
'Quickly' is a pretty subjective term. They're quick enough for me. And I have no issue watching a no.8 keep the ball at his feet. To me, the scrum is actually a phase of play, once the ball is in, play has actually re-started. To say that it hasn't seriously degrades the massive effort and wirk the forwards put into the set-piece and marginalises that specific skill-set.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
T
TOCC
Guest
Slim, mauls actually feature the very rule which I'm proposing scrums should have, the use it or lose it rule...
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Actually, what you're suggesting is that dominant scrums shouldn't be allowed to keep moving forward while the ball is held at the back.........
There is already a law stating that the ball must emerge immediately from a stationary scrum:
So the laws are already similar to that of a maul........ I don't see any reason for change........
Dominant scrums should be rewarded..........
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
If one team has the physical dominance over another and can walk with them they should absolutely be rewarded.