British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Jakedood]

The scrum is probably the one place on the field where front row cheats work their deceits with impunity. Their cheating is hidden away from the prying eyes of the referee and they are able to infringe undetected. Indeed, the really clever ones are able to make it look as if the opponent is the infringer.

The scrum in its current form, is a blight on the game. Too much time is wasted on resets and malarkey with two sets of front row forwards participating in an unnecessary testosterone-fueled pissing context. It has become a means of generating penalties instead of what it is supposed to be according to Law 20.

"The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly , safely and fairly , after a minor infringement or a stoppage."

Unfortunately, in its current form, it is failing in all three criteria. It needs to return to being purely a hooking & pushing contest, not a lifting, twisting , dropping, turning and general wrestling competition.

Make no mistake, there is no NH = legal v SH = illegal when it comes to scrummaging.... ALL FRONT ROWS CHEAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION no matter which team, country or hemisphere they play in. They cheat, because the scrum Laws as they stand now, encourages them to cheat. There are a couple of things that could help to make it more difficult for them to cheat, and I'm prepared to discuss them if anyone is interested.

If not, then I won't bother wasting my time.

Agreed on all the above points, there was a fantastic scrum int he England v Argentina test, which was purely a pushing contest and was just quality, but how do you force front rows to behave when their opposite numbers wont, and its so difficult to pick the infringers? I would disagree with removing it from the game or eliminating it as a contest, as its actual a very enjoyable part of the game as a forward

 

[valley commando]

The scrum is probably the one place on the field where front row cheats work their deceits with impunity. Their cheating is hidden away from the prying eyes of the referee and they are able to infringe undetected. Indeed, the really clever ones are able to make it look as if the opponent is the infringer.

The scrum in its current form, is a blight on the game. Too much time is wasted on resets and malarkey with two sets of front row forwards participating in an unnecessary testosterone-fueled pissing contest. It has become a means of generating penalties instead of what it is supposed to be according to Law 20.

"The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly , safely and fairly , after a minor infringement or a stoppage."

Unfortunately, in its current form, it is failing in all three criteria. It needs to return to being purely a hooking & pushing contest, not a lifting, twisting , dropping, turning and general wrestling competition.

Make no mistake, there is no NH = legal v SH = illegal (or vice-versa) when it comes to scrummaging.... ALL FRONT ROWS CHEAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION no matter which team, country or hemisphere they play in. They cheat, because the scrum Laws as they stand now, encourages them to cheat. There are a couple of things that could help to make it more difficult for them to cheat, and I'm prepared to discuss them if anyone is interested.

If not, then I won't bother wasting my time.

I'd like your thoughts on making it harder to cheat at scrum time, as long as you aren't going to advocate league style scrums.

 

[smartcooky]

Agreed on all the above points, there was a fantastic scrum int he England v Argentina test, which was purely a pushing contest and was just quality, but how do you force front rows to behave when their opposite numbers wont, and its so difficult to pick the infringers? I would disagree with removing it from the game or eliminating it as a contest, as its actual a very enjoyable part of the game as a forward

As I see it, there are two main areas where props are being"enabled" to cheat. One of them is physical, the other is motivational

Physical:
The current engagement sequence, Crouch, Bind, Set has a flaw. With the Set coming after the Bind, the front rows move a little closer together, resulting in the initial straight-arm bind becoming a bent arm bind. Bent arms are much stronger than straight arms, and they are more suited to pulling down, twisting and driving upwards. What I would do is add "A" (for Adjust bind) after the set (so, CBSA). Once the front rows are set, the referee calls "Adjust" or Adjust Binds", at which point ALL FOUR props must quickly lengthen their binds by re-gripping further up their opponent's backs to achieve a full, straight arm bind.

Long, straight binds are the cornerstone; the foundation of a good, stable scrum. They also have the added benefit of limiting the props' ability to do anything other than pull the opposing prop towards them to lock the front rows together. It is very difficult to drop the scrum, drive your opponent upwards or turn (bore) in when your arms are straight. Anyone who doesn't understand or believe what I am saying here, try lifting weights with a bent arm, and compare how much you can lift with a straight arm. If your arm is bent at the elbow, you can apply much more force (and in more, different directions) than if it is straight.

Motivational:
Having the scrum Law reward teams for wheeling the scrum only encourages front rows to turn in and try to turn their opponent's around. If we were to outlaw the turning of the scrum altogether, and change the scrum law to state that the scrum must remain parallel to the touchline from the time the ball is thrown in to the time the scrum ends. we will take away the incentive to turn the scrum, removing the motive for front rows to push in any direction other than parallel to the touchline. Any no-fault turning is a reset with the same team to feed, any intentional turning is penalized.

Currently, some types of wheeling are allowed and some are not. It is very difficult for the referee to determine exactly why the scrum is wheeling and who is causing it. However, If no turning or wheeling at all is allowed, it becomes very easy for the referee to see who is not pushing or remaining parallel. Under 19 variations have a limit of 45° on the scrum at which point the scrum is reset. This is for safety reasons, and I see no reason why it could not be applied at all levels from elite down.

I don't claim that either of these suggestions is the full answer or some kind of magic bullet, but I believe they are on the right track.

 

[Jakedood]

As I see it, there are two main areas where props are being"enabled" to cheat. One of them is physical, the other is motivational

Physical:
The current engagement sequence, Crouch, Bind, Set has a flaw. With the Set coming after the Bind, the front rows move a little closer together, resulting in the initial straight-arm bind becoming a bent arm bind. Bent arms are much stronger than straight arms, and they are more suited to pulling down, twisting and driving upwards. What I would do is add "A" (for Adjust bind) after the set (so, CBSA). Once the front rows are set, the referee calls "Adjust" or Adjust Binds", at which point ALL FOUR props must quickly lengthen their binds by re-gripping further up their opponent's backs to achieve a full, straight arm bind.

Long, straight binds are the cornerstone; the foundation of a good, stable scrum. They also have the added benefit of limiting the props' ability to do anything other than pull the opposing prop towards them to lock the front rows together. It is very difficult to drop the scrum, drive your opponent upwards or turn (bore) in when your arms are straight. Anyone who doesn't understand or believe what I am saying here, try lifting weights with a bent arm, and compare how much you can lift with a straight arm. If your arm is bent at the elbow, you can apply much more force (and in more, different directions) than if it is straight.

Motivational:
Having the scrum Law reward teams for wheeling the scrum only encourages front rows to turn in and try to turn their opponent's around. If we were to outlaw the turning of the scrum altogether, and change the scrum law to state that the scrum must remain parallel to the touchline from the time the ball is thrown in to the time the scrum ends. we will take away the incentive to turn the scrum, removing the motive for front rows to push in any direction other than parallel to the touchline. Any no-fault turning is a reset with the same team to feed, any intentional turning is penalized.

Currently, some types of wheeling are allowed and some are not. It is very difficult for the referee to determine exactly why the scrum is wheeling and who is causing it. However, If no turning or wheeling at all is allowed, it becomes very easy for the referee to see who is not pushing or remaining parallel. Under 19 variations have a limit of 45° on the scrum at which point the scrum is reset. This is for safety reasons, and I see no reason why it could not be applied at all levels from elite down.

I don't claim that either of these suggestions is the full answer or some kind of magic bullet, but I believe they are on the right track.

I really like the physical side of things there, that actually makes a hell of a lot of sense to an ex blindside who didnt really know scrumming that well, but I understand physics, and so many scrums get tugged down within a short period of the engagement that I can fully understand this.

In regards to motivational thing, we may want to avoid reset scrummages, is the only thing I would say about that? But for sure I like the bind adjust stage in that call

Thanks for that SC

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

With Jaco Peyper as the ref, I'm willing to bet there'll be at least a few controversial calls (if not a lot) and this thread will be flooded in the 24 hours after the match. That man just has a way of sparking up controversy lol.
If I were to bet on the number of posts in here by Monday, I'd say at least 150-200. Pushing 300+ if the ABs lose.

 

[ALJ]

Motivational:
Having the scrum Law reward teams for wheeling the scrum only encourages front rows to turn in and try to turn their opponent's around. If we were to outlaw the turning of the scrum altogether, and change the scrum law to state that the scrum must remain parallel to the touchline from the time the ball is thrown in to the time the scrum ends. we will take away the incentive to turn the scrum, removing the motive for front rows to push in any direction other than parallel to the touchline. Any no-fault turning is a reset with the same team to feed, any intentional turning is penalized.

I agree with everything you said except this part.

A dominant prop/srcum can turn a scrum quite legally and his team can gain significant advantage from it (e.g. opening the defensive field for the O/S Flanker while simultaneously increasing the distance between the attacking SH & FH). To remove this seems to be another step to removing the point of strong scrummagers and all the implications that entails.
Tbh I also don't think it removes anything from the incentive as it has to be more tempting to let the scrum wheel and take your chances with the ref.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree with everything you said except this part.

A dominant prop/srcum can turn a scrum quite legally and his team can gain significant advantage from it (e.g. opening the defensive field for the O/S Flanker while simultaneously increasing the distance between the attacking SH & FH).

Well techcically, that is only going to happen on the right side of the field, because on the left side, the O/S flanker is on the right, and scrums almost always wheel to the right (clockwise) due to the front row offset. It is very rare for a scrum to wheel to the left

To remove this seems to be another step to removing the point of strong scrummagers and all the implications that entails.

Under current Law, the only side usually interested in wheeling is the side that didn't throw the ball in, because they have a turnover to gain.

The technique for wheeling the scrum (THP anchors his side, LHP pushes forwards and around is so very similar to the illegal technique that the LHP uses to bore in that most people (fans, coaches, players and referees) cannot tell the difference, and I include members of this forum in this. I have seen some complete and utter bollocks posted here about scrummaging from posters who clearly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and have certainly never had any experience in the front row*

I see this as a balancing act and a compromise. Is the rarity we see a wheeled a scrum be effective (maybe once or twice per match at the most) worth keeping in the game against the benefits to the whole game of not allowing any wheeling so that we remove the reason for props to turn inwards AT ALL? I don't think so.

Tbh I also don't think it removes anything from the incentive as it has to be more tempting to let the scrum wheel and take your chances with the ref.

You are up by 2 points, 20m out in front of your own posts. Your opponents have the feed to the scrum.

Are you going to "let the scrum wheel and take your chances with the ref."


* My credentials are that I was a loosehead prop for about 12 years before a serious knee cartilage injury I sustained in motorcycle accident ended my serious playing days. I become a referee shortly after, but the ongoing issues with that knee cartilage eventually put an end to that too. I have seen the front row from both inside and out,... I know what goes on the the dim dark places you don;t talk about at parties!

 

[ALJ]

Well techcically, that is only going to happen on the right side of the field, because on the left side, the O/S flanker is on the right, and scrums almost always wheel to the right (clockwise) due to the front row offset. It is very rare for a scrum to wheel to the left

Well it was intended as a single example (I mean left side of the field, O/S on the right looking to get an advantage).
Another one could be right side of the field on your own put in (15m blindside), 10m out - No. 8 pick up looking to score.

Under current Law, the only side usually interested in wheeling is the side that didn't throw the ball in, because they have a turnover to gain.

The technique for wheeling the scrum (THP anchors his side, LHP pushes forwards and around is so very similar to the illegal technique that the LHP uses to bore in that most people (fans, coaches, players and referees) cannot tell the difference, and I include members of this forum in this. I have seen some complete and utter bollocks posted here about scrummaging from posters who clearly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and have certainly never had any experience in the front row*

I see this as a balancing act and a compromise. Is the rarity we see a wheeled a scrum be effective (maybe once or twice per match at the most) worth keeping in the game against the benefits to the whole game of not allowing any wheeling so that we remove the reason for props to turn inwards AT ALL? I don't think so.

My examples focus on the thp forcing the wheel - one in attack, one in defence.

I see the point about the compromise, just not convinced personally as I think it loses a valid part of the armoury available at the restart.
The other point being that it potentially moves you closer to the scrum just being a method of restarting rather than a key aspect of the attrition. Or in other words, there's an argument that says, the less opportunity there is to establish dominance, the more likely you are to lose the specialist nature of the front row positions.

I don't see the need for the passive/aggressive implication that I'm talking ********. You have experience and you talk a lot of sense but that doesn't mean your opinions can't be questioned, otherwise what the hell are we doing on a discussion forum?**

You are up by 2 points, 20m out in front of your own posts. Your opponents have the feed to the scrum.

Are you going to "let the scrum wheel and take your chances with the ref."

No but that's one example of one situation, that doesn't invalidate the point - they take their chances now and IMHO they'd find times and places to take their chances if the change was made - for example, the team on the other side of your example. A chance of a penalty would look pretty good to them at that point I reckon.

* My credentials are that I was a loosehead prop for about 12 years before a serious knee cartilage injury I sustained in motorcycle accident ended my serious playing days. I become a referee shortly after, but the ongoing issues with that knee cartilage eventually put an end to that too. I have seen the front row from both inside and out,... I know what goes on the the dim dark places you don;t talk about at parties!

**You didn't need to bring your credentials into it - I wasn't questioning that you know your stuff as that's apparent from what you post. Likewise, I have my own but who the hell wants to hear about them.

 

[die_mole]

Under current Law, the only side usually interested in wheeling is the side that didn't throw the ball in, because they have a turnover to gain.

that was removed last year...

even still, there are other benefits for the defensive side wheeling

 

[The Jones Boy]

I was a loosehead prop for about 12 years before a serious knee cartilage injury I sustained in motorcycle accident ended my serious playing days. I become a referee shortly after, but the ongoing issues with that knee cartilage eventually put an end to that too. I have seen the front row from both inside and out,... I know what goes on the the dim dark places you dont talk about at parties!

Sorry to hear about your knee. I've lost the ACL, medial ligament and cartilage to one of my knees. Like an old banger it makes a knocking sound now and aches in the cold.
All Black victories do make it feel better though... ;-)

 

[smartcooky]

that was removed last year...

Only temporarily as part of a global trial. I expect it will be ratified.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Is this a thread about the refs or the mods?

 

[ncurd]

Is this a thread about the refs or the mods?

What's the difference? Both will make questionable calls which people will moan about based on which side they are on

 

[die_mole]

Only temporarily as part of a global trial. I expect it will be ratified.

why do you expect so? we are in the second year of it

have you had negative experiences with it in your referee coaching?

in my experience it has led to less wheeled scrums since the defence doesn't have a reason to go for it but it has also led to the offence keeping the ball in the scrum forever since they know that they can't lose the ball on a wheel

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Right, I've cleaned the thread up, can we please try and keep on topic from here on.
If anyone has any issues with the moderating on the forum please either PM a member of staff or open up a new thread in the Site Suggestions sub-forum. We're always open to suggestions and constructive criticism, it's a tough job keeping on top of everything going on especially in times of increased traffic and high running emotions during internationals season.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Lets hope the referees don't give us any call to have to dissect their activities too much.
I'm not a fan of Jaco Peyper, I hope he simply keeps both sides honest and lets the game flow.
Let the teams have a chance to show their quality.
After that it's down to the players to obey the ref and try to make sure they are staying within the boundaries of the laws of the game.

 

[smartcooky]

At last, a referee who is telling the Lions to shut their mouthy gobs at the lineout, and is prepared to ping their rush defence for offside

 

[Maverick1987]

Really surprising from Peyper there . Before the not rolling penalty an AB clearly went off his feet he put his whistle to his mouth didn't blow it then gave a penalty against us seconds later ...... we have a big enough task anyway the last thing we need is an indecisive referee ....

 

[Maverick1987]

At last, a referee who is telling the Lions to shut their mouthy gobs at the lineout, and is prepared to ping their rush defence for offside

The amount of times the ABs have been offside in defence this game already I'm surprised you have gall to go on about us .....

Brody being the main culprit so far imo

 

[ncurd]

The amount of times the ABs have been offside in defence this game already I'm surprised you have gall to go on about us .....

Brody being the main culprit so far imo

SC pinging the side he's not supporting while his does exactly the same thing. ...never seen that before.