• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Cockerill Ban amended

Gather App
Peat said:
Smartcooky - So you think there's no mileage at all in getting the views of the guys who spend the most time thinking about how the current laws affect the scrum in terms of what to do i.e. top level scrummaging coaches?
Click to expand...

Yes there is some mileage in that, just as there would be mileage in asking the coaches in the Top14, the Pro-D2, the Championship, the Pro 12, the Italian Super 10, the Currie Cup, the Vodacom Cup, the ITM Cup.... and then you can add the coaches of all the world's test sides. But Cockerill gives the imprtession that nothing can be done unless his fellow coaches are consulted. Well, he needs to understand that he is not as important as he thinks he is.

The IRB's scrum steering group incorporated people from all aspects and levels of the game including referees, players and coaches. The PRL among other organisations were specifically asked for input. Cockerill probably didn't realise this because he was too busy defending his total disrespect for officials at this year's final!
 
Peat said:
Rats, didn't ask if you thought he was an idiot in general, simply that specific point.
Click to expand...

I do think he is an idiot, in general.
But I was actually calling him an idiot specifically in regards to the lack of reasoning in his comments.
Nowhere does he accept that the scrum has been a mess which results in either a collapse or is won by the side who put the ball in.

They say it's for safety, but it looks like the southern hemisphere are just trying to depower the scrum so the ball comes in and out.
Click to expand...

It certainly hasn't been done for safety. The IRB claim it's an effort to improve player welfare, by reducing the hit, thereby reducing the impact that front row's will have to endure over their whole career.
That's not quite the same as "safety".
I personally see that as a secondary reason for the change anyway, it's quite clearly been put in place primarily to improve the scrum as a spectacle.
An effort to solve the issues caused by ignoring the old laws. So I agree that the IRB's stated reasons for implementing change are a ruse.
And I don't care who has been pressuring them to do so... it seems to have plenty of support in the NH to me.

And what may I ask is the ball doing currently, if not going straight in and out?
 
Last edited:
ratsapprentice said:
It certainly hasn't been done for safety. The IRB claim it's an effort to improve player welfare, by reducing the hit, thereby reducing the impact that front row's will have to endure over their whole career.
That's not quite the same as "safety"
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself

If you are trying to improve player welfare by lowering the injury toll, whether that is over the short term, or the long term, then you have made the scrum safer for everyone involved.

If it is a ruse as you suggest, then the iRB has spent an absolute truckload of money and time on it. Biomechanics studies like these don't come cheap.

http://www.ircobi.org/downloads/irc12/pdf_files/46.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
smartcooky said:
If you are trying to improve player welfare by lowering the injury toll, whether that is over the short term, or the long term, then you have made the scrum safer for everyone involved.

If it is a ruse as you suggest, then the iRB has spent an absolute truckload of money and time on it. Biomechanics studies like these don't come cheap.
Click to expand...

I would define "safety" as avoiding acute injuries such as broken necks/paralysis from a collapse.
Safety as I have defined it is not really a major problem, across all levels of rugby there are relatively few serious acute injuries sustained in scrums.
I would say that these changes will probably have a positive impact on the length of front row's careers.
Which I would define as "Player Welfare".
Safety as I have defined it is one aspect of player welfare, but would not encompass the benefits I believe the new laws will encourage.

And yes, I do feel that the IRB is using the new binding sequence and it's supposed welfare benefits as a distraction from their re-affirmation of the existing scrum laws.
Admitting that they themselves have allowed the scrum to deteriorate in the way it has would be greatly embarrassing for an organisation of their size.
Especially considering that they simply ignored their own rules. Which is simply a terrible way for a governing body to act.

I was being pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction.
 
Last edited:
Cockerill found a mouthpiece....................

Youngs has quickly earned a reputation as a tough, dynamic hooker, forcing his way into the national team and to a starting spot with the Lions in Australia.

Yet he believes that the adapted rules will expose him to more potential danger than the old laws, notably in having to take one leg off the ground to strike for the ball.
“You are probably better off not having the ball for your scrum,” said Youngs. “I can’t see where the advantage now lies. The opposition hooker just has to shove. If it’s my ball I’ve got to decide whether to strike for the ball and risk getting driven backwards.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ngs-fears-new-scrum-laws-put-him-at-risk.html
 
Tony Manx said:
Cockerill found a mouthpiece....................

Youngs has quickly earned a reputation as a tough, dynamic hooker, forcing his way into the national team and to a starting spot with the Lions in Australia.

Yet he believes that the adapted rules will expose him to more potential danger than the old laws, notably in having to take one leg off the ground to strike for the ball.
“You are probably better off not having the ball for your scrum,” said Youngs. “I can’t see where the advantage now lies. The opposition hooker just has to shove. If it’s my ball I’ve got to decide whether to strike for the ball and risk getting driven backwards.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ngs-fears-new-scrum-laws-put-him-at-risk.html
Click to expand...

To translate - "if it's my ball I have to....be a hooker"

These idiots acting like the notion of striking the ball is a radical change to the game. Someone should explain the reason why they're called hookers, and its nothing to do with their by-night jobs
 
I want to slam my head into my desk in frustration. As you say, somehow the motion of hooking for the balls seems to be revolutionary to Tigers, which is odd seeing as it is supposedly one of the fundamental reasons that hookers (no laughing) exist on the rugby pitch.
 
Especially coming from Tom, being one of the few really short hookers, he's actually got a much easier ride than most...

It is difficult not to hit through the mark and even when you have set you have got to wait for the ref to instruct the scrum-half to put the ball in.
Click to expand...

YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HIT. YOU ARE CLEARLY UNWILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS.
 
Last edited:
TRF_SelimNiai said:
To translate - "if it's my ball I have to....be a hooker"

These idiots acting like the notion of striking the ball is a radical change to the game. Someone should explain the reason why they're called hookers, and its nothing to do with their by-night jobs
Click to expand...

It is a fairly radical change. They haven't had to in ages. Plenty of young hookers basically never have. Would you yell at wingers if they complained about suddenly being asked to take throw-ins again?

ratsapprentice said:
YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HIT. YOU ARE CLEARLY UNWILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS.
Click to expand...

Duh. He's a front row forward. You never were legally allowed to hit, just you could that they did. The potential is still there.
 
Tigers are just panicking that they're having to re-establish a former strength. This has nothing to do with what the laws should be, what's the safest, or what's the most entertaining. It comes down to that Tigers may not gain as many points at the scrum as they used to. Thankfully.
 
Peat said:
It is a fairly radical change. They haven't had to in ages. Plenty of young hookers basically never have. Would you yell at wingers if they complained about suddenly being asked to take throw-ins again?
Click to expand...

Radical change or "back to the future"?

The teams in the Currie Cup seem to be coping with it just fine, as are the teams in the ITM Cup. In both cases, no reported safety issues, less resets, & less collapses than previous years, and no reports from any of the 60 or so hookers involved that they feel unsafe.

In the Rugby Championship, three of the four teams are managing just fine as well. The Wallabies aren't, but then everone knows their reputation as non-scrummagers anyway, and importantly, the Wallabies management and coaches aren't complaining. All the talk from their camp is that they need to make improvements to their scrum.
 
smartcooky said:
The teams in the Currie Cup seem to be coping with it just fine, as are the teams in the ITM Cup. In both cases, no reported safety issues, less resets, & less collapses than previous years, and no reports from any of the 60 or so hookers involved that they feel unsafe.

In the Rugby Championship, three of the four teams are managing just fine as well. The Wallabies aren't, but then everone knows their reputation as non-scrummagers anyway, and importantly, the Wallabies management and coaches aren't complaining. All the talk from their camp is that they need to make improvements to their scrum.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
smartcooky said:
Radical change or "back to the future"?

The teams in the Currie Cup seem to be coping with it just fine, as are the teams in the ITM Cup. In both cases, no reported safety issues, less resets, & less collapses than previous years, and no reports from any of the 60 or so hookers involved that they feel unsafe.

In the Rugby Championship, three of the four teams are managing just fine as well. The Wallabies aren't, but then everone knows their reputation as non-scrummagers anyway, and importantly, the Wallabies management and coaches aren't complaining. All the talk from their camp is that they need to make improvements to their scrum.
Click to expand...


.....and after three days of the Top 14 it looks OK to me.................................stuff you Cockerill and Youngs and stop whingeing!
 
I imagine they probably will be fine, particularly Youngs who's built for this, and there is a bit of bleating - but equally, it is a change, and it is a little early to say how it will definitely turn out. I don't want to get sucked into defending them overly, but the level of hyperbole going on here is pretty weird if you ask me. On both sides I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Saw that other link, the amusing thing bout the Manu article is that the almost accusation that the Lions did this to deliberately "inconvenience" Leicester. Has nobody in the Tigers Press Office told him "stop talking Richard, you're making a fool of yourself"
 
It's not so much Richard himself, it's a mentality that he epitomises that seems to be prevalent amongst a large number of Tigers fans.
They always feel as if everyone is out to get them.
Taken in isolation those comments would be forgotten within minutes, the sheer number of complaints he makes is what winds people up.

It's similar to the one that a large minority of Bath fans seem to have too.
Being that they think all of the other clubs are laughing at them for some reason.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

H
USA Club Rugby Throwback to that Temecula vs Riverside game where one kiwi player changed everything
Replies
2
Views
318
Wishfulthinker580
Wishfulthinker580
Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
dullonien
Wales under Tandy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
Welsh Exile
W
4
"Ten simple and effective law changes that should be made to rugby refereeing"
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Reiser99
R
Y
Blaming
Replies
6
Views
1K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top