IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials

[Cave Dweller]

Did you record it via DVR or was it 'acquired' elsewhere?

Youtube

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to argue Cave Dweller. Are you arguing that it's ok for scrum-halves to take an age to get the ball out because the team are re-organising their attack? That's all well and good, but 5 seconds is still enough time for a group of forwards to get in position for the next drive if needs be. This rule is all about speeding the game up, and to stop the blatant time wasting that goes on at the end of games.

If defences fan out and only commit one to the ruck, then the attacking team should play the fringes. Your example of the reds v crusaders match above is crying out for a few forwards to rumble down the middle there, then maybe the 'saders won't be so keen on fanning out across the park. Good attacking sides shouldn't need more than 5 seconds from when the ball's available, because the quicker the ball is used, the less time the defence has to re-organise.

I don't see one negative aspect of this particular proposed law-change.

I am saying when you get slow ball which is already happening you need to ignite your attack somehow otherwise you are going to run against walls without getting anywhere. To do that you need numbers where you can setup another phase and speed up the play again. To get the numbers the scrumhalf need to delay a bit so that your players can rejoin the backline or position themselves where ever in attack and to get that quick ball and to pull defenders in.

I heard someone mention time wasting I do not know why a ref use his common sense and apply the laws when someone is delaying the ball on purpose to waste time as there is a law for such things.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

It is easy to see if a player is doing it to waste time. Just look at the scoreboard or if they have a guy in the bin. Why go make a new law that will have a negative effect on attacking and positive on the defending team.

 

[dullonien]

Youtube


I am saying when you get slow ball which is already happening you need to ignite your attack somehow otherwise you are going to run against walls without getting anywhere. To do that you need numbers where you can setup another phase and speed up the play again. To get the numbers the scrumhalf need to delay a bit so that your players can rejoin the backline or position themselves where ever in attack and to get that quick ball and to pull defenders in.

I heard someone mention time wasting I do not know a ref use his commen sense and apply the laws when smeone is delaying the ball on purpose to waste time as there is a law for such things.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

It is easy to see if a player is doing it to waste time. Just look at the scoreboard or if they have a guy in the bin. Why go make a new law that will have a negative effect on attacking and positive on the defending team.

OK I understand your viewpoint now, and to some extent I agree with you. The law 10.2(b) you referred to just doesn't seem to be implemented by many ref's unfortunately, with the only one who I've really noticed telling scrum-halves to use it being Nigel Owens.

I still maintain that 5 seconds is enough time to re-organise. I understand that this might not sometimes be the case, but then they'll have to get more efficient at getting organised. Overall it'll have a positive impact, and the times it would have a slight negative impact, teams can easily adjust to.

 

[Hairy Scot]

Surprised that nothing was done to try to sort out problems at the scrum, which is becoming something of a farce.
Why don't they remove the need for the "hit" by having the packs form up in the engaged position and allowing no movement until the scrum-half has put the ball in straight?
Instead of "crouch touch pause engage" just have the packs engage and then the ref call "take the strain", at which point the ball should be fed into the scrum. Only then can a shove take place.

 

[lucky number 7]

I agree with hairy scot , remove the hit..

 

[Cave Dweller]

OK I understand your viewpoint now, and to some extent I agree with you. The law 10.2(b) you referred to just doesn't seem to be implemented by many ref's unfortunately, with the only one who I've really noticed telling scrum-halves to use it being Nigel Owens.


I still maintain that 5 seconds is enough time to re-organise. I understand that this might not sometimes be the case, but then they'll have to get more efficient at getting organised. Overall it'll have a positive impact, and the times it would have a slight negative impact, teams can easily adjust to.

Fair enough. But add the inconsistency to the fray and the referee blowing up for that law I can almost hear that (insert team here) supporters and coaches moaning that was not 5 seconds there. This and that like we here these days with the previous amendments. I do not know why teams counter ruck and push them off the ball but they sit and wait till the scrummie past it.

Let me show you implications that simple law amendments have and how it takes away the strengths of certain teams. The Bulls are very good with mauls and base a lot of their play using it. This is what is happening with rugby. It is turning into a chess game. Look at this.

Surprised that nothing was done to try to sort out problems at the scrum, which is becoming something of a farce.
Why don't they remove the need for the "hit" by having the packs form up in the engaged position and allowing no movement until the scrum-half has put the ball in straight?
Instead of "crouch touch pause engage" just have the packs engage and then the ref call "take the strain", at which point the ball should be fed into the scrum. Only then can a shove take place.

There is not one thing in the Laws of the Game requiring a hit. Not a thing. Yet we even get referees acting against teams for ’not taking the hit’, ’fading on the hit’. In fact the law says there should be no hit - not in the way it happens.

 

[lucky number 7]

Fair enough. But add the inconsistency to the fray and the referee blowing up for that law I can almost hear that (insert team here) supporters and coaches moaning that was not 5 seconds there. This and that like we here these days with the previous amendments. I do not know why teams counter ruck and push them off the ball but they sit and wait till the scrummie past it.

Let me show you implications that simple law amendments have and how it takes away the strengths of certain teams. The Bulls are very good with mauls and base a lot of their play using it. This is what is happening with rugby. It is turning into a chess game. Look at this.



What's the problem? The Bulls were outfoxed in a rare enough play , had they played by the rules and waited for there to be contact before Spies fed the ball back then they would have actually formed the maul. I don't see the issue with a bit of brains and knowing the intricate nature of the game in scenarios like this.


There is not one thing in the Laws of the Game requiring a hit. Not a thing. Yet we even get referees acting against teams for ’not taking the hit’, ’fading on the hit’. In fact the law says there should be no hit - not in the way it happens.

Response is up there

 

[Cave Dweller]

Response is up there

Oh really? Since when can one walk away from the lineout?

Law 13 OFF-SIDE WHEN TAKING PART IN THE LINE-OUT
(d) The referee must penalise any player who, voluntarily or not, moves into an off-side position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line
(e) No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended

 

[dullonien]

Surprised that nothing was done to try to sort out problems at the scrum, which is becoming something of a farce.
Why don't they remove the need for the "hit" by having the packs form up in the engaged position and allowing no movement until the scrum-half has put the ball in straight?
Instead of "crouch touch pause engage" just have the packs engage and then the ref call "take the strain", at which point the ball should be fed into the scrum. Only then can a shove take place.

That's what I've been saying for a while, but I understand that it's difficult for me to fully understand without having played in the front-row (or pack at all). Cymro has expressed his view that removing the hit might not be the answer, and being a hooker he knows what he's talking about.

From what I can see, removing the "hit" can solve all the problems we currently suffer with the scrum, in theory that is. At the moment, the biggest problem is that it's usually the team that wins the "hit", get's the upper hand in that particular scrum, even if they're the weaker of the two scrums. Of course when one side has a big upper hand, they can lose the "hit" and still recover to dominate the scrum. This leads to teams trying to second-guess the ref's timing of his engagement calls, which at the moment is resulting in so many early engagements, resulting in re-set after re-set.

By removing the hit, re-sets should reduce. On top of this I believe it would give the props all the time they should need to bind properly, and a little more time for the ref to check binding (not suggesting he walks around the scrum to check all the bindings though). Because the ref has already had a moment to check bindings, all his attention can then be focussed on the feed, making sure it's straight. Maybe hooking can then make a return. Finally, and possibly the biggest positive in my mind is that the technically superior props should become more dominant, because technically inferior props can't simply get the jump.

On the safety side of things, from a physics standpoint, it should be safer as well. Having two forces coming together gently before pushing would result in less force being involved. Less force should result in less collapses.

Fair enough. But add the inconsistency to the fray and the referee blowing up for that law I can almost hear that (insert team here) supporters and coaches moaning that was not 5 seconds there. This and that like we here these days with the previous amendments. I do not know why teams counter ruck and push them off the ball but they sit and wait till the scrummie past it.

Let me show you implications that simple law amendments have and how it takes away the strengths of certain teams. The Bulls are very good with mauls and base a lot of their play using it. This is what is happening with rugby. It is turning into a chess game. Look at this.

I can't see ref's blowing for free-kicks or penalties as soon as the 5 second mark is reached. Instead ref's will shout use it, and the scrum-half will have a further couple of seconds to do so, just as what occurs at maul time when it stops twice.

Regarding the maul thing, I've seen that done plenty of times now, with the first time being quite a few years ago. It's just up to the attacking team to understand what's happening and react to it. They can still form a maul if Spies had gone forwards into contact before offloading the ball to his fellow forwards. A maul simply hadn't been formed in your example above, because a maul requires two players from each team, as soon as one of the opposition players collided with a now offside player, it's a penalty. Very simply stuff really, and it's up to the players to react.

They didn't walk away from the lineout before it was over either. They may have taken a step backwards, but that happens all the time. This is all about a team not reacting to what's happening in front of them=dull play on their part. It's a tactic that can be used to negate a maul, but can be easily negated, otherwise every team would use it all the time.

 

[Cave Dweller]

That's what I've been saying for a while, but I understand that it's difficult for me to fully understand without having played in the front-row (or pack at all). Cymro has expressed his view that removing the hit might not be the answer, and being a hooker he knows what he's talking about.

From what I can see, removing the "hit" can solve all the problems we currently suffer with the scrum, in theory that is. At the moment, the biggest problem is that it's usually the team that wins the "hit", get's the upper hand in that particular scrum, even if they're the weaker of the two scrums. Of course when one side has a big upper hand, they can lose the "hit" and still recover to dominate the scrum. This leads to teams trying to second-guess the ref's timing of his engagement calls, which at the moment is resulting in so many early engagements, resulting in re-set after re-set.

By removing the hit, re-sets should reduce. On top of this I believe it would give the props all the time they should need to bind properly, and a little more time for the ref to check binding (not suggesting he walks around the scrum to check all the bindings though). Because the ref has already had a moment to check bindings, all his attention can then be focussed on the feed, making sure it's straight. Maybe hooking can then make a return. Finally, and possibly the biggest positive in my mind is that the technically superior props should become more dominant, because technically inferior props can't simply get the jump.

On the safety side of things, from a physics standpoint, it should be safer as well. Having two forces coming together gently before pushing would result in less force being involved. Less force should result in less collapses.



I can't see ref's blowing for free-kicks or penalties as soon as the 5 second mark is reached. Instead ref's will shout use it, and the scrum-half will have a further couple of seconds to do so, just as what occurs at maul time when it stops twice.

Regarding the maul thing, I've seen that done plenty of times now, with the first time being quite a few years ago. It's just up to the attacking team to understand what's happening and react to it. They can still form a maul if Spies had gone forwards into contact before offloading the ball to his fellow forwards. A maul simply hadn't been formed in your example above, because a maul requires two players from each team, as soon as one of the opposition players collided with a now offside player, it's a penalty. Very simply stuff really, and it's up to the players to react.

But the Crusaders can not leave the line out. They should have been penalized. Now the can not leave the line out nor want to let the Bulls form a maul. Now what is going to happen? It just seems as if we are playing a strategy game of chess, rather than rugby.

And again. How can you take something a way when there is nothing in the laws requiring it? There is not one thing in the Laws of the Game requiring a hit.

They didn't walk away from the lineout before it was over either. They may have taken a step backwards, but that happens all the time. This is all about a team not reacting to what's happening in front of them=dull play on their part. It's a tactic that can be used to negate a maul, but can be easily negated, otherwise every team would use it all the time.

Yes they did walk away. The week before they tried the same thing against the Stormers and the referee that time penalized them for it. You call that not walking back? Check the huge gap lol plus

19.13 OFFSIDE LINES AT THE LINEOUT
(b) Participating players. One offside line applies to the players taking part in the lineout
(usually some or all of the forwards, plus the scrum half and the player throwing in). Until
the ball is thrown in, and has touched a player or the ground, this offside line is the line of
touch. After that, the offside line is a line through the ball.

(i) A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside
line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

 

[Hairy Scot]

Law 10

Is there not a need for some clarification on Law 10.1?
All too often we see a team penalised for "crossing" when the ball carrier runs behind one (or more) of his team-mates even though the "offending" player(s) made no move to obstruct anyone.
In Law 10.1 the word "intentionally" is prominent!

Elsewhere in Law 10 there are sections about "playing a player without the ball" and "dangerous charging" which would seem to be saying that some of the methods of "clearing out" at rucks could be illegal but, like the scrum feed, these are ignored by referees.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Is there not a need for some clarification on Law 10.1?
All too often we see a team penalised for "crossing" when the ball carrier runs behind one (or more) of his team-mates even though the "offending" player(s) made no move to obstruct anyone.
In Law 10.1 the word "intentionally" is prominent!

Elsewhere in Law 10 there are sections about "playing a player without the ball" and "dangerous charging" which would seem to be saying that some of the methods of "clearing out" at rucks could be illegal but, like the scrum feed, these are ignored by referees.

SANZAR’s official view is:

If a player made the pass and then fell into support role, behind ball-carrier - NO obstruction - play on!
Here is a example. This should have been a try,

The essence of obstruction, apart from playing a man without the ball, is being in front of the ball-carrier or ball.

 

[dullonien]

But the Crusaders can not leave the line out. They should have been penalized. Now the can not leave the line out nor want to let the Bulls form a maul. Now what is going to happen? It just seems as if we are playing a strategy game of chess, rather than rugby.

And again. How can you take something a way when there is nothing in the laws requiring it? There is not one thing in the Laws of the Game requiring a hit.

They're not really leaving the lineout though. They're allowed to move slightly, otherwise no-one would get to the middle of the lineout to catch the bloody ball.

Doesn't really matter what the rules say about the scrum and the "hit". The reality is that teams are expected to stand with a gap between them, touch, then engage (what we're referring to as the "hit"). If one team decided not to do this, and just bind early, they'd get penalised for early engagement.

Are you just arguing for arguments sake?

 

[Cave Dweller]

They're not really leaving the lineout though. They're allowed to move slightly, otherwise no-one would get to the middle of the lineout to catch the bloody ball.

Let me put it nicely for you because you struggle to understand what I am trying to tell you.

This
Law 13 OFF-SIDE WHEN TAKING PART IN THE LINE-OUT
(d) The referee must penalise any player who, voluntarily or not, moves into an off-side position without trying to win possession or tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line
(e) No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended

+
(i) A player taking part in the lineout must either join the ruck or maul, or retire to the offside
line and stay at that line, otherwise that player is offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Makes that what the Crusaders did illegal. So wrong decision.

Doesn't really matter what the rules say about the scrum and the "hit". The reality is that teams are expected to stand with a gap between them, touch, then engage (what we're referring to as the "hit"). If one team decided not to do this, and just bind early, they'd get penalised for early engagement.

I know what a hit is.
First of all it is clear that people do not know that the hit is not required. If they did why do they ask for the hit being taken away? *facepalm*
IN fact the IRB instructed when referees have a problem with the scrums to take away the hit and let the front rows come together in orderly fashion and begin their scrumming wrestle after the ball has been put into the scrum. So what rules do you want when there is none that require it?

Just have a look at some of the hits. The tighthead will hit down on the loosehead who then gets penalised for collapsing or for putting his hand on the ground to save himself.

There is no such thing as early engagement it is just referee slang for charging which states a front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. That is dangerous play. And no they do get penalised for binding early but because the eight man performed a slingslot. Do you know what a slingshot is? The eighthman wants to ignite the engage so that the props hit is even more forceful. That force has to go somewhere most cases down. To reduce the impact they must make sure the eighthman has his head between the locks and is fully bound so that he is not looking at the referee. Thats the reason why.

Are you just arguing for arguments sake?

Why? Are you my wife?

 

[donmcdazzle]

^^ Except for when they have to resort to golden oldies, please give me an example of a scrum in any game where there was no 'hit' at engagement?

It doesn't ever happen. So why then are you saying that it isn't required when every single scrum ever set in the last 10 years has had a hit at scrum time? If you are being pedantic with the letters of the law, well done to you that you read through the rulebook. But I know what I see every game I watch, and that is a hit at engagement.

So when people say they want the hit to be gone, they mean exactly that. They're not referring to a specific section in a rulebook. If it is achieved by a new law, or just making refs carry out an existing law then whatever, no need to be so superior cause you read a rulebook.

 

[Shaggy]

I like the trial rule changes in general, but I'm a little bit concerned over the 5 seconds for the scrum half to clear the ball ... presumably the 5 seconds start after the ref has warned the defending offside players to retire, and they actually have.

I think the extra involvement of the tmo is great too, but if we are after a faster game, perhaps they should have a time limit to review the footage too, and if they can't make a decision in that time, it should be referred back to the ref.

the scrums are always a problem area, but I think Smart Cooky's idea he posted quite a while ago, where one of the officials actually feeds the scrum is the best ... the ball would actually be feed into the scrum straight, and they'd actually be contests

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Yeah but then there'd be no advantage to the attacking team.

 

[Cave Dweller]

^^ Except for when they have to resort to golden oldies, please give me an example of a scrum in any game where there was no 'hit' at engagement?

It doesn't ever happen. So why then are you saying that it isn't required when every single scrum ever set in the last 10 years has had a hit at scrum time? If you are being pedantic with the letters of the law, well done to you that you read through the rulebook. But I know what I see every game I watch, and that is a hit at engagement.

So when people say they want the hit to be gone, they mean exactly that. They're not referring to a specific section in a rulebook. If it is achieved by a new law, or just making refs carry out an existing law then whatever, no need to be so superior cause you read a rulebook.

Because the referees ego will let them rather struggle on with messy scrums than applying it. No contesting scrums and not doing the hit are totally different things.

The scrum laws are perfect nothing wrong with it. Its the inconsistent giving of the commands. They actually found that a slower call leads to less resets. NH referees give quick calls sometimes which do not help. Also another factor is the under foot conditions in Europe is not the best at times thanks to the weather.

But it is a common fact that building pressure doesn't mean trying to push early but rather lowering the shins to a parallel position to the ground. The referees make the mistake of trying to get a result out of a non stationary scrum. You have to tell the players what to do because they are like children which needs to be constantly reminded.

Here are some stats

In 2011 the percentage of scrum success was 45%. After Week 7 that was up to 59,5%

Up to the end of Week 7, the statistics were as follows:

Scrums: 662
Resets: 112
Penalties: 110
Free kicks: 46

Resets%: 16,9%
Penalties%: 16,6%
Free kicks%: 6,9%

Week 8

Blues vs Sharks: 16 scrums - 5 resets, 6 collapses, 1 penalties
Force vs Waratahs: 13 scrums - 8 resets, 16 collapses, 4 penalties, 1 free kick
Brumbies vs Rebels: 14 scrums - 1 resets, 1 collapses, 4 penalties, 3 free kicks
Crusaders vs Stormers: 11 scrums - 4 resets, 3 collapses
Cheetahs vs Chiefs: 15 scrums - 0 resets, 1 collapses, 1 penalties, 1 free kick
Lions vs Bulls: 16 scrums - 2 resets, 3 collapses, 2 penalties, 2 free kicks

Scrums: 85
Resets: 20 - 23%
Penalties: 12 - 14%
Free kicks: 7 - 8%

That men as that 'successful' (in-out) scrums were down to 54%.

Resets are up, but then the stats are much skewed by one match - Force vs Waratahs. The first scrum in that match, a Force put-in, took 2 minutes 2 seconds. That is monstrous. The Force put the ball into 9 scrums. Only one did not collapse. In all scrums collapsed 12 times on the Force put-in. But the Waratahs were the ones penalised in the match - four times.

The log for penalties at scrums looks like this, with the Bulls the worst offenders:

17 Bulls
10 Reds, Highlanders, Rebels
9 Cheetahs, Crusaders
8 Hurricanes, Sharks, Chiefs, Waratahs
7 Blues
6 Stormers, Brumbies
4 Lions
3 Force
http://rugbyrugby.com/news/laws/law_discussion/7002078/scrum_watch__week_8

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

See when you say there is no difference, its because you have no experience playing there. Take out the long pause and shorten the sequence will help the front row guessing the engage and stop the constant re-sets. It might not solve all the problems but its a step in the right direction.

Wrong.

Step in the right direction maybe but most people want the problem solved, not made slightly better.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Wrong.

Step in the right direction maybe but most people want the problem solved, not made slightly better.

Like talking to a brick wall on this matter. If you want the ref to stop the pushing before the ball goes in / crooked feeds its down to the referees to sort that out. As for the hit, this will be a better. You have already written it off before they have been implemented.

 

[TRF_heineken]