IRB and Unions sanction global Law trials

[dullonien]

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.

You're simplifying the rules too much. Where do you think the offside line for the players involved in the lineout is? It goes straight through the centre of the lineout. Therefore none of those Crusaders players were offside. Secondly, there was no ruck or maul to join, just a bunch of players huddled together, half of them in front of the ball and thus offside when they eventually come into contact with an opposition player. This really is very basic, so please keep up.

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.

Firstly, of course I know what a slingshot is. Why do you insist on treating me like some kind of idiot? There are very few rules I don't know, or don't understand in the game of rugby.

It really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book here, it's how referees ref the scrum. As donmcdazzle has stated, every scrum taking place in rugby involves an engagement. Again, it doesn't matter if the words "early engagement" isn't used in the rule book either, ref's still penalise it. This really is getting very boring, because I'm certain you know exactly what I mean, so this is the last I'm going say about the matter.

Why? Are you my wife?

lol.

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.

I do agree that this rule variation should be given a chance before being written off. However, what would you like ref's to do about early engagement? Many ref's already award free-kicks, followed by penalties for early engagements, but it rarely helps matters. Hopefully the change in wording will make it easier for the players to time their engagements, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

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.

Indeed it is like I'm talking to a brick wall since you're misinterpreting my comments to be something I don't mean! So what if we've differing opinions, how boring a place would this be if everyone agreed all the time? No need to get high and mighty about it! Just because you play front row, it doesn't mean only you're qualified to speak on front row issues. My experience in the front row was 3 or 4 games as loosehead prop and a couple more as hooker. I hated every minute of it.

I haven't written this proposal off, I'm just sceptical that it will lead to a massive change for the better. Sorting out the scrum can be done under the existing laws i.e. stop pushing before the ball enters the scrum and I've said that on other threads previously. Unless a policy to enforce this properly is implemented, the scrum issues may get slightly better but, in my opinion, won't be completely solved.

@Heineken
You're right!

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Indeed it is like I'm talking to a brick wall since you're misinterpreting my comments to be something I don't mean! So what if we've differing opinions, how boring a place would this be if everyone agreed all the time? No need to get high and mighty about it! Just because you play front row, it doesn't mean only you're qualified to speak on front row issues. My experience in the front row was 3 or 4 games as loosehead prop and a couple more as hooker. I hated every minute of it.

I haven't written this proposal off, I'm just sceptical that it will lead to a massive change for the better. Sorting out the scrum can be done under the existing laws i.e. stop pushing before the ball enters the scrum and I've said that on other threads previously. Unless a policy to enforce this properly is implemented, the scrum issues may get slightly better but, in my opinion, won't be completely solved.

@Heineken
You're right!

Ah the 'high and mighty' tag, really tired of seeing it banded on the board too, as you said differing opinion is good for debate.

It's up to the referees on the field to penalise pushing before the feed, feeding etc. But before you get to that stage you got to make sure the engagement sequence is correct and by shortening the process will only help speed up the process that many are complaining about and in theory give a good base for a scrum.

But for me the sooner the referees are either educated or are ore aware at the scrum then I don't think the scrum will ever be properly solved.

 

[Cave Dweller]

You're simplifying the rules too much. Where do you think the offside line for the players involved in the lineout is? It goes straight through the centre of the lineout. Therefore none of those Crusaders players were offside. Secondly, there was no ruck or maul to join, just a bunch of players huddled together, half of them in front of the ball and thus offside when they eventually come into contact with an opposition player. This really is very basic, so please keep up.

No. You look at half the rule. First off all they must either stay where they are or bind and form a maul. They did not do that. They stepped back and waited. The law say bind or get away. Simple penalty. They were pinned the previous week for it against The Stormers.

Firstly, of course I know what a slingshot is. Why do you insist on treating me like some kind of idiot?

Did I call you a idiot or are you a mind reader? Either way your not very good at it.

There are very few rules I don't know, or don't understand in the game of rugby.

Scrum techniques are not in the rule book. The hit is not in there. Standing up in the scrums are not illegal nor does the rule book say anything about only about scrumming up. With a scrum you penalize the cause not the symptom. Lets take the slingslot for example. What the backrowers do when the ref caught them looking and not have their head in they just say they can't hear the calls where in fact they want to create the early engagement. Scrum collapse Penalty for it. That is called penalizing the symptom and not the cause. Only solution is let front rowers coach every referee in such matters and make it a requirement for all referees from the Local High school to club and international.

It really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book here, it's how referees ref the scrum. As donmcdazzle has stated, every scrum taking place in rugby involves an engagement. Again, it doesn't matter if the words "early engagement" isn't used in the rule book either, ref's still penalise it. This really is getting very boring, because I'm certain you know exactly what I mean, so this is the last I'm going say about the matter.

No that is simple as well. he ball-feeding team wants a stable scrum, the defenders want to create an unstable scrum and spoil. Reward and promote positive scrumming and penalize negative scrumming. Why the referees get confused is because they listen to that old Kiwi catch phrase of "Reward the stronger scrum". Which encourage teams to cheat in their dominance.

I do agree that this rule variation should be given a chance before being written off. However, what would you like ref's to do about early engagement? Many ref's already award free-kicks, followed by penalties for early engagements, but it rarely helps matters. Hopefully the change in wording will make it easier for the players to time their engagements, but I'm not totally convinced.

It is simple. They should teach the players when the Engage is called the engage on the "EEEEEEEE" If they engage on the E they wont have much of a problem. But scrums where a lot of problems is is where referees neglected their checkpoints.

First make sure the setup is correct and everyone in the interlock position. This will make sure there is no hinging.
Make sure the tightheads arm is up and elbow pointing out. It must not hang otherwise the tighthead close the tunnel.
Make sure the hookers are just a bit left of the mark. When you call Touch make sure they are stationary.
If something is not right just reset instead of calling engage because the scrum will fail. Really is not that hard. Referees must just be coached what is the cause of a symptom because if he does not whatever laws you make or bring in teams will cheat and milk penalties out of the ref.

 

[dullonien]

No. You look at half the rule. First off all they must either stay where they are or bind and form a maul. They did not do that. They stepped back and waited. The law say bind or get away. Simple penalty. They were pinned the previous week for it against The Stormers.

I give up. There is no maul and that's the end of it. There is nothing to say that they must form a maul, just that they must join an existing maul or retire. I don't understand what the confusion is over this. It's a tactic open to every team, but it's a tactic the opposition can exploit as well by gaining a quick and easy 5m before then forming the maul.

Also 'get away' to where? They are already behind the offside line, and even step back to make doubly sure. Where else do you want them to go?

Did I call you a idiot or are you a mind reader? Either way your not very good at it.

No, but you were a little patronising with your comment of 'do you know what a slingshot is'.

Scrum techniques are not in the rule book. The hit is not in there. Standing up in the scrums are not illegal nor does the rule book say anything about only about scrumming up. With a scrum you penalize the cause not the symptom. Lets take the slingslot for example. What the backrowers do when the ref caught them looking and not have their head in they just say they can't hear the calls where in fact they want to create the early engagement. Scrum collapse Penalty for it. That is called penalizing the symptom and not the cause. Only solution is let front rowers coach every referee in such matters and make it a requirement for all referees from the Local High school to club and international.

No that is simple as well. he ball-feeding team wants a stable scrum, the defenders want to create an unstable scrum and spoil. Reward and promote positive scrumming and penalize negative scrumming. Why the referees get confused is because they listen to that old Kiwi catch phrase of "Reward the stronger scrum". Which encourage teams to cheat in their dominance.

It is simple. They should teach the players when the Engage is called the engage on the "EEEEEEEE" If they engage on the E they wont have much of a problem. But scrums where a lot of problems is is where referees neglected their checkpoints.

First make sure the setup is correct and everyone in the interlock position. This will make sure there is no hinging.
Make sure the tightheads arm is up and elbow pointing out. It must not hang otherwise the tighthead close the tunnel.
Make sure the hookers are just a bit left of the mark. When you call Touch make sure they are stationary.
If something is not right just reset instead of calling engage because the scrum will fail. Really is not that hard. Referees must just be coached what is the cause of a symptom because if he does not whatever laws you make or bring in teams will cheat and milk penalties out of the ref.

Players know when they're meant to engage, but just like sprinters who anticipate the gun, they attempt to second guess the ref in order to get the jump on the opposition. Plenty of props including one of the best tighthead scrummagers in the game, Adam Jones, has stated that the "hit" is all important. Loose that, and you're on the backfoot and struggling. Props will then prefer to take the scrum down and re-set to try and get a better "hit" on the next scrum.

All myself and others are suggesting is to bring in a law that requires the front row to bind before the rest of both packs, removing the "hit". This seems to be in line with what you said in the final paragraph, so are we in agreement?

 

[big ginger 8]

Haven't read the whole thread but the special patch for binding on props jerseys is pretty stupid IMO pretty impractical ecspecially for props not playing professionally who'd have to have it for every jersey they own.

 

[dullonien]

Haven't read the whole thread but the special patch for binding on props jerseys is pretty stupid IMO pretty impractical ecspecially for props not playing professionally who'd have to have it for every jersey they own.

There isn't as much of a problem with the scrum at amateur level though, and teams rarely wear skin-tight shirts anyway.

 

[irelandfan123]

Been thinking for a while ... dunno if it sounds stupid or not but will the first law mean teams will go for larger scrummies
Now hear me out, say you have a ruck scrummy gets 2 more seconds and there is no pod/moves set he will have to take it up
Therefore a increased need for scrum halves to gain more yards and keep a hold of the ball = more Mike Phillips
Anyway is this just a silly thought or am I right?

 

[ZeFrenchy]

2. A trial has been sanctioned for the November 2012 Test window permitting international teams to nominate up to eight replacements in the match day squad for Test matches. In line with current practice at domestic elite Rugby level, the additional player must be a qualified front row player.

I've been doing some thinking about this, about who will be the winner and losers. Personally, I think Australia will suffer a lot from it. They already struggle to find three international level frontrowers, and now they will have to face specialit scrummagers for 80 minutes.
Scotland, and to a lesser degree Ireland, will struggle too as they have a smaller player pool and frontrowers are not all that common. Nations with a large player base, like France, NZ, and SA will be able to accomodate players that couldn't have made the squad before, as Crocket o Mackintosh in the AB. On the other hand, players who were there mostly on polyfunctionality will likely see less opportunities from now on, as Ben Franks or JB Poux.
I am particularly curious about the effect on the Wallabies and, if it gets extended to Super Rugby, on the Aussie franchises.