New scrum process approved for global trial

[Shaggy]

The changes definitely look better - the scrums look more stable, and hence, safer ... particularly pleased with the half back having to throw the ball straight part ... that's a pet peeve of mine, and I guess I'll have to find other parts of the game to moan about ... maybe they could bring back rucking

 

[ratsapprentice]

Well, not quite.

So long as they kept allowing the front rows to compete with each other before the ball was put in, nothing was going to fix the problems. Simply making the scrummie throw the ball in straight is part of, but not the whole solution.

Ah!

I should have been more specific, the part of the quote I was referring to was the "square and stationary" bit
So we agree!

I have to admit I have never seen rule 20.5, any idea how long that has been there for?

 

[smartcooky]

Ah!

I should have been more specific, the part of the quote I was referring to was the "square and stationary" bit
So we agree!

I have to admit I have never seen rule 20.5, any idea how long that has been there for?

Since way back before the introduction of the hit. It actually made sense then, since we used to have scrums that looked like this...



From the time the referee signals the scrum, to the time the front rows engage.... 9 seconds.
From engagement to ball in ...2 seconds
From ball in to ball cleared to the backs... 5 seconds

The whole scrum done and dusted in 16 seconds! When do you ever see that these days.

 

[sifplay]

No worries mate. When people call me "Old School", I consider it a compliment not an insult.




Well, not quite.

So long as they kept allowing the front rows to compete with each other before the ball was put in, nothing was going to fix the problems. Simply making the scrummie throw the ball in straight is part of, but not the whole solution.

The problem was, and still is, the scrum Law with relation to stability and put in. These two laws...


[TEXTAREA]LAW 20.1 FORMING A SCRUM
(j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half's hands, the scrum must be
stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the
scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]

and

[TEXTAREA]20.5 THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the
ball without delay. The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee.
The scrum half must throw in the ball from the side of the scrum first chosen.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]

... are in direct conflict with each other.

On the one hand 20.1 says the scrum must be square and stable before the scrummie throws the ball in (and the referee is expected to ensure this) and on the other hand, 20.5 says the ball must be thrown in immediately the front rows come together. 20.5 has to either go or be re-worded to something like...


[TEXTAREA]20.5 THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
No delay. The scrum half must throw in the ball as soon as the scrum is stationary, and stable. The scrum half must throw in the ball when told to do so by the referee.
The scrum half must throw in the ball from the side of the scrum first chosen.
Sanction: Free Kick[/TEXTAREA]


PS: For those wondering what the engage sequence looks like, here it is in use in this year's Pacific Rugby Championship.

Then explain this

This is a good example of what is happening in the professional world.

Ferreira was having a hard time in the scrums. But despite that he was trying to scrum legally and with a positive attitude.

The Bulls front rower was binding illegally for starters by binding on the arm. Then Ferreira try to grip his shirt but couldn't get grip. So he got grip on Stegmann. As the scrum started Stegmann chopped his hand of meaning his balance is of and he still tried to make a effort in keeping it stable by putting his hand on the ground. Ferreira was penalized after Stegmann broke off and point to the referee which is another illegal thing.

Moral of the story? Do not show your the weaker scrum. Go down rather than backwards cause if you show you are the above is going to happen

 

[dullonien]

I've said it on so many occasions, this just makes more sense than the system we have at the moment. There is still a 'hit' in there, but having players pre-bind makes it easier for players to find a bind on modern tight jerseys, and allows a second for the ref (and assistant on the short side) to check the players' binding's.

The 'hit' looks to have reduced in intensity somewhat, which imo is a good thing, because all the hit allows it a chance for the weaker scrummaging props an opportunity to get a jump against a stronger scrummaging opposition. This importance of timing it just right has a big part to play in the problems we have at scrum time, because a good deal of them are re-set of penalised due to early engagement. This could still be a problem, we'll have to wait and see.

I hope that the feeding is refereed. After all it's always been in the rule book, but has been ignored by most referees.

A step in the right direction. Time will tell if it will solve all the problems, but I think it's good to try this intermediate step instead of jumping straight to the removal of the 'hit', even if I think this is the eventual solution.

Then explain this

This is a good example of what is happening in the professional world.

I don't think I've ever seen a prop bind onto a flankers shirt before! So I wouldn't call that a good example of what's happening in the professional world.

Correct binding is hugely important to scrummaging, and this law change makes it easier for players to get a proper bind, and for referee's to spot illegal binding = win, win.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Be interesting to see in it force. For someone playing in the front row, pre-binding might take a little time to get used to it.

Part of the problem is the 'hit'. If props hit up instead of down it would help solve part of the problem.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

As a related sidenote, I'm watching the Sprongboks vs. Lions 1st test from the 1997 tour, and you could hear Stuart Barnes saying something like "Set pieces is going to be important: Keith Wood and Matt Dawson have surely worked on their timing come scrumtime".
When I started playing rugby, at hooker, a few years before that, we used to have calls to get the timing correct at the scrum, in order to be able to hook the ball before the opposing hooker. And part of the desirable skillset from a hooker was to be able to steal opposition ball by hooking. No sign of all that since somewhere around 1999.

 

[big ginger 8]

The real worry I have is that this will open up the tighthead. Tightheads try and allow the loosehead little space so they can't get under them where the loosehead becomes the one in control. Prebinding could force the tighthead to open more leading to a lot of turning in the scrum.

Also just something that grates me a bit. People keep saying about the hit helping the weaker scrummager because he can get a jump on the opposite number. I've only ever scrummed with the hit and I think at the moment getting your timing right for the hit is part of being a good scrummager.

 

[dullonien]

Also just something that grates me a bit. People keep saying about the hit helping the weaker scrummager because he can get a jump on the opposite number. I've only ever scrummed with the hit and I think at the moment getting your timing right for the hit is part of being a good scrummager.

Yes I agree to an extent, but it's become obvious that most props are willing to push things in order to get a jump on the opposition. How many times are scrums re-set at professional level because one side (or even both) have gone early? It seems to happen sometimes multiple times for a single scrum. The Italy v Wales game turned into a bit of a farce because of it. Seeing this is in no-ones best interest, not those that love watching scrummaging, or those who loath it, all it does is eat away at time and bore everyone watching.

It's like sprinting. There's no real issues of runners jumping the gun at amateur level, but as soon as you get to professional level it was becoming a real pain, with most 100m races having to be re-set multiple times. They took a hard stance with the laws, and imo it's all the better for the viewer because of it.

Edit. I don't think that rugby should follow sprinting and increase early engagements to a penalty, but by reducing the importance of timing the engagement will return scrummaging to a battle of propping ability and strength as opposed to timing, and hopefully reduce the amount of re-sets and incomplete scrums.

 

[sifplay]

I've said it on so many occasions, this just makes more sense than the system we have at the moment. There is still a 'hit' in there, but having players pre-bind makes it easier for players to find a bind on modern tight jerseys, and allows a second for the ref (and assistant on the short side) to check the players' binding's.

The 'hit' looks to have reduced in intensity somewhat, which imo is a good thing, because all the hit allows it a chance for the weaker scrummaging props an opportunity to get a jump against a stronger scrummaging opposition. This importance of timing it just right has a big part to play in the problems we have at scrum time, because a good deal of them are re-set of penalised due to early engagement. This could still be a problem, we'll have to wait and see.

I hope that the feeding is refereed. After all it's always been in the rule book, but has been ignored by most referees.

A step in the right direction. Time will tell if it will solve all the problems, but I think it's good to try this intermediate step instead of jumping straight to the removal of the 'hit', even if I think this is the eventual solution.



I don't think I've ever seen a prop bind onto a flankers shirt before! So I wouldn't call that a good example of what's happening in the professional world.

Correct binding is hugely important to scrummaging, and this law change makes it easier for players to get a proper bind, and for referee's to spot illegal binding = win, win.

He was trying to get a grip. But correct binding. Look at blue 3. You call that correct? Right in front of the referee. The other team was penalized cause they had the weaker scrum and it went down. Lose lose lose situation

 

[smartcooky]

Then explain this

This is a good example of what is happening in the professional world.

This is not typical of modern scrummaging. I cant say I've ever seen a prop binding on a flanker before, and in all likelihood, the prop didn't even know that's where his bind was. I guess this is not going happen with pre-binding!!

Also, Actually, I have to wonder why the Bulls flanker was bound so far forward. Its difficult to see on this little gif (and I wouldn't mind seeimg the full video of this) but it looks to me like he is bound across his tight head prop's body onto his hooker's body, which is in itself strictly illegal!!

[TEXTAREA]LAW 20.3 BINDING IN THE SCRUM
(f) Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must
bind on a lock's body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks must
bind with the props in front of them. No other player other than a prop may hold an
opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

I've said it on so many occasions, this just makes more sense than the system we have at the moment. There is still a 'hit' in there, but having players pre-bind makes it easier for players to find a bind on modern tight jerseys, and allows a second for the ref (and assistant on the short side) to check the players' binding's.

The 'hit' looks to have reduced in intensity somewhat, which imo is a good thing, because all the hit allows it a chance for the weaker scrummaging props an opportunity to get a jump against a stronger scrummaging opposition. This importance of timing it just right has a big part to play in the problems we have at scrum time, because a good deal of them are re-set of penalised due to early engagement. This could still be a problem, we'll have to wait and see.

I hope that the feeding is refereed. After all it's always been in the rule book, but has been ignored by most referees.

A step in the right direction. Time will tell if it will solve all the problems, but I think it's good to try this intermediate step instead of jumping straight to the removal of the 'hit', even if I think this is the eventual solution.



I don't think I've ever seen a prop bind onto a flankers shirt before! So I wouldn't call that a good example of what's happening in the professional world.

Correct binding is hugely important to scrummaging, and this law change makes it easier for players to get a proper bind, and for referee's to spot illegal binding = win, win.

Yes I agree to an extent, but it's become obvious that most props are willing to push things in order to get a jump on the opposition. How many times are scrums re-set at professional level because one side (or even both) have gone early? It seems to happen sometimes multiple times for a single scrum. The Italy v Wales game turned into a bit of a farce because of it. Seeing this is in no-ones best interest, not those that love watching scrummaging, or those who loath it, all it does is eat away at time and bore everyone watching.

It's like sprinting. There's no real issues of runners jumping the gun at amateur level, but as soon as you get to professional level it was becoming a real pain, with most 100m races having to be re-set multiple times. They took a hard stance with the laws, and imo it's all the better for the viewer because of it.

Edit. I don't think that rugby should follow sprinting and increase early engagements to a penalty, but by reducing the importance of timing the engagement will return scrummaging to a battle of propping ability and strength as opposed to timing, and hopefully reduce the amount of re-sets and incomplete scrums.

Pretty much 100% on the money pal. I don't disagree with anything you have said in either of these two posts.

 

[dullonien]

Expanding slightly on a point I made above about it being easier for referees to check the binds. I think this is an important thing, and something I think Jonathan Davies (the presenter) has spot on. He often goes on about referee's having a difficult job, and for any law changes to be brought in with an eye on how it will affect the job of a referee.

Making the referee's lives a little easier is a good thing due to how influential a referee can be on a game, and this law change should make their lives that little bit easier when it comes to deciding on fault for collapses etc. and should allow them a little more time to check the feed (because he will have already checked the binds).

Not having everything happening at once is imo easier for both the players and a referee.

 

[ratsapprentice]

But it is the referees fault that the engagement process has become so compressed in the first place, they wouldn't be faced with such a difficult situation if they hadn't taken it upon themselves to ignore Law 20.1

 

[dullonien]

But it is the referees fault that the engagement process has become so compressed in the first place, they wouldn't be faced with such a difficult situation if they hadn't taken it upon themselves to ignore Law 20.1

I don't quite understand what you mean by this? The problem is that the current engagement procedure that includes a 'hit' is contrary to law 20.1, which is then itself contradictory to law 20.5. The 'hit' promotes pushing straight away, and is treated this way by all props. It isn't the referees that have 'taken it upon themselves to ignore law 20.1', it's the rules that contradict themselves imo.

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's my point though, they have created this situation, by creating laws that directly contradict existing ones.
The hit has been facilitated by the governing bodies, without any sort of forethought into what it could turn into...

 

[smartcooky]

That's my point though, they have created this situation, by creating laws that directly contradict existing ones.
The hit has been facilitated by the governing bodies, without any sort of forethought into what it could turn into...

Ahem!

Referees do not "create" Laws, they simply do their best to interpret them

Its the iRB "Rugby Committee" who are the lawmakers, and there aren't many referees on that committee



EDIT:
I should also mention that many of the "incremental" changes to the Laws are from clarifications, often at the request of individual national unions.

The problems for the iRB are two fold.
1. Many of the Laws are so interdependent, that sometimes changes are made and no-one realises that it may be in conliflict with another part of the Law. The issue with 20.1 (f) and 20.5 is a prime example.

2. The iRB seems to insist on employing illiterate 12 years olds to do their proof reading for them. The cock up with scrum-half offside laws when the 5m offside line was introduced is a great example of that.

 

[Canucks]

I'm really looking forward to this. I feel the scrum will now become a battle of skill and strength and not timing/cheating.

Personally, I may go back to playing rugby if these laws are enforced at amateur levels.

I play hooker and had a scare earlier this year with a collapsed scrum. Props hit in, they slipped off their bind and let me go. This caused the entire second row/n8 driving force to propel me face first into the ground. I got lucky and had a glancing blow rather than my head driven into the ground. Everyone seems so hell bent on imitating the hit that the pros do that they forgo player safety.

All in all, this will be good for the sport and cannot wait to see hooking return to the good ole days of actually competing for the ball.

My provincial union in Canada trialled something very similar to this for a year at high school level after a player died practicing a scrum.

I personally find this way of scrummaging makes the game more competitive. The scrum becomes an actual contest where 8 people need to combine strength in unison, rather then the current version where the props try to prevent the other prop from binding correctly.
As well, I really enjoyed hooking that year and look forward to the skill returning. If the feeding is strictly enforced then scrums will no longer be automatic possession.

 

[ratsapprentice]

...Thought I'd post these (from Brian Moore):

 

[big ginger 8]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/m8lqc_oeV9A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ratsapprentice]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/w...-laws/story-e6frf4pu-1226699462965#mm-premium

I really don't understand this way of thinking regarding the scrum, it seems to be particularly prevalent among Aussies.
One of the commentators (I think it was Horan) during the match said: "we don't want the ref to be pedantic about it".
Pedantic? The rules clearly state you have to put the ball in straight!