• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Premiership Rugby 19/20 - Rd 14

Old Hooker

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
3,415
Reaction score
1,153
Country Flag

England

Scrums are totally fixable, set a time limit and penalise it ruthlessly. Similarly, since when was dropping a scrum not dangerous foul play? Penalise it as such. Coaches and players will learn soon enough if the refs get a grip. They take the p*ss because they can. And the refs can start looking for crooked put ins (ie all of them) while they’re about it.

Other themes from the weekend.

Agree about Eng’s back row strength. Binny is looking like a bit of a dinosaur. A big dinosaur admittedly but a dinosaur nonetheless. I don’t think he’s where the game’s at and he’s definitely not where it’s going. Time to move on.

The BLM was embarrassing. Didn’t particularly mind that teams did their own thing, but the teams should have been united among themselves - Sale were particularly hard to watch with only 4 taking the knee - what message did that send? To me that was worse than doing nothing. Gather the Saffer press weren’t too impressed with several of their countrymen.
 

ragerancher

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
1,692
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Scrum changes:

- Additional call "Form", each team has a few seconds to get into position ready for the scrum. If a team is not ready for "crouch" in time then free kick to the other side. Referees should not allow players to waft around before and between scrums. I saw footage from the 70's and whilst scrums were less on the edge then, they were able to set up and finish them in seconds. As it is the ref has next to no power to penalise players for taking their time even getting into position to start the scrum, which contributes to the majority of time wasted. Actually enforce this one too, unlike the "use it" one that is never enforced.

- TMO should have a say in the scrums, they potentially have an aerial view that the refs don't have. It's not like the TMO inclusion will make things any slower.

- I think the "set" command should be adjusted so there is no collision, instead both sides properly take the strain but use it as it is was intended, to get the scrum set and ready to push when the ball comes in, not as the point to start pushing and essentially using it as a mini engage. At least if they aren't pushing until the ball comes in, the chances of the ball actually getting in should go right up.

- Also floating the idea, the scrumhalf of the defending side must stay level with their 8 rather than the centre of the scrum. This would hopefully create a bit of extra incentive to try to complete the scrum rather than milk a penalty.

Scrums are totally fixable, set a time limit and penalise it ruthlessly. Similarly, since when was dropping a scrum not dangerous foul play? Penalise it as such. Coaches and players will learn soon enough if the refs get a grip. They take the p*ss because they can. And the refs can start looking for crooked put ins (ie all of them) while they’re about it.

While I agree in principle, any attempt to punish scrums more harshly will, I believe, have the opposite effect. Teams play silly buggers because a penalty from a scrum is usually worth more than completing the scrum, so the team in possession actually doesn't have a huge incentive to complete the scrum, their goal is to get a penalty. Increase the chances of penalties being awarded will only exacerbate this situation. Combined with the generally poor understanding of who is actually at fault and I see this making this worse rather than better.
 

Which Tyler

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
1,721
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Scrum changes:

- Additional call "Form", each team has a few seconds to get into position ready for the scrum. If a team is not ready for "crouch" in time then free kick to the other side. Referees should not allow players to waft around before and between scrums. I saw footage from the 70's and whilst scrums were less on the edge then, they were able to set up and finish them in seconds. As it is the ref has next to no power to penalise players for taking their time even getting into position to start the scrum, which contributes to the majority of time wasted. Actually enforce this one too, unlike the "use it" one that is never enforced.

- TMO should have a say in the scrums, they potentially have an aerial view that the refs don't have. It's not like the TMO inclusion will make things any slower.

- I think the "set" command should be adjusted so there is no collision, instead both sides properly take the strain but use it as it is was intended, to get the scrum set and ready to push when the ball comes in, not as the point to start pushing and essentially using it as a mini engage. At least if they aren't pushing until the ball comes in, the chances of the ball actually getting in should go right up.

- Also floating the idea, the scrumhalf of the defending side must stay level with their 8 rather than the centre of the scrum. This would hopefully create a bit of extra incentive to try to complete the scrum rather than milk a penalty.



While I agree in principle, any attempt to punish scrums more harshly will, I believe, have the opposite effect. Teams play silly buggers because a penalty from a scrum is usually worth more than completing the scrum, so the team in possession actually doesn't have a huge incentive to complete the scrum, their goal is to get a penalty. Increase the chances of penalties being awarded will only exacerbate this situation. Combined with the generally poor understanding of who is actually at fault and I see this making this worse rather than better.
Agree with all of those, possibly except the defending SH. I'd allow them to advance as far as the tunnel.
The sight of Ben Youngs pretending he's Jack Maunder's backpack is just ridiculous
 

Jimbo

Bench Player
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
620
Reaction score
160
Country Flag

UK

Club or Nation

London Wasps

Current? Exactly when was a penalty try awarded for repeat infringement rather than an infringement that prevents a try. I've only been watching the game for 35 years or so, but I really don't remember such a time. Perfectly mpossible that itnjust my memory, but either way, it's not a new thing.
Disagreeing =/= missing the point.
Sorry been Stupid busy, the entire point I was making was that the application and to some extent the laws in my opinion should be reviewed, I wasn’t ever implying historically they were any different to how they are now just they should be reviewed.

my point was simply that cheating repeadily at source rather than once the attack unfolds has an obvious advantage under current law, it somehow doesn’t seem right to me.
 

Jimbo

Bench Player
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
620
Reaction score
160
Country Flag

UK

Club or Nation

London Wasps

That's not even close to what I'm saying and you know it. What I'm saying is that the current criteria for awarding a penalty try is that the infringement needed to directly prevent a try being scored (ie if you removed the infringing player there would have been nothing to prevent the try). Bristol committed repeat infringements that justified a yellow but none of the infringements directly prevented a try as other players were always around who were in a position to stop it. In the Saracens case, the Bristol player was driving to the line and the ONLY player who prevented him did so illegally. Had George not come in at the side, there as nobody who could have stopped Bristol scoring a try. That is the difference as set out by the laws of the game. You may not like it but that's how it is.

No it's not unfair because both sides are subjected to the same rules. A genuine grievance that I have is when there is inconsistency in how many repeat offenses sides can get away with, with some getting a yellow almost instantly whereas others can repeatedly infringe without a yellow. That does need clarifying for consistency but the penalty try / repeat infringement situation is dealing with 2 different sanctions for subtly different situations.
The Basis for my initial point was current criteria and it being reviewed, i disagree they are entirely different situations this is part of my entire point if u repeatedly cheat at source you are effectively preventing Situation B penalty try being awarded.
 
Top