Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Scrum law ammendments I'd be interested in seeing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="smartcooky" data-source="post: 709685" data-attributes="member: 20605"><p>Yes, almost</p><p></p><p>Currently the Law says...<em>"The front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips"</em>. which allows for a flat backed front row If that was made h<em>ead and shoulders <u>above</u> hips</em>, I think that might be an improvement and make collapses less likely, although it could cause front rows to "pop" more.</p><p></p><p>However, if we are really serious about dissuading teams from using the scum as a platform for getting 3 points, then why not just take that particular incentive away altogether.</p><p></p><p>I have been thinking about a Law change to introduce something which I have called an Indirect Penalty Kick. I even went as far as to suggest a secondary signal...</p><p></p><div style="text-align: center"><img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/IPK-signal.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></div> <div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 9px">Arm extended and waved up and down</span></div> <div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 9px">several times between the PK and</span></div> <div style="text-align: center"><span style="font-size: 9px">Advantage position.</span></div> <div style="text-align: center"></div><p></p><p>An Indirect Penalty Kick has the following in common with a Penalty Kick</p><p></p><p>1. A gain in ground when kicked into touch.</p><p>2. Retention of the throw in for the kicking team.</p><p></p><p>However, the following would not be allowed</p><p>1. Kick at goal</p><p>2. Scrum option </p><p></p><p>All scrum sanctions would become Indirect Penalty Kicks including ones that are currently Free Kicks, such as squint feeds, shoulders below hips, foot up, SH dummying etc. This would <strong>not</strong> preclude the awarding of a penalty try for a collapsing or other illegalities in a scrum while being pushed backwards towards their own goal-line.</p><p></p><p> The only hitch I can see is if an Indirect Penalty Kick was awarded after time has expired, that team might be disadvantaged by not being allowed to take a scrum option. However, this can be remedied by introducing a Law amendment that was trialled in the Australian NRC last season. They allowed at team receiving a penalty after time expired to kick the ball into touch and take a line-out. To end the game by kicking into touch from a penalty, the player had to take a tap kick first (to take the penalty kick) then punt it into touch.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smartcooky, post: 709685, member: 20605"] Yes, almost Currently the Law says...[I]"The front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips"[/I]. which allows for a flat backed front row If that was made h[I]ead and shoulders [U]above[/U] hips[/I], I think that might be an improvement and make collapses less likely, although it could cause front rows to "pop" more. However, if we are really serious about dissuading teams from using the scum as a platform for getting 3 points, then why not just take that particular incentive away altogether. I have been thinking about a Law change to introduce something which I have called an Indirect Penalty Kick. I even went as far as to suggest a secondary signal... [CENTER][IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/IPK-signal.jpg[/IMG] [SIZE=1]Arm extended and waved up and down several times between the PK and Advantage position.[/SIZE] [/CENTER] An Indirect Penalty Kick has the following in common with a Penalty Kick 1. A gain in ground when kicked into touch. 2. Retention of the throw in for the kicking team. However, the following would not be allowed 1. Kick at goal 2. Scrum option All scrum sanctions would become Indirect Penalty Kicks including ones that are currently Free Kicks, such as squint feeds, shoulders below hips, foot up, SH dummying etc. This would [B]not[/B] preclude the awarding of a penalty try for a collapsing or other illegalities in a scrum while being pushed backwards towards their own goal-line. The only hitch I can see is if an Indirect Penalty Kick was awarded after time has expired, that team might be disadvantaged by not being allowed to take a scrum option. However, this can be remedied by introducing a Law amendment that was trialled in the Australian NRC last season. They allowed at team receiving a penalty after time expired to kick the ball into touch and take a line-out. To end the game by kicking into touch from a penalty, the player had to take a tap kick first (to take the penalty kick) then punt it into touch. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Scrum law ammendments I'd be interested in seeing
Top