Application of breakdown laws

[Digby]

very few 9s are getting 30 seconds to use the ball after the ref says use it, but the 5 seconds could reasonably be trimmed to 3 seconds.

speeding up the scrums is a tricky area, what if a prop or hooker has an injury, are they still required to join the scrum or face a free kick for being injured?

Common sense and goodwill clearly being beyond most players and refs.

Agreed, thus the query stands

[Banquo]

very few 9s are getting 30 seconds to use the ball after the ref says use it, but the 5 seconds could reasonably be trimmed to 3 seconds.

speeding up the scrums is a tricky area, what if a prop or hooker has an injury, are they still required to join the scrum or face a free kick for being injured?

Common sense and goodwill clearly being beyond most players and refs.

Agreed, thus the query stands

I did think you'd say that as I wrote it.

[Digby]

Common sense and goodwill clearly being beyond most players and refs.

Agreed, thus the query stands

I did think you'd say that as I wrote it.

You could probably cover a large percentage of normal scrums with the hope that honesty and the common sense of the participants prevail, but you will be left with a system that the cheats can easily game. Some people might be reasonably happy with that because the idea is to try and speed the game up and if there's 25% of scrums left a problem that's still an improvement overall

But it's one of the features of modern rugby that we have huge ball in play times, but we also face a huge number of stoppages, an awful lot of 80 minute games now go through the 100 minute mark and a decent chunk of that is injury treatment already, so if you tell the players who're fatigued they'll be sanctioned unless they're injured it seems an incentive to spend yet more time injured, or to flip that are we okay asking what might be injured players to scrum?

[Banquo]

Agreed, thus the query stands

I did think you'd say that as I wrote it.

You could probably cover a large percentage of normal scrums with the hope that honesty and the common sense of the participants prevail, but you will be left with a system that the cheats can easily game. Some people might be reasonably happy with that because the idea is to try and speed the game up and if there's 25% of scrums left a problem that's still an improvement overall

But it's one of the features of modern rugby that we have huge ball in play times, but we also face a huge number of stoppages, an awful lot of 80 minute games now go through the 100 minute mark and a decent chunk of that is injury treatment already, so if you tell the players who're fatigued they'll be sanctioned unless they're injured it seems an incentive to spend yet more time injured, or to flip that are we okay asking what might be injured players to scrum?

Why use one word, when 25 will do.

[Oakboy]

It would be interesting to see how many scrums collapsed if resets were not allowed and the referee was obliged to award a penalty one way or the other. Knowing nothing about scrummaging, I wonder how many scrums really collapse as total accidents. If the referee and his assistants cannot find an offence every time I'd be surprised.

[Puja]

It would be interesting to see how many scrums collapsed if resets were not allowed and the referee was obliged to award a penalty one way or the other. Knowing nothing about scrummaging, I wonder how many scrums really collapse as total accidents. If the referee and his assistants cannot find an offence every time I'd be surprised.

I actually quite liked the ELV many years back where any scrum offence was a free-kick that had to be tapped. You'd've thought it encouraged cheating, but it actually encouraged sides with a dominant scrum to use their strength to facilitate an 8 pick going forwards, rather than hold the ball in for a pen.

I am also of the opinion that most problems would be solved by binding both scrums without any pressure and not allowing anything more than a lean so that pushing only happens when the ball goes in. You know, while we're discussing enforcing the actual laws

Puja

[Digby]

I did think you'd say that as I wrote it.

You could probably cover a large percentage of normal scrums with the hope that honesty and the common sense of the participants prevail, but you will be left with a system that the cheats can easily game. Some people might be reasonably happy with that because the idea is to try and speed the game up and if there's 25% of scrums left a problem that's still an improvement overall

But it's one of the features of modern rugby that we have huge ball in play times, but we also face a huge number of stoppages, an awful lot of 80 minute games now go through the 100 minute mark and a decent chunk of that is injury treatment already, so if you tell the players who're fatigued they'll be sanctioned unless they're injured it seems an incentive to spend yet more time injured, or to flip that are we okay asking what might be injured players to scrum?

Why use one word, when 25 will do.

Most cutting. Though the query stands, albeit just because there's a query doesn't mean you or anyone else is obliged to address it

[Banquo]

You could probably cover a large percentage of normal scrums with the hope that honesty and the common sense of the participants prevail, but you will be left with a system that the cheats can easily game. Some people might be reasonably happy with that because the idea is to try and speed the game up and if there's 25% of scrums left a problem that's still an improvement overall

But it's one of the features of modern rugby that we have huge ball in play times, but we also face a huge number of stoppages, an awful lot of 80 minute games now go through the 100 minute mark and a decent chunk of that is injury treatment already, so if you tell the players who're fatigued they'll be sanctioned unless they're injured it seems an incentive to spend yet more time injured, or to flip that are we okay asking what might be injured players to scrum?

Why use one word, when 25 will do.

Most cutting. Though the query stands, albeit just because there's a query doesn't mean you or anyone else is obliged to address it

Very succinct. I agree.

[Beasties]

It would be interesting to see how many scrums collapsed if resets were not allowed and the referee was obliged to award a penalty one way or the other. Knowing nothing about scrummaging, I wonder how many scrums really collapse as total accidents. If the referee and his assistants cannot find an offence every time I'd be surprised.

I actually quite liked the ELV many years back where any scrum offence was a free-kick that had to be tapped. You'd've thought it encouraged cheating, but it actually encouraged sides with a dominant scrum to use their strength to facilitate an 8 pick going forwards, rather than hold the ball in for a pen.

I am also of the opinion that most problems would be solved by binding both scrums without any pressure and not allowing anything more than a lean so that pushing only happens when the ball goes in. You know, while we're discussing enforcing the actual laws

Puja

Indeed. And scrums didn't used to collapse much until the Enzidders introduced the hit to the world.

[Which Tyler]

I actually quite liked the ELV many years back where any scrum offence was a free-kick that had to be tapped. You'd've thought it encouraged cheating, but it actually encouraged sides with a dominant scrum to use their strength to facilitate an 8 pick going forwards, rather than hold the ball in for a pen.

I am also of the opinion that most problems would be solved by binding both scrums without any pressure and not allowing anything more than a lean so that pushing only happens when the ball goes in. You know, while we're discussing enforcing the actual laws

Yup

[twitchy]

[Oakboy]

It would be interesting to see how many scrums collapsed if resets were not allowed and the referee was obliged to award a penalty one way or the other. Knowing nothing about scrummaging, I wonder how many scrums really collapse as total accidents. If the referee and his assistants cannot find an offence every time I'd be surprised.

I actually quite liked the ELV many years back where any scrum offence was a free-kick that had to be tapped. You'd've thought it encouraged cheating, but it actually encouraged sides with a dominant scrum to use their strength to facilitate an 8 pick going forwards, rather than hold the ball in for a pen.

I am also of the opinion that most problems would be solved by binding both scrums without any pressure and not allowing anything more than a lean so that pushing only happens when the ball goes in. You know, while we're discussing enforcing the actual laws

Puja

I remember asking on this board, in my confessed ignorance of scrummaging, why scrums could not set as for uncontested and only push on a signal - presumably, the ball entry or the referee's command. That was back when the bench did not contain a full front row and uncontested scrums were not infrequent.

[Puja]

It would be interesting to see how many scrums collapsed if resets were not allowed and the referee was obliged to award a penalty one way or the other. Knowing nothing about scrummaging, I wonder how many scrums really collapse as total accidents. If the referee and his assistants cannot find an offence every time I'd be surprised.

I actually quite liked the ELV many years back where any scrum offence was a free-kick that had to be tapped. You'd've thought it encouraged cheating, but it actually encouraged sides with a dominant scrum to use their strength to facilitate an 8 pick going forwards, rather than hold the ball in for a pen.

I am also of the opinion that most problems would be solved by binding both scrums without any pressure and not allowing anything more than a lean so that pushing only happens when the ball goes in. You know, while we're discussing enforcing the actual laws

Puja

I remember asking on this board, in my confessed ignorance of scrummaging, why scrums could not set as for uncontested and only push on a signal - presumably, the ball entry or the referee's command. That was back when the bench did not contain a full front row and uncontested scrums were not infrequent.

That's how the laws say it should work - no pushing till the ball's in. However, scrums have, over the years, got lower and lower and lower, as a lower scrum is more powerful. And, because physics, the lower you go, the less you can keep your own balance and the more you have to rely on the person opposite you matching your weight to prevent you falling on your face. So it's now reached a stage where you have to push as soon as you're engaged, otherwise you can't stay up. And if you're pushing a little bit, it's worth pushing a little bit more just to destabilise your opposition and of course they've got to push a bit more to oppose that and so...

If you were going to go to a no-pushing uncontested engagement, then it would need to be set higher (which would help with hooking, incidentally). But it would require a complete reset of technique and coaching. Not to mention that it would significantly increase the difficulty of scrummaging for taller props. Someone like Beno Obano would thrive.

Puja