[Scrum] 2016 LAW TRIALS - 20.6 (d) HOW THE SCRUM HALF THROWS THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM

[Ian_Cook]

Proposal
The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders. Sanction: Free Kick
Amendment
The scrum half must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align his shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing him to stand a shoulder width towards his side of the middle line.

Justification
A scrum is a reward after an opposition error, but why should it be a position of risk and danger for the hooker to get his strike foot down the middle of the channel, where it is a mechanical challenge for him in the modern day scrum. This amendment will give the attacking side enough protection for

1) hooker safety and
2) preventing the opposition strike.

The opposition would now have to get a good shove on to contest the ball, which would be fair and wanted in terms of a good contest.

 

[Dixie]

Bullshit. It will make no difference other than to enhance the crooked feed

 

[ChrisR]

How in Hell can it be "straight along the middle line" if the SH can "stand a shoulder width towards his side of the middle line".

Agree with Dixie, it's bullshit.

 

[FlipFlop]

This amendment will give the attacking side enough protection for

1) hooker safety and
2) preventing the opposition strike. .

So it removes the most common method of contest at the scrum. Why bother with the scrum at all?

 

[Taff]

Bullshit. It will make no difference other than to enhance the crooked feed

Exactly.

What a crock of crap. Tinkering with the laws won't help - just enforce the current law.

 

[Paule23]

I think this sounds like a good idea, and the argument to reward (or not punish) the team who did not make an error seems a good one.

There are various interpretations of "down the middle" at the moment, and this seems to clarify one of them.

Yes it makes strikes against the head more difficult, but it also does not penalise teams with a weaker hooker who in theory should benefit from having a scrum awarded to them for an opposition error.

Works for me.

 

[Taff]

... but it also does not penalise teams with a weaker hooker who in theory should benefit from having a scrum awarded to them for an opposition error.

By definition, a scrum is only awarded for a minor offence - why would you want to give more of a benefit to a side than they already have? They can already chose what side to throw it in from; the left hand side gives the vast majority of right footed players a massive advantage.

 

[Ian_Cook]

By definition, a scrum is only awarded for a minor offence - why would you want to give more of a benefit to a side than they already have? They can already chose what side to throw it in from; the left hand side gives the vast majority of right footed players a massive advantage.

Except that, the way scrummaging is now, the side throwing is at an 7-8 disadvantage because their hooker has to strike, so he cannot put his feet back and push, while the opposing hooker is free to put his feet back

What really needs to happen is for Law 20.2 to be rigidly enforced

[LAWS]20.2 (c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position
to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on
at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that
team’s props.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

We should not permit the non-throwing hooker to put his feet back and be in a position to push until the ball is thrown in. This will redress the balance and give the opportunity for the hooker of the throwing in team to strike and get his feet back to push!

 

[Womble]

Ian, as a hooker that had to strike , may I say your not 100% correct! As a right foot striker of the ball I always had my left leg back in a pushing position and yes, I managed to push with that left leg.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, as a hooker that had to strike , may I say your not 100% correct! As a right foot striker of the ball I always had my left leg back in a pushing position and yes, I managed to push with that left leg.

I agree Womble, but you are still at a disadvantage compared with a pack where everyone is feet back and pushing as in the Argentine scrummaging method called "Bajada". The method was conceived in the late 1960s by Buenos Aires coach Francisco Ocampo. If you ever look closely at an Argentine scrum, you will see that their locks bind with their outside arms around the prop's hips instead of between their legs.

The result of this is that the power of their scrum, rather than driving forward and parallel, is directed along converging lines like an arrowhead starting either side of the No 8, and going inwards towards the hooker.

Prior to the ball coming in, the pack all tighten their binds, take a deep breath and sink down slightly. As the ball comes in, the pack comes straight forward while violently expelling the air from their lungs, and most importantly, they don't move their feet until forward momentum begins. If you you have one foot back and one foot forward ready to strike, unless you are very, very quick, you are going to be at a big disadvantage when the opponent's scrum puts the shove on with all the power of their scrum focussed on and through you, as you are trying to strike.

I have seen a few scrums in the RC over the last couple of years where the ball was put in and it just sat in the tunnel. Both scrum had all 8 players pushing and the scrum wasn't moving. Neither hooker was prepared to try to strike it, because they feared getting shoved backwards if they stopped pushing and brought their strike leg forwards.

 

[Taff]

Except that, the way scrummaging is now, the side throwing is at an 7-8 disadvantage because their hooker has to strike, so he cannot put his feet back and push, while the opposing hooker is free to put his feet back

I don't think they have to hook the ball back. The ball can stay in the tunnel and they can push over it if they want.

... I have seen a few scrums in the RC over the last couple of years where the ball was put in and it just sat in the tunnel. Both scrum had all 8 players pushing and the scrum wasn't moving. Neither hooker was prepared to try to strike it, because they feared getting shoved backwards if they stopped pushing and brought their strike leg forwards.

Use it or lose it, surely.

 

[Camquin]

Don't both hookers have to be in a position to hook?
Not that I have ever seen a FK for this.

 

[Paule23]

The law just mentions "hooker". I always inferred that to be the attacking teams hooker, but on reflection it could (maybe should) apply to both hookers. Enforcement of this on both hookers might solve a few problems at the higher level, probably little impact down at my level!

 

[ChrisR]

20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS

(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b) This means that the front row players must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on at least one foot. Players must not cross their feet, although the foot of one player may cross a team-mate’s foot. Each player’s shoulders must be no lower than the hips.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that team’s props.

"Hooker must be in a position to hook"? Excuse me but exactly what does that mean. Y'all just said he had to have his feet in a "position to make a forward shove". Then y'all said his "foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that team’s props". So, what, exactly, is "a position to hook"?

 

[Pinky]

To me the change seems to be legitimising an uneven feed. Not what I would have wished for . . .

 

[beckett50]

Bullshit. It will make no difference other than to enhance the crooked feed

Enhance and legalise :horse:

Just because the Premier list - with the benefit ARs - can't get it right our game has to suffer?!

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Ridiculous proposal.

All that needs to happen is for the current laws to be enforced at the elite levels.

 

[didds]

... Like POB said was going to be done... what... oooo... eight years ago now?

Yeah right.

All this will mean is that the s/h will stand his body width to his side and still stick it in crooked.


The oppo will now know they have absolutely no chance at all of a strike against the head so will be trying to disprupt the other's scrum to a maximum degree. and the stupidity will continue.

Calling BCM666 ....

didds

didds

 

[Rushforth]

The oppo will now know they have absolutely no chance at all of a strike against the head so will be trying to disprupt the other's scrum to a maximum degree. and the stupidity will continue.

I'm not actually sure if that is a problem. There is nothing wong with "disrupting" as long as there is no safety issue, nor, obviously, being against the interpretation du jour of the laws.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather that the ball be contested in the scrum as at any other time. But it is more important to have some sort of consistency throughout all levels as to how.

 

[Pegleg]

Speaking to props and hookers it is pretty clear that the less chance of hooking the ball the more they will "disrupt" Now you can interpret that word as positively as you like. Disruption means a degree of destabilisation. Destabilisation leads to increased risk. To hook the ball a hooker wants a stable scrum. A stable scrum is a sign of decreased risk.

Perhaps (and I'm not convinced) it should be illegal not to hook for the ball as a hooker. That way it would be 7 v 7.

Would it work, could it work? Who knows.