Being Rewarded (with a PK)

[crossref]

It's a usage that crept into the rugby vocabulary a little while ago. We talk about dominant scrums being rewarded, jacklers being rewarded and so on

It's a very different way of thinking about PK. A PK isn't really a 'reward' for good play, it's supposed to be a sanction for breaking the Laws.

Is it helpful for referees to think about 'rewarding' teams ?

Or is actually part of the problem that has led to the attitude common in coaches (for example Rassie videos) that they now go on pitch with the expectation that certain methods of play will reliably gain them PK 'rewards' ....

 

[didds]

Id agree its an unhelpful terminology

 

[Zebra1922]

It's a usage that crept into the rugby vocabulary a little while ago. We talk about dominant scrums being rewarded, jacklers being rewarded and so on

It's a very different way of thinking about PK. A PK isn't really a 'reward' for good play, it's supposed to be a sanction for breaking the Laws.

Is it helpful for referees to think about 'rewarding' teams ?

Or is actually part of the problem that has led to the attitude common in coaches (for example Rassie videos) that they now go on pitch with the expectation that certain methods of play will reliably gain them PK 'rewards' ....

Certain methods of play don’t lead to a PK award, certain methods of play which result in the other team offending does result in a PK reward.

 

[crossref]

Certain methods of play don’t lead to a PK award, certain methods of play which result in the other team offending does result in a PK reward.

yes, that's exactly the sort of thinking I mean. Elaborate on a method of play that leads to an expected 'reward'?

 

[chbg]

Never entered my small brain. Definitely awarded against for an infringement. Albeit praise given for a great jackal.

 

[Zebra1922]

yes, that's exactly the sort of thinking I mean. Elaborate on a method of play that leads to an expected 'reward'?

As I said, it’s not the play that is rewarded with a penalty, it is the offence by the opposition that results in a penalty. The ‘reward’ is the penalty as the good play from the attacking team resulted in an offence by the opposition. Thus there is a reward for good play.

Simples.

 

[crossref]

As I said, it’s not the play that is rewarded with a penalty, it is the offence by the opposition that results in a penalty. The ‘reward’ is the penalty as the good play from the attacking team resulted in an offence by the opposition. Thus there is a reward for good play.

Simples.

Any example of play that "results in" an offence by the opposition, and hence a "reward"

 

[Locke]

Dominant scrum, whole pack being pushed back, players fall and collapse the scrum or come unbound. Penalty.

Jackler being in strong position trying to take the ball from tackled ball carrier. If the ball carrier releases, no penalty. If the call carrier doesn’t release, penalty.

 

[crossref]

So yes.
My contrast is
Old days: our gameplan revolves around a dominant scrum, which means we receive good clean possession with the oppo going backwards and oppo forwards in disarray

Nowadays: our gameplan revolves around a dominant scrum, which means we are rewarded with lots of PK

I am not sure that this modern thinking is good for the game

 

[Volun-selected]

Never entered my small brain. Definitely awarded against for an infringement. Albeit praise given for a great jackal.

Maybe we all just need to replace “rewarded with” with just “awarded”? “The dominant scrum saw multiple penalties awarded against their opponents”, etc. to make it clear a team is isn’t winning the advantage but their weaker and/or less disciplined opponents are conceding penalties.

 

[crossref]

Maybe we all just need to replace “rewarded with” with just “awarded”? “The dominant scrum saw multiple penalties awarded against their opponents”,

But what was the reason for the PK? Not because the oppo was dominant, surely ?

 

[Stu10]

So yes.
My contrast is
Old days: our gameplan revolves around a dominant scrum, which means we receive good clean possession with the oppo going backwards and oppo forwards in disarray

Nowadays: our gameplan revolves around a dominant scrum, which means we are rewarded with lots of PK

I am not sure that this modern thinking is good for the game

The Eng v SA game yesterday was the first time I properly thought about this and that something might be wrong... SA had the dominant scrum, but it appeared they had no interest in completing a scrum, instead playing for a penalty... Tactical astute, but it was bloody boring to watch!

 

[crossref]

The Eng v SA game yesterday was the first time I properly thought about this and that something might be wrong...

You're welcome

 

[didds]

The Eng v SA game yesterday was the first time I properly thought about this and that something might be wrong... SA had the dominant scrum, but it appeared they had no interest in completing a scrum, instead playing for a penalty... Tactical astute, but it was bloody boring to watch!

WADR this is what has happened for years. Thjis aint nuffink new.
Go back abnd find highlights of england smashing ireland's scrum years ago. It blatantly came to the point where england - becvause they knew they could - woiuld just use a scrum for a PK win and/or YC

 

[Locke]

I’d like to see no penalties awarded at the scrum when the ball is available to be played. Only penalties if the infringement prevents the ball from getting back into play. Front rowers might be aggrieved at such a change because it may be viewed to diminish their importance but it seems like an improvement to the game as a whole, at least from where I’m sitting.

 

[Stu10]

I’d like to see no penalties awarded at the scrum when the ball is available to be played. Only penalties if the infringement prevents the ball from getting back into play. Front rowers might be aggrieved at such a change because it may be viewed to diminish their importance but it seems like an improvement to the game as a whole, at least from where I’m sitting.

I agree with the sentiment, but it just won't work. Defending front rows would collapse to prevent the other team getting a shove to give an 8 pick-up front foot, or even a push over try... in your scenario the ball is at 8's feet, therefore a front row collapse does not prevent the ball being played, but the attacking team has been disadvantaged.

 

[didds]

what stu said.

Allied to which any collapse is potentially dangerous as well which should be a greater consideration again.

 

[Locke]

I agree with the sentiment, but it just won't work. Defending front rows would collapse to prevent the other team getting a shove to give an 8 pick-up front foot, or even a push over try... in your scenario the ball is at 8's feet, therefore a front row collapse does not prevent the ball being played, but the attacking team has been disadvantaged.

You’re right. I just get frustrated when I see ball clearly available at back of scrum to be played but attacking team clearly has no interest in playing it and keeps pressing until they get the penalty.

 

[Stu10]

You’re right. I just get frustrated when I see ball clearly available at back of scrum to be played but attacking team clearly has no interest in playing it and keeps pressing until they get the penalty.

Maybe a slight variation, when the ball is at the back it must be played immediately if not moving forward, rather than the 8 keeping the ball at his/her feet until the penalty comes.

 

[Mipper]

I reckon that adult rugby should take a leaf out of the junior guidelines and have a pushing limit. Say 2m

That would give the dominant scrum ample opportunity to get a benefit from their dominance, and dissuade the retreating scrum from dropping or wheeling.

I must admit, I haven’t thought about this very deeply, but it seems a good idea on the face of it