C-T-S

[andyscott]

Well in my 1st preseason game today, both level 7 teams.

Everyone hated CTS!!!!

 

[ianh5979]

Andy, they just hated you for making them do it properly

 

[Taff]

Nobody likes change. Give them a few weeks.

 

[Toby Warren]

What did they not they like?

 

[dave_clark]

Andy, they just hated you for making them do it properly

equally true if you remove the last six words!

 

[Ian_Cook]

They'll not like any change that might prevent them, or hinder them in, getting away with the illegalities that they were getting away with last season.

 

[andyscott]

They hated no pause!! I had only 2 resets and non was on the engage!! On a flip side most of the supporters loved CTS

 

[crossref]

The comment I have had is that set is a bit confusing. They think of
On your marks
Set

It will pass

 

[Ian_Cook]

They hated no pause!! I had only 2 resets and non was on the engage!! On a flip side most of the supporters loved CTS

Just explain to them that the "pause" is non-vocal, and is the period of time between when you say "touch" and "Set"

The cadence is really very little different to the old "Crouch - Hold - Engage"

 

[Womble]

Chatting to both sets of front rows after the match yesterday, All were in agreement that it would take time to get used to lvl 2 v lvl3 it was also sugested by the players that the cadence can't be consistant, crouch to touch yes but "the start gun" set had to be impossable to guess! interesting!

 

[The Fat]

Chatting to both sets of front rows after the match yesterday, All were in agreement that it would take time to get used to lvl 2 v lvl3 it was also sugested by the players that the cadence can't be consistant, crouch to touch yes but "the start gun" set had to be impossable to guess! interesting!

The ref will still have to make sure the front rows are aligned and in a position to come together after the first 2 calls so the time may well vary between touch and set just as a matter of course.
I'm glad you guys get to iron the bugs out before we get to use the new laws down here. Some of the front rowers I've spoken to about the new scrum cadence seem happy that the pause will be gone so it is interesting to hear that some of the players over there didn't like the new calls.

 

[Taff]

... Some of the front rowers I've spoken to about the new scrum cadence seem happy that the pause will be gone ....

There is still a pause between "Touch" and "Set". It's just that we don't pause, then say the word "Pause".

I just get the impression that some FRs think that just because the word "Pause" has been dropped, they don't have to pause any more.

 

[beckett50]

I have to admit that in training on Thursday it seemed strange using CTS. But glad that I won't be going into it 'cold' next Saturday

 

[Boulder_Mark]

"The 'set' call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready"

Excuse my ignorance as a newbie, but I was asked a question by a playing friend, and I had been thinking the same. So as the ref I say set. From my little experience so far, the packs seem to treat this as the old school 'engage' command.

What happens when one pack stays still on the 'set' the other pushes forward to 'engage' and then collapses because the other team has remained still?

The team remaining still haven't committed an offence because the 'set' call was just an indication that the front rows 'may' come together? The wording sounds like an invitation not a command??

Anyone experienced something like this yet??

 

[didds]

short answer is "no", BM... in reality both sides want the scrum to start asap so they do indeed engage on the "s"

But your question is valid - and would have been under CTPE bvecasue the bit about an invitation not a command was the same in the old law.

SHOULD what you postulate ever arise, I think the engaging side won;t actually fall on the floor as the 2 FRs will be close enough that they will indeed bridge the gap and engage with the stationary FR... who will now struggle to do anything mush as they are not in an extended scrummaging position. Which is why both FRs _WILL_ engage!

The law wording is a complete pile of dog-poo I would agree however.

didds

 

[Boulder_Mark]

Thanks Didds. Kinda makes sense. Now you have said it. The FR's are looking for a big push or like you say they are going to go backwards otherwise. Like you say the wording isn't great!

 

[crossref]

"The 'set' call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready"

Excuse my ignorance as a newbie, but I was asked a question by a playing friend, and I had been thinking the same. So as the ref I say set. From my little experience so far, the packs seem to treat this as the old school 'engage' command.

What happens when one pack stays still on the 'set' the other pushes forward to 'engage' and then collapses because the other team has remained still?

The team remaining still haven't committed an offence because the 'set' call was just an indication that the front rows 'may' come together? The wording sounds like an invitation not a command??

Anyone experienced something like this yet??

The old engage was also an invitation, not a command (in the law book)

 

[Womble]

"The 'set' call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready"

Excuse my ignorance as a newbie, but I was asked a question by a playing friend, and I had been thinking the same. So as the ref I say set. From my little experience so far, the packs seem to treat this as the old school 'engage' command.

What happens when one pack stays still on the 'set' the other pushes forward to 'engage' and then collapses because the other team has remained still?

The team remaining still haven't committed an offence because the 'set' call was just an indication that the front rows 'may' come together? The wording sounds like an invitation not a command??

Anyone experienced something like this yet??

Had it yesterday. They only did it twice and then realised it wasn't going to work so we resumed as normal.

 

[Taff]

....Like you say the wording isn't great!

IMO the only reason the word "invitation" is even included is because the lawyers were consulted when the law was being written. Ie it's been put in purely to give Refs a sort of blanket "disclaimer" which they can try and rely on if the brown stuff hits the fan. And if it really is an invitation, why is there a sanction for not doing it?

 

[Womble]

IMO the only reason the word "invitation" is even included is because the lawyers were consulted when the law was being written. Ie it's been put in purely to give Refs a sort of blanket "disclaimer" which they can try and rely on if the brown stuff hits the fan. And if it really is an invitation, why is there a sanction for not doing it?

Agree