Cardiff Blues v. Ospreys

[SimplySimon]

Did anyone see the Blues v Ospreys game?

Point to discuss - which in my opinion the ref got absolutely correct (Nigel Owens in the middle).

Scrums problematic throughout the game. Ospreys the dominant scrum, although Blues managing to win their own ball.

Nigel pulled both front rows aside and warned them in his own indomitable manner "sort yourselves out, or the IRB will remove scrummaging from the game within 3 years! Now go away"

He then proceeded within about 3 or 4 scrums time to warn Paul James (O's)and Mr Faulise (Blue's) (apologies, I struggle to pronounce his first name, let alone spell it!).

Next scrum, long loud blast on the whistle "right you two, off you go" and showed them both yellow. :noyc:

Commentators criticised his decision by saying "how can two replacement props scrummage any better than the first choice props that were binned?"

Personally, I feel he warned the front rows together, then he warned the players in question - what else could he do without losing credibility?

 

[andyscott]

Personally, I feel he warned the front rows together, then he warned the players in question - what else could he do without losing credibility?

Bin them, then if it happens again, go to uncontested scrums

It would only take one referee at the elite level to do this and maybe teams would wake up.


The IRB will remove normal scrummaging within 3 years that is a given I think.

 

[SimplySimon]

Bin them, then if it happens again, go to uncontested scrums

It would only take one referee at the elite level to do this and maybe teams would wake up.


The IRB will remove normal scrummaging within 3 years that is a given I think.

He actually did bin them both Andy, I thought it was brilliant but he got a bit of a grilling from the commentators - although, I'm sure he really doesn't give a hoot what they think!

I think he was bang on the money, I guess from you comment so do you. Maybe he is the elite ref we all wish for?

 

[SimplySimon]

Highlights of the game at the hyperlink below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/9333640.stm

 

[didds]

I am reminded of the alleged tale of the 2003 RWC final when jason leonard came on, and he said to Watson "I'll go forward, I'll go back, but I won't go up or down".

maybe that is the message Owens was trying to send to the two replacements.

didds

 

[andyscott]

He actually did bin them both Andy, I thought it was brilliant but he got a bit of a grilling from the commentators - although, I'm sure he really doesn't give a hoot what they think!

I think he was bang on the money, I guess from you comment so do you. Maybe he is the elite ref we all wish for?

well yes I totally agree, but 3 things cause it.

1. Referees dont have a clue why the FR is popping up.
2. They never seem to penalise the team going forward for driving up. Lots of times the FR 'pops' up is because they are being driven up!!
3. Penalising loose heads for not binding, its because the THP goes strait for the bingo wings on the arm and doesnt allow a binding by the LHP. Ping the THP

My point was after binning them if the replacements mess about go uncontested. That will shut them up and I bet the FR behave themselves.

 

[Deeps]

Penalising loose heads for not binding, its because the THP goes strait for the bingo wings on the arm and doesnt allow a binding by the LHP. Ping the THP

I couldn't agree more, I thought we were supposed to be making scrums safer.

It seems as though elite refereeing is paying lip service to safety here; OK so we go through the laborious process of engaging the front row because the irb has identified this as a problem area but then we don't allow the props to bind properly, we have not yet completed the process and penalising the poor sap that has been prevented from getting a bind is just throwing our toys out of the pram! Surely, completion of a proper bind by all props is a requirement of the engagement process?

...and why are players pushing at all, the scrum has not started yet?

I think we should consider a return to where the players themselves conduct the engagement process by mutual consent and only when the referee is happy that the scrum is properly formed should he allow the scrum to start, something like rugby league formation of scrums but with union law applied to the conduct of proceedings after put in.

 

[SimplySimon]

3. Penalising loose heads for not binding, its because the THP goes strait for the bingo wings on the arm and doesnt allow a binding by the LHP. Ping the THP

Would love to see you penalise an elite prop for binding on the bingo wings! Not sure who would drop you first, the penalised player or Mr Bingo Wings himself lol:clap: :biggrin:

 

[OB..]

...and why are players pushing at all, the scrum has not started yet?

That is surely the nub of the problem. The law currently requires the scrum to be square and stable (20.1 j), but also requires the scrum half to throw the ball in as soon as the front rows have engaged (20.5). Change the latter and the referee can sort the scrum out after the engagement. "Right shoulders please, gentlemen. Blue, give a metre. Thank you gentlemen. Scrum half?"

 

[SimplySimon]

That is surely the nub of the problem. The law currently requires the scrum to be square and stable (20.1 j), but also requires the scrum half to throw the ball in as soon as the front rows have engaged (20.5). Change the latter and the referee can sort the scrum out after the engagement. "Right shoulders please, gentlemen. Blue, give a metre. Thank you gentlemen. Scrum half?"

OB, Far too sensible, the Southern Hemishpere will never agree to that

 

[Davet]

OB - yup, we agree.

 

[didds]

well yes I totally agree, but 3 things cause it.

1. Referees dont have a clue why the FR is popping up.
2. They never seem to penalise the team going forward for driving up. Lots of times the FR 'pops' up is because they are being driven up!!

you are proving point 1 ;-)

You could just as easily say

"Lots of times the FR 'pops' up is because they can't take the pressure from the other FR that is driving forwards legally"

didds

 

[andyscott]

you are proving point 1 ;-)

You could just as easily say

"Lots of times the FR 'pops' up is because they can't take the pressure from the other FR that is driving forwards legally"

didds

Ah but that is my point its understanding the difference is the key to getting it right, but they dont they just penalise the team 'under pressure' or going backwards. That is fine if the team going forward are driving straight, but a great deal of the times, it is the THP driving up.

Drive straight and then if you 'pop' out fair enough ping, but if driven up and out ping the other way

I gave a PK on Sunday against a THP for binding on the arm and not allow the LHP to get a bind, also the same THP for driving up. Then warned about a YC. He congratulated me after the game, saying no ref ever spots those offenses. :biggrin: