Change in Scrum Engagement?

[menace]

Have a look at old games on TV. The hit was never like it is now.

I thought that was because their "beer and pies bellies" wouldn't allow them to get to a crouch position - so a pistol start and hit was never able to be achieved anyway? :biggrin:

 

[Robert Burns]

Brian Moore's article.

His Twitter comment "Why does no one listen to Hookers?".

He see's some serious flaws in the report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...o-shove-in-rugby-unions-scrummaging-laws.html

 

[Robert Burns]

It makes for good reading although I see no mention of looser shirts :chin: .........

Perhaps Brian listened to you?

From his article:

What is needed is a return to shirts on which props can bind easily and then enforcing the straight feed, proper bind and penalising any shove before the ball is fed by the scrum-half, particularly shoving immediately the front rows engage. All these laws exist, but have been ignored.

 

[TigerCraig]

If they want a referee led engagement then we should go to:

Crouch - players are in correct body position
Touch - front rows are a safe distance apart
<a natural pause>
Engage - the scrum comes together - there is no need to anticipate the "Engage" as there is no "hit" to win
Hold - scrum is square, steady and no side is pushing

The scrum half can then feed (hopefully vaguely straight)

I often throw an unofficial "Hold" command in anyway

 

[didds]

I often throw an unofficial "Hold" command in anyway

*wince*

You are stepping outside of the laws etc etc etc - duynno how insurance works for refs in Oz, but in England if there was any subsequent "issues" that saw you in court, you may find you are now defending yourself self funded with the insurance company waving you god-speed. Following a case here in England (Vogels? have i got that right) refs are reminded AIUI to stick to the letter of the law.

Just as inportantly... in the heart of battle so to speak players at scrum engagement are not really listening to the words, they are really listening for a noise. Once you've got to "pause" all the packs are waiting for is the first noise that comes from your mouth. If you say "hold" they won't necessarily process that, they'll enagage on the "h".. if your lucky everyone will engage anyway. If you are not and somebody does process that word and doesn;t engage...

OR (hopefully) you meant the "hold" occurs after you have uissued CTPE? If so this is wherte OB steps in an mentions that the law requires the s/h to put the ball in without delay

didds

 

[Robert Burns]

Didds,

I think Tiger means after the engage he will shout 'Hold' to get the packs to be stable, not before.

This is actually quite common.

 

[didds]

alles klar! thanks Robert, and onwards and upwards TC

didds

 

[TigerCraig]

Didds,

I think Tiger means after the engage he will shout 'Hold' to get the packs to be stable, not before.

This is actually quite common.

Yep, after the standard CTPE, if there is a bit of wobble or crabbing

 

[chopper15]

BM's article in today's DT:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...o-shove-in-rugby-unions-scrummaging-laws.html

 

[Ian_Cook]

They call for the introduction of an "unconvertible penalty kick" which would prevent opposing teams kicking at goal after a scrum offence.

Thieving buggers stole my idea of an "Indirect Penalty Kick", one in whcih the team receiving it would be allowed to kick for touch for a gain in ground, and get the throw in, but would not be allowed to go for poles.

 

[Dickie E]

They call for the introduction of an "unconvertible penalty kick" which would prevent opposing teams kicking at goal after a scrum offence.

Thieving buggers stole my idea of an "Indirect Penalty Kick", one in whcih the team receiving it would be allowed to kick for touch for a gain in ground, and get the throw in, but would not be allowed to go for poles.

And what, pray tell, would be the signal for this new sanction?

Would repeat infringements result in a normal PK or a YC?

Get in now before someone else steals your ideas

 

[Ian_Cook]

And what, pray tell, would be the signal for this new sanction? (see below)

Would repeat infringements result in a normal PK or a YC? Yes

Get in now before someone else steals your ideas. (I originally posted about this back in 2008)

Already sorted that. I even have a picture of it somewhere... use the same one that League uses for the differential penalty


EDIT: Here it is

 

[Dixie]

BM's article in today's DT:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...o-shove-in-rugby-unions-scrummaging-laws.html

Chopper, this is irritating. If I wanted to read Brian Moore, I'd buy the Torygraph. If you think that the article contains something relevant to the thread, you should tell us what it is so we can decide whether to go read the entire article. If there's just a single paragraph, I'd suggest the best route is to link to the article, and quote the paragraph.

 

[Pinky]

Where did this idea for an uncovertable penalty come from?

I thought we already had that - a free kick?

 

[crossref]

I don't like an unconvertable PK

After an infringement: the concept of a team being awarded a penalty kick, and using it to kick the ball off the field is something that we are so used to in rugby that we don't even notice how bizarre it is.

think about it
- a team is awarded a penalty kick .... and uses it to kick the ball off the pitch.

that's not a spectacle of sport...

all field games have a concept of a free kick / free hit of some sort (football, hcoky, lacrosse etc) In all of them it's a moment of excitement and opportunity. In no other sport do teams regularly use the free kick to ..... kick the ball off the park.

The unconvertable penalty will lead to even more of this.

 

[Dickie E]

I don't like an unconvertable PK

After an infringement: the concept of a team being awarded a penalty kick, and using it to kick the ball off the field is something that we are so used to in rugby that we don't even notice how bizarre it is.

think about it
- a team is awarded a penalty kick .... and uses it to kick the ball off the pitch.

that's not a spectacle of sport...

all field games have a concept of a free kick / free hit of some sort (football, hcoky, lacrosse etc) In all of them it's a moment of excitement and opportunity. In no other sport do teams regularly use the free kick to ..... kick the ball off the park.

The unconvertable penalty will lead to even more of this.

I remember my Dad saying the same thing 30 years ago. How can the team that intentionally puts the ball out of play then have the right to bring it back into play?

 

[Dickie E]

Where did this idea for an uncovertable penalty come from?

From Ian Cook, according to Ian Cook

 

[Taff]

Where did this idea for an uncovertable penalty come from? I thought we already had that - a free kick?

Well, not really. If a FK is kicked to touch you don't get the throw in. And if a FK is kicked directly to touch outside the 22, there's no gain in ground.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Where did this idea for an uncovertable penalty come from?

Mr J Wilkinson - New Zealand - Sept/Oct 2011

 

[Davet]

...
- a team is awarded a penalty kick .... and uses it to kick the ball off the pitch.

that's not a spectacle of sport...

The unconvertable penalty will lead to even more of this.

I remember my Dad saying the same thing 30 years ago. How can the team that intentionally puts the ball out of play then have the right to bring it back into play?

But the line out is a crucial contest for the ball.

I like lineouts (I also enjoy a good scrum), but given that I gave been a fan of the game for over 45 years you might expect that I like the elements that differentiate the game from poor relations. So I also like rucks and mauls.

I have no objection to back play, indeed I love watching the backs in a free flowing move (anyone see the programme on the 71 Lions last night - wow! That took me back to a good place).

But rugby is team game with the contest for the ball at it's heart.