[Scrum] Flankers

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Here's a random thought that's just cam into my head. Many years ago (I have it in my head), that before a Flanker moved to make a tackle he/she had to "move backwards" before advancing for the tackle. This movement could be a half step back after releasing his/her bind. I recall seeing little spins from Flankers to fulfil this critetia.

My question is, has this ever been a thing? Has the person who told me this just made it up?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,806
Post Likes
1,218
Never heard of it ever!

didds (who last played flanker in 1988, after a spate on injuries in a match until somebody realised there was a flanker in the backs so i got moved back to front row - bugger!)

didds
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Yeah I now can't find any reference to it. Would've been 94/95 ish. I'm thinking we were told porky pies lol.
 

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,517
Post Likes
187
Arabcheif, back in the day forwards were allowed to break from the scrum before it was over, but if they did they had to retire to be behind the back foot, so that may have been the source of this coaching advice so that forwards did not just let go and smash the s/h or no 8 or whoever had the ball.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
@Pinky - That could be it. I'm glad that there's a possibility that I'm not mad lmao
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
Arabcheif, back in the day forwards were allowed to break from the scrum before it was over, but if they did they had to retire to be behind the back foot, so that may have been the source of this coaching advice so that forwards did not just let go and smash the s/h or no 8 or whoever had the ball.

Accurate

I'm thinking it was about '94 when wing fwd and 8 were required to remain bound. It was a foolish law change then and still is a foolish law now. Pathetic actually.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I suspect the rationale behind the Law change was so that there was more space for the attacking team to try and exploit, rather than having more defenders in the line to break up the attack.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
I suspect the rationale behind the Law change was so that there was more space for the attacking team to try and exploit, rather than having more defenders in the line to break up the attack.

Yep you are correct as I remember.

And that rationale is pathetic, a rule change to affect play. At that time it was to increase attacks from backs to attract spectators and effectively compete with RL.
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
687
Post Likes
207
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Yep you are correct as I remember.

And that rationale is pathetic, a rule change to affect play. At that time it was to increase attacks from backs to attract spectators and effectively compete with RL.

Why do you think the rationale is pathetic? There have been several law changes to try and create space, some in response to players being faster and stronger, but all with the aim of promoting attacking play. Seems like a good idea to make the game more exciting to me.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,413
Post Likes
1,659
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Why do you think the rationale is pathetic? There have been several law changes to try and create space, some in response to players being faster and stronger, but all with the aim of promoting attacking play. Seems like a good idea to make the game more exciting to me.

I agree. Keeping the forwards out of the backs is an emminently sensible idea.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
Why do you think the rationale is pathetic? There have been several law changes to try and create space, some in response to players being faster and stronger, but all with the aim of promoting attacking play. Seems like a good idea to make the game more exciting to me.

I find changing a law to produce an outcome intellectually and tactically lazy. Improving skills and team game plan within the 15 v 15 structure is difficult. This law provides a moment of 6 versus 3 in many cases. A distinct advantage to the offensive team granted by a law change and not human activity. 6 attackers v 3 defenders occurs as a result of 3 deep defenders covering kicks

I agree. Keeping the forwards out of the backs is an emminently sensible idea.

just remove players 6, 7 , 8 from the field would accomplish that also. This law is just a temporary removal from the game.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
668
Post Likes
70
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
TBH, I think the rationale is sound, as it does create space. If it had the opposite effect then fair enough but I think it has given the space to the attacking team to create more attacks. Therefore was successful in what it was intending. I get that it creates an overload on the side of the offence but that's the idea, to promote scoring opportunities.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
TBH, I think the rationale is sound, as it does create space. If it had the opposite effect then fair enough but I think it has given the space to the attacking team to create more attacks. Therefore was successful in what it was intending. I get that it creates an overload on the side of the offence but that's the idea, to promote scoring opportunities.

Yep, what you r saying is correct. My problem is that is the law that created space, not the play or tactics of rugby. this law limits freedom of play to achieve an outcome. An outcome that should have been achieved by creative minds and skillful play.

For example, when wing forwards unbind and retreat to offside line as before stay bound law, a weakness in the defense has occurred elsewhere. Most obviously in strength of scrum defense. The counter to unbound wing forwards is a driving scrum.
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
687
Post Likes
207
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I find changing a law to produce an outcome intellectually and tactically lazy. Improving skills and team game plan within the 15 v 15 structure is difficult. This law provides a moment of 6 versus 3 in many cases. A distinct advantage to the offensive team granted by a law change and not human activity. 6 attackers v 3 defenders occurs as a result of 3 deep defenders covering kicks



just remove players 6, 7 , 8 from the field would accomplish that also. This law is just a temporary removal from the game.

I don't agree it is 6 vs 3 as the 3 who may (or may not) be deep are still defenders available, just not aligned. But let's say you were correct why do we not have hundreds of tries scored from the scrum? I'd say because it's not really 6 v 3 but what's your rationale?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,413
Post Likes
1,659
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum

yep, that is how they sold it. No self respecting prop will tell you a flanker does a damn thing
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
687
Post Likes
207
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
yep, that is how they sold it. No self respecting prop will tell you a flanker does a damn thing
]

I dunno, on the few occasions I played flanker my prop made sure I was in the right place to support him in the scrum and keep him in position, so I must have been needed for something in the scrum (not sure I did what was needed, but he clearly expected something from his flanker!)
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,269
Post Likes
153
]

I dunno, on the few occasions I played flanker my prop made sure I was in the right place to support him in the scrum and keep him in position, so I must have been needed for something in the scrum (not sure I did what was needed, but he clearly expected something from his flanker!)

He needed an excuse for getting his arse beat by opposite
 

Jz558


ELRA/Club Referee
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
313
Post Likes
86
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
there's a safety element too. A continuous 8 on 8 scrum will be more stable than an 8 on 8 scrum that suddenly turns into an 8 on 5 scrum

You'd certainly think so however in my memory scrum stability was never any sort of issue. At a defensive scrum, if we lost the ball (which wasn't preordained as we still believed in the great god named - one against the head) our flankers unbound (not the No 8 though) and retreated behind the backfoot to bolster the defence. Consequently as a 10 I almost never made a tackle which was how it was supposed to be until the great Jonny Wilkinson turned up and insisted he was as hard as the forwards. Life became considerably more painful after that.
 
Top