Free kick for early engage

[BCH24]

Is this really necessary?

I know the refs have probably been instructed to take zero tolerance and take control, but for the first 3 England scrums to be free kicks is nonsense for a spectator.

If they just engaged and then the ref made sure the packs were adjusted and steady over the mark, the early engage and hit would be irrellevant wouldn't it?

 

[OB..]

If they just engaged and then the ref made sure the packs were adjusted and steady over the mark, the early engage and hit would be irrellevant wouldn't it?

Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately there is a conflict in the laws.

[LAWS]Law 20.1 (j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]Law 20.5 No Delay. As soon as the front rows have come together, the scrum half must throw in the ball without delay. [...][/LAWS]

Many referees enforce the latter. Nobody enforces the former as effectively as I think they should. That first sentence in 20.5 should be rescinded.

 

[Mat 04]

Is this really necessary?

I know the refs have probably been instructed to take zero tolerance and take control, but for the first 3 England scrums to be free kicks is nonsense for a spectator.

If they just engaged and then the ref made sure the packs were adjusted and steady over the mark, the early engage and hit would be irrellevant wouldn't it?

Yes it is nonsense. Why cant 16 professional adults wait to hear one single word?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Front rows who jump the engage call are trying to do one thing, and one thing only.... win the hit.

As OB.. correctly points out earlier, referees appear to ignore the "square & steady" requirements of Law 20 in favour of getting the ball in ASAP. Players will know this, so they will want to get the opposing scrum going backwards at the moment the ball is thrown-in, hence they will try to fractionally beat the opponents at the engage to get the forward momentum.

When they trial the three step engagement sequence, I hope they get the referees involved to vary the length of the time between "touch" and "set", so that the forwards can never quite predict when it will come.

IMO, early engage should be a PK not an FK!

 

[Dickie E]

IMO, early engage should be a PK not an FK!

10.4(k) gives the ref this tool but it is rarely used:

(k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Davet]

When they trial the three step engagement sequence, I hope they get the referees involved to vary the length of the time between "touch" and "set", so that the forwards can never quite predict when it will come.

As mentioned in another thread, it depends what happens on "set", which is the point when the front rows "may set the scrum" - is this re-stressing the FR negotiating the engage between themselves?

If the iRB has used the word "must" it would be clearer, but they don't - probably because they don't to get blamed when the FRs are obliged to engage when someone isn't quite ready. The engage has always officially been an "invitation", not a command - is this element being madestronger, or is it down to weasel words avoiding litigation?

 

[Davet]

10.4.k is a hangover from pre-touch, when front rows could form up at a greater distance and then rush - it should no longer be possible to do this.

 

[didds]

A The engage has always officially been an "invitation", not a command

Indeed - albeit one that sees a side being penalised if they opt to not engage when the opposition choose to!

didds

 

[crossref]

[LAWS](k) Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. The front row of a scrum must not rush against its opponents.
Sanction: Penalty kick [/LAWS]

10.4.k is a hangover from pre-touch, when front rows could form up at a greater distance and then rush - it should no longer be possible to do this.

I gave a PK for it once.
Very first scrum of the game, just seconds in (after a knock-on at the kick off)
- crouch
- touch
- p...

and one side drove forward, all eight of them, hard as they could into the opposition, who went backwards and collapsed.

clearly planned and IMO dangerous, and an obvious PK.

(mind you, still could hear a coach on the touchline saying 'they have to the take the hit' Grrr)

 

[Davet]

YC to the whole pack....epper:

 

[Simon Thomas]

I was delighted to see SW set early doors zero tolerance at the scrum engagement and award the FKs.

Just as I would expect to see a Group, Federation or Society Referee do.

And then later on SW quite rightly penalised Doran Jones who deliberately collapsed when he couldn't take the pressure at engagement.

I am not SW fan, but he set a standard other elite refs would do well to follow.

 

[ianh5979]

YC to the whole pack....epper:

Are you Andy Scott on a different account?:biggrin:

 

[Na Madrai]

I, too, thought that SW did what was necessary and hope that all referees act similiarly. As to the early engage, to the unvarying astonishment of forwards, at the first scrum of every match I do, I clearly state that there is no such thing as 'The Hit' and there will be no push until the ball is in. First 'Hit', PK. Never fails though I do have to occasionally explain to coached in t'bar afterwards.


NM

 

[ChrisR]

Davet - "or is it down to weasel words avoiding litigation? " Exactly! Which is why "Engage" which could be interpreted as a command becomes "Set" which can't. The scrum is the only event in rugby where players go into contact under the control of the referee. It's an attempt, and a poor one, to try to remove the referee from any responsibility for bad happenings at the engage.

Personally, I think the long and erratic pause is part of the problem.

I do agree with OB that a post engage inspection then a straight put needs to become standard practice.

 

[Dickie E]

Personally, I think the long and erratic pause is part of the problem.

The pause is intentionally "erratic" to avoid anticipation of the call.

 

[Davet]

The pause is intentionally "erratic" to avoid anticipation of the call.

True.

But I think it is staill part of the problem, if by problem we mean unsteady and collapsing scrums as opposed to packs engaging before the ref directs.

The new procudure does away with the pause altogether

 

[Jenko]

The pause is still there DaveT just not verbalised!

 

[Ian_Cook]

The pause is still there DaveT just not verbalised!

Yep. Instead of

"Crouch"....."touch"......."pause"......."Engage"

we will have

"Crouch"....."touch"pause"Set"

 

[Davet]

The pause is still there DaveT just not verbalised!

Yep. Instead of

"Crouch"....."touch"......."pause"......."Engage"

we will have

"Crouch"....."touch"pause"Set"

Really?

http://www.irblaws.com/2012/?amendment=21

Nothing at all like the drawn out process we see today.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The new process will be explained by KML1 at the August pre-season meeting and by myself as SADO at the Match Observers pre-season meeting. We will be using the RFU training packages to be delivered in July.

All your questions can be addressed at those meetings.