[Scrum] Front row player forced up

[Pegleg]

Ok you know best.


CBS?


Crouch Bind Set. Oh dear.

Time for ignore I feel.

 

[ChuckieB]

Ok you know best.


CBS?


Crouch Bind Set. Oh dear.

Time for ignore I feel.

nope. Trying to get pre CBS linked to your LHP position. Hardly a relevant association.

So what position did you play post CBS?

 

[ChuckieB]

Easier, ChuckieB? In what way?

Moving to the dark side of observance of the laws.

 

[VM75]

I'd suggest that if its because the player is not strong/experienced enough to deal with it, then he needs to be subbed for someone that can. If there isn't anybody then the ref will need to be advised and the scums will need to go uncontested. its not as if there are no options at all, and burying heads in the sand won't help the situation ultimately.

My "accepting" of it was ditected at the more elite end of the scale - you rightly identify that there are two games in operation under one set of laws - and if standing up is stopping the oppo from benefiting from skillful play then it needs to be penalised. In this regard I maintain then that standing up needs to be properly outlawed rather than bending another law to achieve that ... when very possibly the law that is being shoe horned into use may not actually be being broken.

didds

My memory of playing, is that the first team to 'Stand up' had lost the contest and as such were now usually marching back to either;
a] lose their ball .... or release it to their 9 under now significant pressure to get it away
or
b] if the shovers had the ball then they simply controlled the ball & marched downfield until the opposition either halted them or committed some other PK offence further downfield.

A good 8/9 would then assess a retreating back division & with his back row break-a-way. [I'm now getting misty eyed!]

Id like to think that if there were less early PK'ng of the stand'rs we might actually see more back-row-breakaways returning to the game [advantage being played] a bit like some of these https://youtu.be/jUz1ytcnn3c

i'm suggesting that 'standing up' should be removed from the PK dictionary.

 

[ChrisR]

VM75: "i'm suggesting that 'standing up' should be removed from the PK dictionary."


It's not even in the rugby dictionary! But I agree with the point that you make.

 

[VM75]

I'd suggest that if its because the player is not strong/experienced enough to deal with it, then he needs to be subbed for someone that can. If there isn't anybody then the ref will need to be advised and the scrums will need to go uncontested. its not as if there are no options at all, and burying heads in the sand won't help the situation ultimately.

My "accepting" of it was directed at the more elite end of the scale - you rightly identify that there are two games in operation under one set of laws - and if standing up is stopping the oppo from benefiting from skillful play then it needs to be penalised. In this regard I maintain then that standing up needs to be properly outlawed rather than bending another law to achieve that ... when very possibly the law that is being shoe horned into use may not actually be being broken.

didds

This is where we differ. Fundamentally I don't agree that a scrum should go uncontested merely because my props are stronger than yours. If your props conceded the scrum by standing up then that's tough, their backs will now have to retreat for as long as my team have the ball at the 8's feet. We may break off to launch an attack whilst we drive forwards, but we may wait for a retreating player to infringe a law.

Imagine that our tactical advantage is that we have strong forwards & conversely you have fast backs - that's rugby Didds, utilise whatever advantage you have, rather than reward a standing-up team by creating an 'uncontested situation' - that only serves to cancel my teams stronger scrum.

Pro rugby just wants the game to restart 'somehow' so it's invented this go-forward reward, until someone can come up with a set of laws that can transcend the divide between Pro & community then we are stuck with the current position.

IMO it's Hobsons choice, amateur guys need the 'escape valve' pro game wants to stop the defending side from ruining the spectacle.

I'm all ears, if someones got a better 'workable' solution :shrug:

 

[ChrisR]

I've got some ideas but they won't be universally popular.

If . . . the purpose of the scrum is to restart the game with a fair contest for the ball
Then . . . limit the drive forward until the contest for the ball has been won.

That means that if the team in possession is being driven back the scrum continues but the drive forward must end if the go-forward team has possession. This law stops being applied if the ball is within 5m of goal.

A scrum going backwards may wheel the scrum by any means.

If you belong to the Church of the Dominant Scrum you may not like these. If you'd like to see the scrum return to its original purpose then you might.

 

[didds]

This is where we differ. Fundamentally I don't agree that a scrum should go uncontested merely because my props are stronger than yours.

I was talking about grass roots down with the dead men levels. I would suggest that a ref that continued with contested scrums when one of the FR players was clearly not able to cope ie was obviously not ST&E, would be putting himself in a difficult place if anything subsequently went very wrong.

I agree at elite levels that shouldn't ever happen.

didds

 

[didds]

I've got some ideas but they won't be universally popular.

If . . . the purpose of the scrum is to restart the game with a fair contest for the ball
Then . . .

... why not just use U19 laws? can't wheel, can't drive more than 1.5m

I wouldn't want to see it personally. But if its ONLY supposed to be a restart why not? (Devil's Advocate here!)

Or of course it may actually be an area of skill and strength, which goes past the requirement to just restart the game but instead be in itself a contest for the ball.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

This is my point:

Once the ball has been won and is available at the #8's feet the purpose of the scrum has been achieved. With the exception of 5m scrums any further driving by the ball winning scrum is now for the purpose of earning a penalty. This the blight that is the top level games.

 

[crossref]

1.5m is too short, it eliminates the push-over try, but I don't see why the drive shouldn't be limited to 5m, so that it's still possible to go for a push over try at a 5m scrum, while out in the mid-field I can't see that there is any good reason to drive a scrum > 5m, other than in search of a PK.

 

[didds]

This is my point:

Once the ball has been won and is available at the #8's feet the purpose of the scrum has been achieved. With the exception of 5m scrums any further driving by the ball winning scrum is now for the purpose of earning a penalty. This the blight that is the top level games.

well... there's the potential of a well timed and effective shove could cause the s/half or #8 to knock on.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. It ain't over until its over.

didds

 

[didds]

1.5m is too short, it eliminates the push-over try, but I don't see why the drive shouldn't be limited to 5m, so that it's still possible to go for a push over try at a 5m scrum, while out in the mid-field I can't see that there is any good reason to drive a scrum > 5m, other than in search of a PK.

I am reminded of a scrum where we shoved the oppo something like 40m, only for our #8 to knock on as he went to score.
We lost that gamke by less than a converted try as well..

didds

 

[ChrisR]

well... there's the potential of a well timed and effective shove could cause the s/half or #8 to knock on.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. It ain't over until its over.

didds

Yes, agreed. Which is why I'd only halt the forward shove of the team in possession.

If the team not in possession can drive forward to either win the ball back or disrupt the service then I'm all for it.

 

[didds]

Yes, agreed. Which is why I'd only halt the forward shove of the team in possession.

If the team not in possession can drive forward to either win the ball back or disrupt the service then I'm all for it.

so you'd prevent our (almost) 40m push over try attempt that aolmost worked. (Bloody Irish #8s...) thus removing our scrum dominance as a valid tactic? Just checking.



didds

 

[crossref]

A Law that prevent a 40m pushover try would impact one game in a million. ..

 

[ChrisR]

Sorry, didds, but I'd sacrifice your 40m scrum drive to prevent the thousands of contrived penalties that have destroyed the game that can develop from the base of a scrum.

Anyway, why didn't the ******s just wheel you and get the feed? Or was that before the 90 rule?

 

[didds]

A Law that prevent a 40m pushover try would impact one game in a million. ..

yup.

But that was MY game.

didds

 

[didds]

Sorry, didds, but I'd sacrifice your 40m scrum drive to prevent the thousands of contrived penalties that have destroyed the game that can develop from the base of a scrum.

how many scrum penalties do you see contrived at level 9?

Anyway, why didn't the ******s just wheel you and get the feed? Or was that before the 90 rule?

you'd have to ask them that.

maybe they didn't believe in cheating?

This was circa 2000.

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

This is a lot of tosh.

I don't see any "contrived" penalties in my games - up to and incl. D1AA.

This proposed law change would kill the old school dominant front rows and devalue the whole scrum. So the Elite are stuffing it up. Let them. Let the rest of play rugby