Front Row Stands Up

[ChrisR]

Exactly. Any idea, political or otherwise, that can't be encapsulated on a bumper sticker is far too complicated for public consumption.

 

[Browner]

£
$
€
¥
¢

etc .

 

[OB..]

I think the fact that the RWC takes 6 weeks whereas a Sevens tournament takes 2 days may have been a major factor in IOC/IRB planning. No need to overplay national stereotypes.

 

[Rushforth]

I claim that I and WR share the view that they will find the games more exciting if clever tries are involved. That is the way to grow the game. Getting the right balance is the key.

I agree, both in theory and practice, but getting the right balance is an incredibly difficult task, unless broken down into pieces.

To grow the game, safety is paramount, and continuity of play should perhaps be preferred to fair contest. For any referee at any given time, they should be effectively equal, but we are talking about improving the laws and guidelines here.

The most obvious example is the interpretation of forward pass. There can be no doubt that it will make the game more exciting to neutral spectators, and as long as the same interpretation is clearly applied throughout a match then contest remains fair.

The question then becomes: is the scrum attractive to spectators? Speaking as a former hooker, it was never attractive to me when not involved myself, and has become even less so with the 90 degrees wheel rewarding the side not putting in.

Balance cannot be allowing scrum-halves to throw the ball in 8° skew. WR should either follow RL and make the scrum a pure restart, or it should return to a proper contested scrum. Despite being a traditionalist, I prefer the former option for many reasons, not least player safety. Continuity of play would improve and fair contest would remain, too.

That's not to say that the scrum could not be a potential contest. For example, 5m scrums (only) could have advantages for the attacking team. But I ramble as usual.

 

[FlipFlop]

You already do, as does every referee, every time offending is considered immaterial !

Not at all. When we say "Immaterial", we mean the non-offending team was not impacted by the offence. Nothing to do with how I think the game should be played.

 

[Browner]

Not at all. When we say "Immaterial", we mean the non-offending team was not impacted by the offence. Nothing to do with how I think the game should be played.

WADR FlipFlop, seeing an offence but deciding not to blow in by unilaterally deciding on the subject 'is deciding' that the the game should continue without a Sanctioning of the offender.

This is actually worse than deciding that the scrum/play may continue without penalising Mr Cant Cope prop who's conceded the shove & is having no effect on the free possession use of his opponent.

There's not much difference.

 

[Pegleg]

... and continuity of play should perhaps be preferred to fair contest.

can't agree with your conclusion. A fair contest is paramount. It is the essence of all sport

The question then becomes: is the scrum attractive to spectators?

The scrum is attractive. IF the scrum is properly conducted. As long as we get the nonsense that the elite game has produced over the last few years then new punters will not be attracted.

If we don't sort the scrum out and that means sorting out; the feed, the early push and the collapses, Then I believe we will end up with RL style scrums and if that happens we may as well pack up and go home.

Who is to blame?

The coaches? YES, they coach the cheating!

The players? YES, the do the cheating!

The referees? YES, we (at theast those at the elite end of the game) have repeatedly condoned the crooked feed and indeed the, so called HIT!

WR? YES , I remain unconvinced that referees on their own could have, so effectively, to collectively ignore the law book. WR has repeatedly tampered with the laws rather than tell the elite guys to do their job. If only WR had forced complience from the referees we might not have seen the problems develop.

 

[Rushforth]

can't agree with your conclusion. A fair contest is paramount. It is the essence of all sport

I am pleasantly surprised to agree with almost all of the meat of your post.

However, you are missing my point with respect to fair contest/continuity of play balance.

As long as all players know what laws they are playing by, and referees do their best to adhere to these laws, the contest should (in theory) be fair. In practice, one team will usually be dominant from grass-roots levels all the way to most RWC matches, but that doesn't mean that fair contest does not still apply, whatever the laws may be.

We have already gone the RL way with momentum passes, even if we can't actually point to the letter in law. We haven't quite gone the RL way in the scrum, but the contest has changed completely from my heyday as a hooker. Fortunately, "the hit" has been removed from the game.

At my (low) level, scrums popping is relatively rare, and collapses are genuinely rare. In both cases it tends to be lack of technique when it happens. At the elite level, the technique is there, but the players are far more powerful too.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

WADR FlipFlop, seeing an offence but deciding not to blow in by unilaterally deciding on the subject 'is deciding' that the the game should continue without a Sanctioning of the offender.

You could point to an offence at every lineout, scrum, ruck, maul and breakdown. If you ping every single infringement you will end up with a game of force-back played between the 22m lines and the score would increase in increments of 3.

 

[OB..]

We have already gone the RL way with momentum passes, even if we can't actually point to the letter in law.

As I have pointed out before, the RFU ruled in favour of the momentum view back in 1948. It is old news. Time to stop grumbling?