Front Row Stands Up

[ChrisR]

id expect the rules [laws] to align with ethos & ideology, not vv.

Neither ethos nor ideology are the subjects here. Style, strategy and tactics are.

In OB's example of a team manipulating (violating) the laws to gain an the scrum advantage I have to wonder why 'repeated infringement' wasn't enforced.

Grass roots teams usually don't have the luxury of assembling a team to suit a style of play. It's most often the other way around, they play to what they have. When the referee of the day has a predetermined idea of how rugby should be played then that bias can find its way into the game.

Browner, I am of the opinion, drawn from your frequent post on this site, that you have that bias. I hope that bias doesn't find its way into your whistle.

 

[Rushforth]

Grass roots teams usually don't have the luxury of assembling a team to suit a style of play. It's most often the other way around, they play to what they have. When the referee of the day has a predetermined idea of how rugby should be played then that bias can find its way into the game.

Grass-roots teams usually don't have the luxury of the fittest or fastest referees, either. Grass-roots referees too have to make do with what they have. Although sadly many grass-roots referees are afraid to leave their home club, even these tend to be perceived as "too strict" by their "own" players (the visitors may beg to differ).

As you may or may not know, I believe the respect for the referee that is normal in rugby and so woefully lacking in soccer is "how rugby should be played". The referee in turn has three duties. In order of priority these are (1) ensuring safety, (2) having empathy for both sides, in an impartial manner, and (3) running around and occasionally whistling.

Unfortunately, not all players, let alone spectators, understand that the lower the level of rugby, the more important that the referee not necessarily whistle for every (perceived) offence. Instead, the referee has to manage the game - remember that word - and although individuals (i.e. scum-halves*) may try to get into a referees ear, my experience is that the team that talks most doesn't benefit.

As a former front row player, the only time I was ever upset at a referees decision was when the scrum collapsed with the ball "almost out". Fortunately this was in a friendly between two teams I played for, and admittedly the referee was very inexperienced.

Anyway, to start to come to a conclusion related to the original topic of this thread, front rows standing up tends to be a safety valve. I find it hard to see "who stood up first", and I played each position in the front row for 5 or more seasons. My minimal expectation is for a referee to whistle immediately if a scrum pops up, and faster than that if it collapses.

Obviously I prefer it when a referee is consistently near enough play to see what is going on (yet not in the way), both audible and visible enough to communicate advantage (and end thereof) to both sets of players as well as the spectators, but we can't all be George Clancy.

 

[Rushforth]

scum-halves*

*Not a typo.

 

[OB..]

In OB's example of a team manipulating (violating) the laws to gain an the scrum advantage I have to wonder why 'repeated infringement' wasn't enforced.

I forget the year, but I presume they did not have anything relevant at that time.

 

[Browner]

*Not a typo.

...but a freudian slip.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As a former front row player, the only time I was ever upset at a referees decision was when the scrum collapsed with the ball "almost out". Fortunately this was in a friendly between two teams I played for, and admittedly the referee was very inexperienced.

Inexperienced or not, he actually made the correct decision in Law!

[LAWS]Law 20.3 (h) Scrum collapse. If a scrum collapses, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so
that players stop pushing[/LAWS]

This because, as you noted earlier in your post, the referee

...has three duties. In order of priority these are (1) ensuring safety, (2) having empathy for both sides, in an impartial manner, and (3) running around and occasionally whistling.

 

[menace]

Shhh Ian, don't let correct refereeing get in the way if a good story...I mean rant

 

[Rushforth]

Inexperienced or not, he actually made the correct decision in Law!

Ok, he didn't whistle. When I confronted him on the issue, he said "the ball was almost out, do I didn't whistle".

I realise I didn't spell it (= his decision) out in my previous narrative, but since I was specifically railing against the single decision in all the hundreds of games I've played where the referee decided "continuity of play" was more important than "six broken necks (including my own)", I find it quite remarkable that you chose to interpret the story in his favour.

Let me reiterate: (1) the scrum collapsed (2) the referee did NOT blow the whistle (3) the ball came out of the scrum. In that order.

My point remains that although referees should facilitate continuity of play, especially at grass-roots levels, players will be happy if it is clear that you are interested in their safety. Sometimes this will be out of your control (a tip tackle for example), but in the case of a collapsed scrum you can (help) take the pressure by use of the whistle, as per 20.3 (h).

However, you don't need to know that it is 20.3 (h), you just have to be capable of deciding whether to whistle or not for any kind of dangerous play, and in particular for play which will get more dangerous if you don't use the whistle. The collapsed scrum and the popped scrum are both instances of this.

 

[Browner]

As a former front row player, the only time I was ever upset at a referees decision was when the scrum collapsed with the ball "almost out". Fortunately this was in a friendly between two teams I played for, and admittedly the referee was very inexperienced.

If the ref ever gets to be experienced elite, they allow the same !

 

[Pegleg]

So, in such a rugby world , Put all the development effort into Producing the biggest scrummage monsters the world has ever seen then accidentally knock on every time you get the ball, then win all scrums and either continually win the game on PK's or get the opposition repeatedly RC'd for repeated [yet safe] infringements, eventually they are down to so few players that the game is conceded and you have an acceptable code...... aka match

i think this means i disagree with your narrow interpretation of what the game is about.

Then change the laws. One of the problems we have with credibility is that we have a law book which, at the elite end of the game, is "interpreted" to produce a "desired outcome". When pundits and fans are outraged at; pillars, crooked scrum feeds, obstructions etc. collapsed crums that are not reset as per the laws, "we" get prissy about repect etc. And we dive behind secret memos etc. IF WR want the game to work in a particular way then they should re-write the law book and demand that that law book is followed. NOT have a law book that the elite can, seemingly, pick and choose from.

If you think rugby is about scoring tries trather than winning (certainly at the elite end) they you really a living in a fantasy universe. When "that kick" went over and all the English rejoiced. Did you bemoan the England Juggernaught pack? No and people all over England were quite happy too.

It's not my interpretation. It's pro sport.

 

[OB..]

If you think rugby is about scoring tries trather than winning (certainly at the elite end) they you really a living in a fantasy universe. When "that kick" went over and all the English rejoiced. Did you bemoan the England Juggernaught pack? No and people all over England were quite happy too.

It's not my interpretation. It's pro sport.

Of course teams will do what is necessary to win, and that is endorsed by the Playing Charter, which says the aim is to "score as many points as possible".

However the laws have been changed over the years to make tries more valuable because that is seen as more exciting than other forms of scoring. Fans will naturally cheer a world cup winning drop goal by Jonny Wilkinson or Joel Stransky, but the latter is on record as saying he did not want to the game to be dominated by drop-goals.

England has sometime been accused of scoring only by threes. Why is that seen as a criticism? Because everybody agrees they would rather see tries, but knows that pragmatically that may not be an option.

 

[Pegleg]

Exactly. Pragmatically you try to win by whatever legal or, all too often, illegal means that are available to you. Of course, increasing the value of the try actually increases the "value" of giving away three points to prevent said try.

 

[Browner]

Then change the laws. One of the problems we have with credibility is that we have a law book which, at the elite end of the game, is "interpreted" to produce a "desired outcome". When pundits and fans are outraged at; pillars, crooked scrum feeds, obstructions etc. collapsed crums that are not reset as per the laws, "we" get prissy about repect etc. And we dive behind secret memos etc. IF WR want the game to work in a particular way then they should re-write the law book and demand that that law book is followed. NOT have a law book that the elite can, seemingly, pick and choose from.

If you think rugby is about scoring tries trather than winning (certainly at the elite end) they you really a living in a fantasy universe. When "that kick" went over and all the English rejoiced. Did you bemoan the England Juggernaught pack? No and people all over England were quite happy too.
/QUOTE]

I can see what you've done, taken my dislike for basing the whole match around PK acquiring at the scrum and repeat offence carditus that follows for a overpowered scrummage, and twisted it into pretending i meant all manner of kick avoidance.

as attempts go, it qualifies as 1/10, actually no, less, 4/100.
Must do better.

 

[OB..]

Exactly. Pragmatically you try to win by whatever legal or, all too often, illegal means that are available to you. Of course, increasing the value of the try actually increases the "value" of giving away three points to prevent said try.

Not really. You can only get PKs if the opponents infringe. Fortunately 5 DGs per game seems to have been a one-off. If you can force opponents to give away PKs, then you should be able to score tries instead/as well. Giving away PKs to avoid 5 points also risks a YC and maybe RC and PT.

I claim it is clear from the way the laws have developed that WR wishes to encourage try scoring over other means. I also claim it is what players and spectators prefer.

 

[Pegleg]

Supporters generally prefer success. Pontypool fans in the 70s did not give a care to seeing the ball never go further than the 10. They were winning and that was good enough for them. Pro players will tend to prefer winning bonuses. They may have a preference about how that is achieved. But it is naive to believe that, in a day when maney drives sport, anything else to be the truth. Also regarding drop goals (a considerable skill!) a side finding it dificult to get through will happilly take the points. And why not?

If you want the game changed, here's a thought. Ban the drop goal. Stop any penalty kicks at goal from outside the 22. (just like football let's have the 22 as the "penalty area").

You say that WR wants try scorin gover other methods. So: Why not just remove these "anti-rugby" ideas from the game?

If WR wants to encourage running rugby let's limit the time a maul can trundle down the field to... let's say 5 seconds. and the scrum let's not allow the ball to stay in there for longer than 5 seconds. I wonder what Gloucester's Shedheads would have made of such ideas?

Who are any of us to say that rugby "should be played my way"? Rugby union is a game for all and it is up to the individual teams to decide what that means for them (within the laws of the game).

 

[Browner]

Who are any of us to say that rugby "should be played my way"?

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

 

[OB..]

If you want the game changed, here's a thought. Ban the drop goal. Stop any penalty kicks at goal from outside the 22. (just like football let's have the 22 as the "penalty area").

All you are saying is that supporters prefer a boring win to an exciting loss. I agree. But that is not my point. The uncommitted will prefer an exciting game, whoever wins, and it is the uncommitted that WR wish to encourage. That is why they have changed the laws to as to make scoring tries more attractive than penalties, but it is a balancing act.

I have long advocated reducing the value of a drop goal, so that its main role is that of breaking ties.

You say that WR wants try scorin gover other methods. So: Why not just remove these "anti-rugby" ideas from the game?

If WR wants to encourage running rugby let's limit the time a maul can trundle down the field to... let's say 5 seconds. and the scrum let's not allow the ball to stay in there for longer than 5 seconds. I wonder what Gloucester's Shedheads would have made of such ideas?

Who are any of us to say that rugby "should be played my way"?

You are wildly distorting my views in a mistaken attempt to disparage them.

Rugby union is a game for all and it is up to the individual teams to decide what that means for them (within the laws of the game).

Of course, but again that is not my point.

During the RWC,many people will watch games involving teams they don't really care about. Many with no real interest in rugby will watch the occasional game. 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.

 

[Ian_Cook]

During the RWC,many people will watch games involving teams they don't really care about. Many with no real interest in rugby will watch the occasional game. 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.

Yes.

Sevens has not been introduced into the Olympic Games so that teams can demonstrate their scrummaging prowess!!

 

[SimonSmith]

No, it was because America, with all its spending potential, will never love 15s. 7s is short and easy to understand

 

[Ian_Cook]

No, it was because America, with all its spending potential, will never love 15s. 7s is short and easy to understand

Ah, so its all about attention span!?:biggrin:

That's probably why an American Football match is 60 minutes long, stretched out over a time period of over 3 hours but broken up into chunks of about 10 seconds!!