Is it a joint ANZAC 'Whinge about the LOTG' Day today?

[Lex Hipkins]

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/219701.html

http://www.superxv.com/41956/1/blues-coach-kirwan-calls-for-overhaul-of-scrum-laws

:biggrin:

 

[winchesterref]

Reduce the points deterrent for penalties but increase penalising of the breakdown... Makes sense.

 

[RobLev]

Reduce the points deterrent for penalties but increase penalising of the breakdown... Makes sense.

The question cynical defenders ask is however - "Do I give away a penalty with possible loss of N points, or allow a chance of a try with the loss of Y points?". Increasing Y minus N will increase the number of penalties given away and reduce the number of tries scored. The ARU is proposing to reduce N and increase Y simultaneously. I wonder what might happen?

Of course, YC and then RC for repeat offending might help - but the refs will be pressured not do that because it "ruins the game".

Are games of Rugby in Aussieland really penalty-fests?

And is Kirwan channelling Ian Cook, or vice versa[.../I]

 

[Browner]

" we'll go out to the public and pick up some of the things they're most interested in"

Crikey, most will rid the game of referees !

Fagan, just dont pick the pocket of RL.

 

[Browner]

"Let the halfback put the ball in without the call from the ref. It's as simple as that"

Dear john,
we had that, it led to delaying & the hit & crooked ! Come and watch one of my matches we have no pre-feed shove, straight feeds, and no delays, with the added bonus of hardly any collapses AND against the head possession wins, it's really beautiful to watch.
Browner

"We just need to let the advantage go to the team that's putting it in. Then if you're good enough, push us off it when we've put the ball in"

Dear John,
You already have the advantage, your hooker is closer to the ball than theirs.
Browner

"That's the little advantage you have knowing when the ball going in But you've still got a couple of tons of angry men trying to push each other off the ball, so leave it as a fair contest.

Dear John,
Delivered straight down the middle, both sides able to hook it, without one side already shoving , and after the referee has checked that props aren't illegally binding/levering/twisting or shoving IS a fair contest.
If you want guaranteed 1st possession at scrums then stick a CV into this codes vacancies section. www.rugbyleagueisforpersonsnotwantingpossessioncontests.com
Xx
Browner

 

[The Fat]

Poor choice of thread title. ARU & NZRU not ANZAC.
One article is simply proposing to trial some law changes which may yield one or two benefits to the game or maybe not (Probably not). The other is a coach making comment on the scrum feed. ANZAC whinge? I think not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The question cynical defenders ask is however - "Do I give away a penalty with possible loss of N points, or allow a chance of a try with the loss of Y points?". Increasing Y minus N will increase the number of penalties given away and reduce the number of tries scored. The ARU is proposing to reduce N and increase Y simultaneously. I wonder what might happen?

It didn't happen after 1971/72 when the try went from three points to four points

It didn't happen after 1992 when the try went from four points to five points.

What DID happen was that we slowly went from matches that finished with scores like 6-3 or 9-6, in which there were about 50 scrums and line-outs per match, to matches that finished with scores like 25-20 or 37-28 with about 20 scrums & line-outs per match.

Of course, YC and then RC for repeat offending might help - but the refs will be pressured not do that because it "ruins the game".

They are only pressured in their own minds.

A YC offence is worth a YC, a RC offence is worth a RC. The only person responsible for ruining a game is the player who committed the cardable offence. One of the best expressions of this I have heard from a referee was from Craig Joubert when he was about to RC Drew Mitchell for a second YC offence. He said to the Australian Captain "I am not responsible for the effect that this decision will have on the game". This put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the player

And is Kirwan channelling Ian Cook, or vice versa[.../I]

Its not channelling, its just plain commonsense

"Let the halfback put the ball in without the call from the ref. It's as simple as that"

Dear john,
we had that, it led to delaying & the hit & crooked (feeds?)!

No we didn't. We never had CBS without Y9 or T9. We went straight from CTS to CBSY9

The vast majority of problems before CBSY9 stemmed from incorrect and illegal binding. All the collapsing, boring in, turning in, chest pulling and folding under all stemmed from props binding on the arm or chest of the opponent (and from elite referees allowing this to continue) thereby granting props a licence to illegally disrupt the scrum with impunity.

CBS was supposed to fix this, and to a large extent it worked. It certainly worked in the trials at the Laws Laboratory in Stellenbosch, and in the New Zealand NPC "B" competition, but then they added Y9. They realised almost straight away that Y9 was a mistake, wasn't working, and was allowing opposing scrums to get the jump on the team putting in, so they modified this to T9. It is no surprise to me that it hasn't worked either.

Mike Cron is arguably the worlds leading scrum coach. He says that having the referee decide when the scrum should be fed is a bad idea. I'll take his word for it!


As for the Aussie suggested Law changes

From ESPN.co.uk

...reducing penalties and drop-goals to two points, increasing conversion to three points...

I partially support this. Conversions used to be worth 40% of the the value of a goal (what we now call a converted try). Its now worth only 28%, devaluing the skill of place kicking. Reducing the value of a PK to two points would further devalue place-kicking, However, increasing the conversion to three points maintains the value of goal kicking, increases the incentive to score tries, and restores the value of a conversion to back near where it used to be... 42%. A good compromise.

However, I think the drop goal ought to be reduced to one point, so that it becomes a tie breaker, or a means for a team push themselves beyond or within range of a potential one score margin of winning, losing or drawing a match. Reducing it to one point makes it less likely to be used simply to accumulate points.

...stopping the clock for scrums...

100% behind this. Its time all the playing time being wasted by the piss-arsing about with resets and collapses came to an end. At least at elite level, or any match where there is a dedicated timekeeper, the clock should stop when the referee makes the mark for the scrum, and start when the SH throws the ball in.

and an increased policing of the breakdown area with an emphasis on penalising infringements...

Absolutely! Zero tolerance on offsides, landing aeroplanes, sealing-off and players not rolling away. One of my current bugbears is when a tackled player attempts to place the ball back but is unable to do so because a tackler has not yet rolled away. Opposing jackler latches onto the ball, and the referee then PK's the tackled player for not releasing. This is wrong! The tackler not rolling away was the first infringement. The tackled player is entitled to expect that no opponent will be on the ground in the area where he wants to place the ball

 

[Rushforth]

Reducing it to one point makes it less likely to be used simply to accumulate points.

...stopping the clock for scrums...

100% behind this. Its time all the playing time being wasted by the piss-arsing about with resets and collapses came to an end. At least at elite level, or any match where there is a dedicated timekeeper, the clock should stop when the referee makes the mark for the scrum, and start when the SH throws the ball in.

The rest of your post makes sense. Drop kicks, however, are NOT used to accumulate points, as far as I know.

Also, the idea of stopping the clock as in American Football simply isn't rugby. I'm sure that you will accept that your suggestion is simplistic, and I must admit myself that I do both fully understand the reasoning and don't have a better solution to the "scrum delay tactic". But to me, different laws for the "elite" is not the correct path.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The rest of your post makes sense. Drop kicks, however, are NOT used to accumulate points, as far as I know.

To that, I answer Jannie de Beer

Also, the idea of stopping the clock as in American Football simply isn't rugby. I'm sure that you will accept that your suggestion is simplistic, and I must admit myself that I do both fully understand the reasoning and don't have a better solution to the "scrum delay tactic". But to me, different laws for the "elite" is not the correct path.

So, how about only stopping the clock on a scrum if it needs to be reset.

So...

1. scrum is set and clock continues to run, Ball is fed, hooked and comes out, play on.

2. scrum is set, ball is fed and scrum collapses. Time off, and remains off until ball is out an clear of the reset scrum.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Actually, one thing I would like to see them try out is allowing a gain in ground for a FK anywhere in the field of play, but still giving the throw to the opposition.

Teams who receive a free kick then have the chance to trade off field position against possession.

 

[OB..]

To that, I answer Jannie de Beer

Entirely agree.

So, how about only stopping the clock on a scrum if it needs to be reset.

So...

1. scrum is set and clock continues to run, Ball is fed, hooked and comes out, play on.

2. scrum is set, ball is fed and scrum collapses. Time off, and remains off until ball is out an clear of the reset scrum.

At present, when time is off, players can take a rest. Not in this new scenario, so you are increasing the demands on precisely those players who are already most physically tested during a game.

 

[Browner]

Mike Cron is arguably the worlds leading scrum coach. He says that having the referee decide when the scrum should be fed is a bad idea. I'll take his word for it!

Is this the same Mike Cron who ...
A) advocated and coached the scrum hit & chase?
B) has been central to all the other failed scrum tinkerings as part of his IRB lead consultative role- including the current referee decides feed timing !!!
C) said that a 20-25% depowering of the scrum hit would solve the scrum collapse problems
D) that has an obvious NZ bias to scrummaging value
E) agreed that crooked feeding was needed to counter the lost hit/chase that he'd helped develop?

Or are we talking about a new Mike Con?.......ooooops freudian slip, I meant Mike Cron.


Ps....De ja vue?
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16160-Radio-5-Live/page2&highlight=cron

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is this the same Mike Cron who ...
A) advocated and coached the scrum hit & chase?
B) has been central to all the other failed scrum tinkerings as part of his IRB lead consultative role- including the current referee decides feed timing !!!
C) said that a 20-25% depowering of the scrum hit would solve the scrum collapse problems
D) that has an obvious NZ bias to scrummaging value
E) agreed that crooked feeding was needed to counter the lost hit/chase that he'd helped develop?

Browner, its really easy to criticise when you

a) know little or nothing about the subject material yourself except what you read on the internet, and

b) make your criticisms entirely out of time and context.

I will now dismantle your criticisms and set a few things straight for you!

A) advocated and coached the scrum hit & chase?

..at a time when hit and chase was advocated by everyone (or at least, everyone who mattered).

You cherry picked a few parts of the whole in order to make your criticism sound plausible (you're good at that, browner, you do it a lot). If you REALLY understood anything at all about scrummaging, you would know that he was right in the context of the rest (the bits you left out). What you fail to understand is that when both scrums hit and chase, they effectively cancel each other out and the result locks the front rows together. Its like following through in a golf swing, or when kicking a ball. The intent to swing the club/leg through past the ball is what creates the timing.

The reason for this is simple dynamics; most scrums at elite level are close to evenly weighted, so when they come together it is with approximately equal force. The initial stability of the scrum is therefore dependent on the total weight of each pack, NOT the collective strength of the participants. You can liken this to two cars having a head on collision. You have similar cars of similar weight heading towards each other at 20 mph. The force with which they crash will be related to the weight of the cars. The fact that one has a 100 hp motor and the other has a 500 hp motor makes no difference to the force of the crash.

B) has been central to all the other failed scrum tinkerings as part of his IRB lead consultative role- including the current referee decides feed timing !!!

...and so have a lot of other scrum coaches, but the problem is, when an expert individual or group come up with a holistic solution to a problem, the last thing you need is for busybodies, self-professed experts and people with personal or national agendas, and who weren't involved in the evolution of the solution in the first place, to come along afterwards and pick which bits of the solution they want, which bits they don't want and to add bits of their own. A holistic solution (one that is, by definition "characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole") ought not be tinkered with. The solution that the scrum working group (of which Mike Cron was a part) came up with was a total solution that worked well in the two trial areas mentioned earlier. It was the iRB referees who tinkered with the solution by adding the "Yes9" and in so doing they stuffed the solution up. Just because Cron was a member of the scrum working group DOES NOT MEAN that he agrees with the tinkering that came after the fact.

Now, instead of the misquoted and unrepresentative BS you have posted, lets look at what Cron actually said..

"Enforcing the halfback to put the ball in straight has been one gripe, however. The pedantic nature of some early officiating of this rule caused strong criticism. And it turns out the requirement came as an ‘add-on’ request from the referees. It was not part of the initial recommendations. "The referees have brought in a couple of other things that weren’t in the trial,” Cron revealed. “Telling the halfback when he can feed the scrum was never in the trial. Being very strict in the scrum feed wasn’t in the trial. They were brought in by the referees after it was approved.

That is a long, long way from what you said,

C) said that a 20-25% depowering of the scrum hit would solve the scrum collapse problems

...and it would have if he and the scrum group were listened to instead of the busybodies tinkering with what the group came up with.

Cron: "A delay before the 'yes nine' put-in command from the referee, a narrow channel for that delivery, the pressure and incorrect binding from tighthead props were all part of the scrum difficulties. The reduction in the hit helped stability and player welfare, and most collapses were caused by tightheads' incorrect binding"

The implication from that, of course, is that the reduced power of the hit HAS reduced the number of collapses, and the tighthead binding (which has nothing whatever to do with the hit) is major remaining cause. You will recall that illegal binding, by tightheads especially, is something that I have been banging on about here on this forum, for some time.

D) that has an obvious NZ bias to scrummaging value

... he has to come from somewhere. It would be nice if we could find a neutral scrum coach from, say, Ulan Bator, so that his bias could not be questioned. The reality is that a scrum expert is more likely to come from a country that plays the game to a higher level, and that is unfortunately going to expose him to bigoted criticism from people like you (unless he's from England of course).

E) agreed that crooked feeding was needed to counter the lost hit/chase that he'd helped develop?

Again, he was not alone in this. It actually wasn't his idea or suggestion. It was merely an observation of what was happening. Lets again look at what Cron really said...

"The main issue at the moment is being very strict with the scrum feed. Under modern-day scrummaging at our [international] level it is virtually impossible for the hooker to get his leg to the middle line. It’s too far now.

“In the old days we would fold in a bit and we were a lot higher and the hooker could swing his leg. Now to get the hooker to get his leg to the absolute middle line it’s virtually impossible. When he does do it he sacrifices a lot of good technique. He can end up in some terrible pushing positions.


“Moving forward I think the tunnel of the feed has to be made wider, like the line-out. We want the ball to be fed straight, not towards the No 8. But there has to be more latitude so the hooker can actually hook the ball and still stay in a safe position.”

 

[john g]

"The main issue at the moment is being very strict with the scrum feed. Under modern-day scrummaging at our [international] level it is virtually impossible for the hooker to get his leg to the middle line. It’s too far now.

“In the old days we would fold in a bit and we were a lot higher and the hooker could swing his leg. Now to get the hooker to get his leg to the absolute middle line it’s virtually impossible. When he does do it he sacrifices a lot of good technique. He can end up in some terrible pushing positions.


“Moving forward I think the tunnel of the feed has to be made wider, like the line-out. We want the ball to be fed straight, not towards the No 8. But there has to be more latitude so the hooker can actually hook the ball and still stay in a safe position.”

Hasn’t anyone mentioned the hight of the scum at this level? They are so low that bookers can't strike.

 

[Phil E]

Hasn’t anyone mentioned the hight of the scum at this level? They are so low that hookers can't strike.

Try telling that to BCM :wow:

 

[Dickie E]

Hasn’t anyone mentioned the hight of the scum at this level? They are so low that bookers can't strike.

Indeed. IN S15 I've seen a number of scrums where the ball just sits in the middle of the tunnel - neither hooker can strike and neither pack is dominant enough to push over.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hasn’t anyone mentioned the hight of the scum at this level? They are so low that bookers can't strike.

The power of the modern scrum does not permit it. The five guys behind the props are pushing forward, parallel to the ground. If the front rows are not also low, then they'll be forced upwards because they won' have anywhere else to go. Simple dynamics

Try pushing a car while standing up

The only way you are going to have the props higher is to have a scrum that looks like this...

This is not a scrum, its a group hug. They only have these in the "other" code!


NOTE: See where the SH is looking? That's where he's going throw the ball in!