CrouchTPEngage

Referees in England
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 496
- Post Likes
- 55
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
I was watching the England v SA game on Saturday with some friends. Often in such situations , they ask me (knowing I ref ) for explanations as to why a decision was given etc.
One question asked of me was "Why , after a South Africa knocked on do they get a chance to scrum with the fore-knowledge that they will win a PK with a high probability ?"
The rationale for this was :
1) New laws about goal-line drop-out were introduced with an eye to reducing the number of scrums and speeding the game up.
2) Focus-groups feedback is that the scrum is the area of the game that is unentertaining and hard to sell to a global audience - and often , the award of a PK is for a reason unfathomable to said audience.
3) Why should a team that knock-on be rewarded with an almost certain PK at the resulting scrum ?
In that 2nd half, England were being dominated in the scrum ( and the line-out ). So, if England knock-on, SA choose the scrum. i.e. SA are rewarded by being afforded an opportunity to deploy their scrum-as-a-weapon.
When SA knock-on, England might choose the FK option ( i.e. SA are not rewarded for knocking-on ).
Also, there is a tactical decision depending the the place of the knock-on : England may choose a scrum if its 5 meters out from SA's goal-line, to de-populate the defensive line.
As a side-effect, the game is made quicker and visually more appealing and sellable.
( I am cognizant that I may be half-accused of turning this into Rugby-League.)
What could possibly go wrong ?
One question asked of me was "Why , after a South Africa knocked on do they get a chance to scrum with the fore-knowledge that they will win a PK with a high probability ?"
The rationale for this was :
1) New laws about goal-line drop-out were introduced with an eye to reducing the number of scrums and speeding the game up.
2) Focus-groups feedback is that the scrum is the area of the game that is unentertaining and hard to sell to a global audience - and often , the award of a PK is for a reason unfathomable to said audience.
3) Why should a team that knock-on be rewarded with an almost certain PK at the resulting scrum ?
In that 2nd half, England were being dominated in the scrum ( and the line-out ). So, if England knock-on, SA choose the scrum. i.e. SA are rewarded by being afforded an opportunity to deploy their scrum-as-a-weapon.
When SA knock-on, England might choose the FK option ( i.e. SA are not rewarded for knocking-on ).
Also, there is a tactical decision depending the the place of the knock-on : England may choose a scrum if its 5 meters out from SA's goal-line, to de-populate the defensive line.
As a side-effect, the game is made quicker and visually more appealing and sellable.
( I am cognizant that I may be half-accused of turning this into Rugby-League.)
What could possibly go wrong ?