law change thought

[crossref]

SH reaches into the ruck to grab the ball, knocks on while the ball is still "in" the ruck.

Oppo cant play it - ball in ruck.

SH hasn't been disadvantaged.

presumably that IS a KO?

it is a KO, but no advantage was gained from knocking it on, ko is immaterial .. play on

Obviously I am recommending a trial, not an immediate Law change, to test it.

my idea is to make a KO more like , say, accidental offside

player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum

Suggested Trial

Knock On - When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum

 

[SimonSmith]

No, the fumble was to his disadvantage, play on.

He's knocked it on, and secured possession.

Your idea ends up bordering on the ridiculous.

 

[SimonSmith]

it is a KO, but no advantage was gained from knocking it on, ko is immaterial .. play on

Obviously I am recommending a trial, not an immediate Law change, to test it.

my idea is to make a KO more like , say, accidental offside

player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum

Suggested Trial

Retention of the ball, in most situations, is a big beginning to advantage.

 

[crossref]

Retention of the ball, in most situations, is a big beginning to advantage.

Not really as the fumble costs you time and space. So you are worse off than if you hadn't fumbled

It's very rare that a fumble actually is an advantage

Your idea ends up bordering on the ridiculous.

it's novel and hard to get your head round at first!

 

[Treadmore]

an International referee told us today at a development meeting that if he could change 1 law, it would be that the referee fed the ball into the scrum. I have some sympathy with this idea. Thoughts?

Not for me.

A law I would modify is scoring a try - from a ruck within 5m of goal line the ball has to be first played out of the 5m zone. The pick and drive fest is too dull, farcical near the goal posts, and given emphasis on head safety, I'm surprised it's not been stopped already.

If allowed a 2nd bite, I'd also prevent jackling if a team mate (likely a tackler) is still in the tackle zone. In TV rugby at least a tackler has often not released before the jackler has "won". It can be hard to judge if material etc, so just make it clearer - leave the tackle zone before your team mate can jackle. I'd hope this would tidy up the tackle zone, ruck formation etc

 

[OB..]

an International referee told us today at a development meeting that if he could change 1 law, it would be that the referee fed the ball into the scrum. I have some sympathy with this idea. Thoughts?

Times report on France v Wales 17 February 1920
"Both sides made the most of the last five minutes' play otherwise the Welsh and French half-backsould hardly be excused for putting the ball into the scrummage so keenly during that period. Eventually the referee, who had been moderate, and at the same time stern in his decisions, had, on one occasion, to put the ball in himself."

The referee was Colonel WSD Craven (England)

 

[chbg]

Times report on France v Wales 17 February 1920
"Both sides made the most of the last five minutes' play otherwise the Welsh and French half-backsould hardly be excused for putting the ball into the scrummage so keenly during that period. Eventually the referee, who had been moderate, and at the same time stern in his decisions, had, on one occasion, to put the ball in himself."

The referee was Colonel WSD Craven (England)

Was it a good match to spectate?

 

[BikingBud]

Blue 15 knocks on in the 22.
Goes to ground to recover.
A ruck forms over him.

Does that constitute an advantage? His team has recovered possession, but are under defensive pressure.

Advantage for who?

The ruck forms, the S/H calls in 3 extra players, they form a caterpillar, the S/H pulls the ball back, adjusts its position, makes sure the makers name can be sen on tv, makes sure his winger is ready, lifts the ball and box kicks as the first of a series of aerial ping pong that bores the arse off the spectators who have come to watch a game of rugby.

So not for the fans

 

[Mipper]

referring way back to the initial post; what a very odd idea

I really don’t understand how this would help anyone, in a way that the 9 putting the ball in straight wouldn’t. can see any logic to it.

Anyway, if I could change one law it would be to bring the 5m scrum pushing law that we have in junior rugby, into senior rugby.

 

[didds]

wrt 5m push ... why stop it at the community level (or any level?). the problem with scrums at the elite level is the use of them as penalty machines rather than restarts, predominantly due IMO because feeding is allowed so there is no chance of a contest for the ball - when did you last see a elite level push over try?. Enforce a straight feed along the mid-line and much of the bollix that goes on may well disappear.

This appears, going by responses from yourselves here, not to be an issue at community levels anyway.
Im failing to see what stopping push over tries is trying to solve .

didds

 

[Mipper]

wrt 5m push ... why stop it at the community level (or any level?). the problem with scrums at the elite level is the use of them as penalty machines rather than restarts, predominantly due IMO because feeding is allowed so there is no chance of a contest for the ball - when did you last see a elite level push over try?. Enforce a straight feed along the mid-line and much of the bollix that goes on may well disappear.

This appears, going by responses from yourselves here, not to be an issue at community levels anyway.
Im failing to see what stopping push over tries is trying to solve .

didds

Well yes, my thought process was really around the elite level anyway. Maybe make push over tries allowable from a 5m scrum?

 

[Decorily]

Anyway, if I could change one law it would be to bring the 5m scrum pushing law that we have in junior rugby, into senior rugby.

Excuse my ignorance.....but what do you mean?

 

[didds]

Well yes, my thought process was really around the elite level anyway. Maybe make push over tries allowable from a 5m scrum?

more rods for backs...
Now a scrum awarded on the 5m can be pushed 5m, but one awarded 5.5m out (knock on?) cannot. And the ref will have to make that line call.;
Cue more controversy one day.

 

[Harry]

A pushover try is a thing of great beauty.

 

[didds]

It is!

 

[Phil E]

One law change.

Backs can't score a try.

 

[Mipper]

more rods for backs...
Now a scrum awarded on the 5m can be pushed 5m, but one awarded 5.5m out (knock on?) cannot. And the ref will have to make that line call.;
Cue more controversy one day.

Not really. 5m scrums are generally awarded not when a ball is dropped right on the 5m line, but when any number of things happen between the 5m line and the dead ball line. Generally I would call ‘5m Scrum’, as opposed to just ‘scrum’.

Of course this all hypothetical, but in the unlikely event that this did become law, I cannot see controversy here. As refs we make judgement calls all through the game that affect what happens next.

 

[Mipper]

Excuse my ignorance.....but what do you mean?

In junior rugby, a scrum cannot go more than 1.5m

 

[didds]

Not really. 5m scrums are generally awarded not when a ball is dropped right on the 5m line, but when any number of things happen between the 5m line and the dead ball line. Generally I would call ‘5m Scrum’, as opposed to just ‘scrum’.

Of course this all hypothetical, but in the unlikely event that this did become law, I cannot see controversy here. As refs we make judgement calls all through the game that affect what happens next.

My point being the scrums are hardly any distance difference from thebtry line, and now one can be shoved, the other cannoot.
Or are you saying a 5m scrum can be shoved IF it was becasue of an in-goal "thing" but not for a knock on within 5m of the try line/

even less sense cos now you have 2 5m scrums with different potential outcomes.

whatever

Im still not seeing what tha ctual issue is anyway. wherever the scrum is situated.