[Scrum] "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

[TigerCraig]

But surely only if the destruction is becoming unsafe? If its just a case as per what we saw last saturday of the beaten side losing players off the edges, and spinning around loosely with nobody standing up or ending up on the ground, that's not unsafe (certainly compared to a huge smash tackle! LOL ) so why make such a "threat" ?

didds

Agree, but if the alternative is a PK at every scrum?

 

[didds]

Well that's my point I guess. The PKs are awarded in these cases because a law that was introduced for a totally different reason (eg keeping defences a tad more open, ensuring props don't bore etc) are being used when those areas of concern are not actually being done. ie the beaten scrum is not boring to cheat on the oppo hooker etc, or detaching to join a defensive line, or running sideways to wheel the oppo and destabalise the oppo ball at the back etc. Beaten scrummagers are merely "not straight" or "lost binds" becasue they are soundly beaten, not because they are trying to get one over on their oppo


didds

 

[mcroker]

Wouldn't it be easier just to move the technical infringements to be FKs, and leave the dangerous/cynical ones as PKs. Multiple FKs become a PK for repeated offence anyway...

Boring in, pulling down, driving up are all deliberate things...
Popping up because you are beaten is probably not...

 

[Decorily]

Wouldn't it be easier just to move the technical infringements to be FKs, and leave the dangerous/cynical ones as PKs. Multiple FKs become a PK for repeated offence anyway...
.

Is this not effectively the way it is at the moment?

 

[mcroker]

I don't recall many FKs against England at the weekend - weren't they all resets or PKs?