[Law] More new Laws?

[ChuckieB]

The new alignment of the scrum half should minimize the risk of this, however ��
A great way of saying that the powers that be have authorised feeding against the wishes of the majority who still believe in a fair contest for the ball.

......and taking us all for fools in the process!

 

[Dave Sherwin]

I should clarify I don't necessarily endorse the approach! One point I have seen made (and this may only be semantics) is that "fair contest" does not necessarily mean an "equal contest", and that in this context a "fair contest" should reflect the fact that the non-putting in side is the one which has committed the error etc. - i.e. it is "fair" that they should be materially disadvantaged in the contest. Now, of course, there are already a number of ways in which the non-putting in side are already disadvantaged, but one way in which they are ADvantaged is that all 8 of them can push, whereas one of the putting in side is now obligated to strike, thus decreasing his ability to push. This arguably results in a contest which goes to far towards equality (given that the error was by the non-putting in side) and so to restore the appropriate "fairness" of the contest (i.e. a contest weighted in favour of the putting in side) it was necessary to make the adjustment regarding alignment.

You will have guessed from the above that I am a lawyer and used to putting forward arguments for a case I don't necessarily endorse!

 

[ChrisR]

What does "fair contest" really mean? Agreed, not "equal". For the contest to be "fair" there must be some reasonable chance that the non-feeding side can win the ball. History tells us that the side putting it in generally, by some percentage, wins the ball. I can't imagine that the statistics showed that the non-feeding side won anything more than 25% so why is the change needed? After all, scrums are awarded for the most innocuous of offences.

PS. I have played in a match where we won every scrum. We were pretty good and they weren't but that was an outrageous anomaly.

 

[Dickie E]

so why is the change needed?

I can only assume it is for that rarest of scrums where the 2 teams can't budge each other and the ball just sits in the tunnel.

We sometimes have threads regarding "laws you have never enforced". I can quite confidently say that this is one that I will never enforce. If a scrum is so evenly balanced, I would not ask a hooker to destabilise and put himself and/or other players at risk by striking at the ball.

Safety before law.

 

[ChuckieB]

If this is effectively the law endorsement on feeding of the scrum, does it then raise then raise the stakes in the debate around uncontested lineaouts and materiality when it comes to a slightly squint throw?

I am now asking myself, "Why should I bother"?

 

[crossref]

I can only assume it is for that rarest of scrums where the 2 teams can't budge each other and the ball just sits in the tunnel.
.

I only ever see that at pro level, and when it happens I think it is because the dominant scrum is prolonging the scrum and trying for a PK -- and I agree that this is the target of the change. Like so many other Law tweaks at grass roots level it's unnecessary at best, and probably actually harmful

 

[Dickie E]

I only ever see that at pro level, and when it happens I think it is because the dominant scrum is prolonging the scrum and trying for a PK

OK & thanks - that makes sense. Does it happen often enough to be a real issue?

 

[didds]

So the ball goes in and sits in the tunnel as the putting in FR are unable to "strike for the ball". That's a FK for "failing to strike"????

I can only come to that conculision BFG... A ref could of course decide to reset I suppose - sole arbiter etc etc etc.
However, I can also see an argument from a superior scrummage (opps) saying it was their technical brilliance that prevented the strike and they have forced an arror from which they bdeserve to benefit with possession.

I suppose if some leniency is shown buyt it happens again (and again?) the ref will have to do "something" .
I do wonder if this is the law of unintended circumstances occurring... again....

didds

 

[didds]

I only ever see that at pro level, and when it happens I think it is because the dominant scrum is prolonging the scrum and trying for a PK -- and I agree that thiis the target of the change.

That's interesting - because I see the target of the change to be aimed at feeding. if the ball goes underneath the hooker's feet he can't actually strike ie play the ball with his feet.

Meanwhile the allowance of any FR player to play the ball...

20.6 (d)
The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders.
Sanction: Free Kick

But...

Front-row players
(a) Striking before the throw-in (‘foot up’). All front row players must place their feet to leave a clear tunnel. Until the ball has left the scrum half’s hands, they must not raise or advance a foot. They must not do anything to stop the ball being thrown in to the scrum correctly or touching the ground at the correct place.
Sanction: Free Kick

so the LH and oppo TH can be playing the ball in the air? But they can;t.... I guess its more about those two playing the ball if its bobblikng around in the tunnel. Which is no change at all then?



didds

 

[TheBFG]

I can only assume it is for that rarest of scrums where the 2 teams can't budge each other and the ball just sits in the tunnel.

We sometimes have threads regarding "laws you have never enforced". I can quite confidently say that this is one that I will never enforce. If a scrum is so evenly balanced, I would not ask a hooker to destabilise and put himself and/or other players at risk by striking at the ball.

Safety before law.

That's the bit I was concerned about, one word, "liability", can you imagine the fall out if you had a situation where a hooker was "forced" to strike for the ball and the scrum went down and there was a serious injury?

 

[SimonSmith]

A couple of thoughts.

My interpretation is that to win the ball, it must be hooked. If the ball is mid tunnel, no offence has been committed as the ball hasn't been won. Blow it up and reset.

I don't know if I've thought it all the way through yet, but this strikes me as counterproductive. Defending team has no chance of a steal. They are therefore committed to an 8 man shove with the idea of disruption. Enforcing a straight and competitive feed - as we do at the lower levels - would introduce a fair competition for the ball and perhaps less instability.

The Smith bet is that scrum PKs will remain steady or go up in the Elite level. They will go up in the grass roots.

 

[crossref]

down in the grass roots, I am sure that the only time the hooker doesn't strike is when he has been forced into a position where he can't.
I'd be looking at the props binding and body positions, expecting that someone is boring in, pulling down etc to cause this.
One way or another I'd want to understand what was going on before I penalised anyone, and a FK against the hooker for failure to strike wouldn't normally be the first thought that came to mind.

 

[ChuckieB]

That's interesting - because I see the target of the change to be aimed at feeding. if the ball goes underneath the hooker's feet he can't actually strike ie play the ball with his feet.

Meanwhile the allowance of any FR player to play the ball...




But...



so the LH and oppo TH can be playing the ball in the air? But they can;t.... I guess its more about those two playing the ball if its bobblikng around in the tunnel. Which is no change at all then?



didds

No, they can strike for the ball as 20.6 change does not require the ball to first touch the ground immediately beyond the width the nearside props' shoulders. After shoulder alignment (in favour of the team putting in), it just has to be released straight and as soon as it is grounded in the tunnel it is available to be hooked by any in the FR.

 

[beckett50]

A couple of thoughts.

My interpretation is that to win the ball, it must be hooked. If the ball is mid tunnel, no offence has been committed as the ball hasn't been won. Blow it up and reset.

Not how I read the guidance. If the ball is not hooked and it remains in the tunnel then it is a FK to the team that DIDN'T throw in the ball.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

If the ball is not hooked and it remains in the tunnel then it is a FK to the team that DIDN'T throw in the ball.

This is how it was refereed in the trial competitions, though with the alignment of the scrum half such occurrences were minimal.

 

[didds]

down in the grass roots, I am sure that the only time the hooker doesn't strike is when he has been forced into a position where he can't.
I'd be looking at the props binding and body positions, expecting that someone is boring in, pulling down etc to cause this.
.

It couild just be that the oppo are actually quite good scrummagers that have lowered the scrum - safely enough - to a height where a weekend warrior hooker isn't flexible enough to strike.

It can happen!

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Not how I read the guidance. If the ball is not hooked and it remains in the tunnel then it is a FK to the team that DIDN'T throw in the ball.

Failure to strike for the ball (immediately) is the infringement, not the failure to win it, would be my reading of the guidance.

 

[Paule23]

Failure to strike for the ball (immediately) is the infringement, not the failure to win it, would be my reading of the guidance.

Agreed. This could clearly end up with lots of discussions of what constitutes a strike if the hooker makes a half hearted attempt to hook, however I agree, they must strike for the ball, and if not it's a free kick offence.

 

[didds]

so its a FK if they can;t ? because they are a LHP that volunteers for hooker in order to keep the game with "contested" scrums.?

didds

 

[Dickie E]

Failure to strike for the ball (immediately) is the infringement, not the failure to win it, would be my reading of the guidance.

and striking for the ball doesn't mean you have to make contact with it. Waving your boot in its general direction may be enough?