[Scrum] New Laws : 8 in a scrum

[didds]

Nobody here obviously Didds, are you sure?

UPDATE: Ah - I've just caught your nuance!! LOL. Well, indeed!!


Lets just say - I've seen some very odd decisions over the years and have mentioned my two favourite ones here on occasion. others here regularly report odd decisions they have seen. odd decisions happen constantly.

My two involve a total misunderstanding of the not-5m-at-a-lineout law with a very bizarre interpretation of who gets penalised and the other involved "must show control" when a fill back forces in-goal to a loose ball.

So whilst OK I cannot guarantee 100% that somebody will insist on 8 in a scrum at uncontested when previously the contested scrums had less than that... It would not at all surprise me if/when i hear of it happening.

You read it here first.

didds

 

[VM75]

If a team turn up with 5 are you going to insist they pack with 5 in a scrum leaving no back line defenders?

That's an extreme point I know.

UPDATE: Just found this. I guess its buried in the regs somewhere
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-13586.html

with a two man differential versus windsor many years ago, but destroying them in the scum anyway (playing without wings) and winning after an hour some interesting injuries occurred meaning they had no ST&E FRs so we went uncontested. Their injured hooker played on the wing despite not being able to play as a hooker was one of them. Now with no pressure in the scrums they just ran around the outside, so we dropped the flankers to cover. then we had injuries ourselves so I (as pack leader) just called a 3 man front row and dispatched the remaining second row to the backline.

Ref pinged us for not having 5 in the scrum. He mumbled the reason at me whilst looking at the ground. I simply said "its not us that taking the piss out of this game".

safety - equity (as was back then ) - law. Really?

didds

Nowadays, you should just fail to form 20.1.d & get set up to defend the FK. Sorted

 

[didds]

Nowadays, you should just fail to form 20.1.d & get set up to defend the FK. Sorted

except the oppo then take the scrum option at a FK and you repeat until it turns into PKs and YCs.

didds

 

[VM75]

Our guidence is that if a player is unfit to scrummage them he leaves the field. So he can't go on the wing.

Also you can't start a game with 5 so not relevant.

Finally we re introducing a "community" level where the two sides and the referee can agree variations such as youth. and dispensations in general. All in the name of getting people playing. We await the full details but it will be interesting as it beds in.

Very Interesting development , 'Community' rugby beginning to create their own game coz WR laws don't satisfy Community objectives. Perhaps this is the start of the "two lawbooks" you've previously championed.

Will the 'powers' see such development positively, maybe Pegleg is to become the head of development of WCR , might get a high quartile community salary !

 

[VM75]

except the oppo then take the scrum option at a FK and you repeat until it turns into PKs and YCs.

didds

yep, that's the downside IF the op are switched onto law AND the referee knows and is prepared to use 'repeated' law to its ultimate. lots of confusion could reign as he has to explain to captain and stop & start his various YC stopwatches, and all this assumes that their are enough scrums to activate such

In many games nowadays advantage taken seems to reduce the minor infringement scrums to only a few per match , so it might never get to 'repeated' numericals

 

[didds]

yep, that's the downside IF the op are switched onto law AND the referee knows and is prepared to use 'repeated' law to its ultimate. lots of confusion could reign as he has to explain to captain and stop & start his various YC stopwatches, and all this assumes that their are enough scrums to activate such

In many games nowadays advantage taken seems to reduce the minor infringement scrums to only a few per match , so it might never get to 'repeated' numericals

maybe - but the point is that the awarded FK can become a scrum ie its an option. So the team that is being FK'd could end up immediately facing another scrum. they haven;t got to wait several minutes for a no advantage knock on to occur... its there and then. if they FK that one, it can be another scrum option... and if they transgress similarly there than has to become a PK.

Now... at that PK a savvy captain may elect for another scrum to start looking for a card!

Now - I doubt very much the same team would delivberately fall foul of that law once they've been done for it once and the scrum was called for... but who knows?!



didds

 

[VM75]

maybe - but the point is that the awarded FK can become a scrum ie its an option. So the team that is being FK'd could end up immediately facing another scrum. they haven;t got to wait several minutes for a no advantage knock on to occur... its there and then. if they FK that one, it can be another scrum option... and if they transgress similarly there than has to become a PK.

Now... at that PK a savvy captain may elect for another scrum to start looking for a card!

Now - I doubt very much the same team would delivberately fall foul of that law once they've been done for it once and the scrum was called for... but who knows?!

didds

i'm not disagreeing, just exploring.

a] unsavvy capt might exist
b] FK is usually seen as a preferred go forward option for most places on pitch
c] ref mightn't have the appetite to reduce numbers in such circumstances

additional creativity around the subject might bore the opposition into just falling for your tomfoolery :chin:

 

[didds]

i'm not disagreeing, just exploring.


b] FK is usually seen as a preferred go forward option for most places on pitch

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Fks outside of the 22s are totally useless. you can;t kick them direct to touch, so all you have left is a tap n go - and at least a scrum ties up 9 of the oppo 9or up to 9!) in one area.

Inside your own 22 they can be used to clear you lines, but you conede the throw. In the oppo 22 they aren;t really much more use that elswhere although the closer to the line they are a tap n go becomes more useful maybe.

YMMV of ciourse. I just don;t see them as much use other than to clear one's lines, assuming a par scrum anyway.

didds

 

[crossref]

I'd have to respectfully disagree with that. Fks outside of the 22s are totally useless. you can;t kick them direct to touch, so all you have left is a tap n go - and at least a scrum ties up 9 of the oppo 9or up to 9!) in one area.

Inside your own 22 they can be used to clear you lines, but you conede the throw. In the oppo 22 they aren;t really much more use that elswhere although the closer to the line they are a tap n go becomes more useful maybe.

YMMV of ciourse. I just don;t see them as much use other than to clear one's lines, assuming a par scrum anyway.

didds

so in summary
- they are more useful than a scrum (because they can be turned into a scrum, but offer the ADDITIONAL opportunity for a quick tap, if it's on.
- they are less useful than a PK, as you don't get gain in ground or the throw.

Which means they are pretty much doing the job intended then

 

[didds]

But the quick tap option is rarely a really useful option particularly outside of the oppo 22... so i stand by what i say. I do see your point being made.

didds

 

[Camquin]

If the quick tap is not an option, take the scrum .
But in the weeds picking up the ball and running with it is still in vogue and is often on.

 

[crossref]

another scenario to ponder

- a game starts Red v Blue
- Red have 15 players, Blue have 14
- Red have eight in scrum, obviously and blue play with 7
- Red prop is YC, there is no STE replacement, so scrums go uncontested

- its now 14 v 14
- How many players do both teams have to have in the scrum?

The Law as written says 8 v 8 , but the spirit of the Law would be ... well, I am not sure what it would be..

 

[ChrisR]

. . . . the Law of Common Sense says 7. If uncontested then scrums should balance?

Now, if Blue lose a prop do we go uncontested 6 vs. 6 and Red have 9 backs?

 

[crossref]

Maybe what the Law really intended was the team causing uncontested must maintain the same number in the scrum that they had before (whatever that was) and accordingly must lose a person in the backs

 

[didds]

Then why diudn;t it say that?

Oh - sorry. Why would WR consider anything but the very elite top end when there are "never" any odd scenarios like the real world presents.

It took us mere minutes to flag several queries within these laws trails. the committee that drew these up had weeks if not months.

strewth.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

If the Laws make no reference to scrum numbers (other than 5 minimum) then an enterprising team could put 5 into an uncontested scrum and play with numbers up in the backs. Would that be so bad?

Or, we could let the team with the feed decide the numbers (a la lineout) and have the ops have to match.

Or we could just go dull and insist on 8 regardless of team numbers.

 

[didds]

well the laws do currenrly say scrums must be 8 man UNLESS reductions in numbers occur, with a minimum of 5. I beleive the RFU have a requirement for a minimum of 10 per side (i don;t have a reference for that though - anybody else have one?)

Its just this trial mentions "uncontested must have 8" and no mention of why that may not be so bright. Cos at face value as writ it means a team of 10 at uncontested scrums would have one backline player.

didds

 

[VM75]

Just recd this cascaded from RFU .... hope it helps

	3.6 Number of Players– The Team	Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporarysuspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.
Guidance Notes: This also includes an HIA assessment or blood bin. Community game: When teams start with less than fifteen players the referee may take a different approach followingdiscussions with both captains. For example, a team starting a game with thirteen players and not able to provide a fully trained front row from the outset would not be expected to play with eight forwardsand five backs at each scrum.

 

[ChrisR]

The more I think about it the more I see trying to solve scrum number in uncontested scrums as unnecessary. Just let each team decide how many they want in each scrum based on tactical need. Handle it like a lineout so once committed that's the number that packs down.

Variety is the spice . . .

 

[beckett50]

Sorry to resurrect this, but I have been thinking of this for some time.

I understand why a team that has gone uncontested MUST now have 8 in the scrum. BUT, can this extra player be the #9?

Checking the definitions of a scrum the LotG state

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.[/FONT]

At no point do the Laws state that there must be an opposing scrum half. So, can the team with 14 elect to put their scrum half in as the extra player?