[Scrum] New laws. Are you now spotting more crooked feeds ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

How are you getting on with the new laws. ?Specifically I am interested in the new guidance that the SH may stand a shoulders -width nearer his props at the scrum. Pre season, I was told this should prevent feeding. I watch a lot of rugby. I ref every Saturday and a lot of Sundays. I haven't yet seen any non-straight put-in being spotted or penalised as yet. Twas always thus, at elite level. On the evidence so far, the new law hasnt changed anything.
Scrums are (still) 99% going with the head because there difficulty contesting them.
I just wondered if anyone has decided to penalise feeding more, this season than last ?

BTW - I am not trying to moan as I am just as guilty as other refs that I watch. I haven't changed either . But just genuinely interested if people spotted a change this season compa we to last season.

Cheers

 

[Rich_NL]

I've only had three games so far, and penalised (more strictly than I would have last season) skew feeds four times. Apparently scrum halves learn quickly.

 

[didds]

WRT the outcome of this new law, its just fiddling while Rome burns, failing to address the perceived issue rather than insisting (AGAIN!) the existing law is merely implemented correctly.

didds

 

[TheBFG]

Nope!

Didn't have a problem before, don't have one now!

 

[Christy]

Generally ive found scrums ok to manage .
I have noticed where scrums are settling on set .
And then 9 puts ball in ( of which i am happy with )

It looks a bit deceiving once following happens .
9 throws ball in
Receiving team can put push on & at same time loose head simply steps over ball as it goes in .

I have actually on had 1 squiff throw .
Behind loose head foot & found it very easy to spot .as it looked too forced

 

[Paule23]

WRT the outcome of this new law, its just fiddling while Rome burns, failing to address the perceived issue rather than insisting (AGAIN!) the existing law is merely implemented correctly.

didds

Pretty much sums it up. No real difference now as there wasn't a problem before if the laws were enforced. I continue to be baffled why top level referees tolerate a feed into the second row. Why ignore this law but apply so many others so well?

Its not not like they don't know what they are doing, they are clearly at the top of the referee tree but insist on ignoring squint feeds. Bizarre.

 

[Taff]

Pretty much sums it up. No real difference now as there wasn't a problem before if the laws were enforced. I continue to be baffled why top level referees tolerate a feed into the second row. Why ignore this law but apply so many others so well? Its not not like they don't know what they are doing, they are clearly at the top of the referee tree but insist on ignoring squint feeds. Bizarre.

You and Didds are not alone.

What I find odd is that squint feeds are so easy to spot; lets be blunt, as offences go they are one of the easiest ones in the book to spot. The fact that they go unpunished so often suggests to me that the top referees aren't missing the squint feeds .... they are happy to turn a blind eye to them, just to get the scrum over as soon as possible. Personally, I reckon the escalating sanctions (FK for the first offence. PK for the second offence. PK and a warning for the 3rd offence and PK and YC for the 4th offence) was the work of a genius; yet how often did we see it used at elite level? :sad:

 

[Pinky]

I watched a game a couple of weeks ago and the 9 stood towards his opposition front row. I spoke to his coach and he said "he is allowed to do that under the new law!" I pointed out that he was standing nearer the opposition front row and I think he then got is as after the came near the touchline the 9 stood in the correct place thereafter.

The suggestion to us at out society training day was to not worry about feeds that went into the tunnel, but if they went behind the FR to penalise the lack of hook.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its not not like they don't know what they are doing, they are clearly at the top of the referee tree but insist on ignoring squint feeds. Bizarre.

...because out of the 957 things a referee has to do at scrum time, checking the straightness of the feed is thing #692

 

[didds]

...because out of the 957 things a referee has to do at scrum time, checking the straightness of the feed is thing #692

... yess.... but... it is probably the simplest thing (s)he has to do... At the levels these things are an issue there are two ARs to look for the other things for the nano-second it takes for the put in...

... and you guys at the grass roots seem to manage it without the benefit of ARs and TMOs.

didds

didds

 

[ChrisR]

...because out of the 957 things a referee has to do at scrum time, checking the straightness of the feed is thing #692

C'mon, Ian, that's a cop out. The truth is the professional game has conceded the scrum to the side with the feed. Period. And now WR is aiding and abetting.

 

[Ian_Cook]

You guys know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary, right? OK. I was being facetious.

I wonder whether a whole different approach might be better than what they are currently doing. How about this...

Only FK/PK a crooked feed if the opposing hooker doesn't attempt to strike for the ball (on the basis of materiality... if the opposition hooker doesn't strike, the crooked feed was immaterial). If this was made a protocol, then three things could happen...

1. Opposition hookers might hook more often because they have a chance of catching out the opposing SH and buying a cheap FK.

2. Scrumhalves are more likely to feed straight because they don't know if the opposition hooker is going to hook, and they don't want to give away a cheap FK

3. We might return the scrum to being what is is supposed to be... a hooking contest then a pushing contest, instead of a boring contest.... and a twisting, turning, liftng, popping and wheeling contest.

 

[didds]

*shrug* why not FK/PK wonky feeds like what the laws say? seems simple to me. aside form only having to look for one thing (the feed) rather than two (the feed AND a non strike)

I must be missing something.


didds

 

[ChrisR]

OK. I was being facetious. Sorry, too subtle for me.

why not FK/PK wonky feeds like what the laws say Would it make a difference with the offset SH?

With current law and practice I'm ready to concede that the feeding team has 99% chance of winning ball. So, let's just get on with the game . . .

 

[didds]

why not FK/PK wonky feeds like what the laws say

Would it make a difference with the offset SH?

Well, as opined above I don't see the point of the offset SH. Its a daft approach to a solution that already exists if the laws are blown as they are written in this regard. But we've come full circle now.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

I think that the offset SH was introduced because it was perceived that a hooker reaching across the front rows was put in an unstable/risky position. That is true if the ops try for a squint feed. So the answer is to remove the bait instead of insisting that the ball be in reach of both hookers.

It makes me think that the Laws of the Game are not in good hands.

That's not encouraging.

 

[OB..]

I don't see the point of the offset SH.

Previously the scrumhalf lined up on the centre line and threw the ball in at an angle, theoretically making sure some part of the ball was above the line when hooked (some cynicism here, of course). The ball was therefore moving away from the opposing hooker.

Getting him to line up as now yet still keep some part of the ball above the line when hooked (see above, cough, cough) means the ball should be travelling parallel to the centre line ie no further away from the opponent in fact, but not moving away from him.

In practice, of course, there seem to have been no change. Good idea, lousy execution?

 

[didds]

Previously the scrumhalf lined up on the centre line and threw the ball in at an angle, theoretically making sure some part of the ball was above the line when hooked (some cynicism here, of course). The ball was therefore moving away from the opposing hooker.

Getting him to line up as now yet still keep some part of the ball above the line when hooked (see above, cough, cough) means the ball should be travelling parallel to the centre line ie no further away from the opponent in fact, but not moving away from him.

In practice, of course, there seem to have been no change. Good idea, lousy execution?

OK - I'll buy that.

But I have to point out that the ball still doesn't become any "fairer" to the oppo hooker at the final point available, and is further away now at all previous points.

didds

 

[Taff]

Of all the trial laws this season, the one allowing the offset SH is the only one that I would like to see ditched next season.

 

[OB..]

But I have to point out that the ball still doesn't become any "fairer" to the oppo hooker at the final point available, and is further away now at all previous points.

didds

I don't see why. If anyone actually followed the new law, the ball would travel parallel to the centre line.