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

[didds]

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

View attachment 3627

The red line indicates the path of the ball's nearpoint to the opposing hooker. Whilst the amount of ball available indeed gets less the closer it gets to him, nonetheless under the old law the ball on its angled feed does have more of it available on the oppo hooker's side of the mid line until the point where only its point is on the midline.

when the point of the ball is only ever on the midline it is always further from the oppo hooker until the place where under the old laws it would have met it


didds

 

[VM75]

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

OB.. Previously the scrumhalf lined up on the centre line and threw the ball in at an angle

But allowing him to do that DID NOT promote the fairest of restart contest.

[LAWS] [FONT=fs_blakeregular]must throw in the ball straight along the middle line[/FONT][/LAWS] Along is Along, not bounce on it, or cut across it, or fleetingly touch it.

All those referees that allowed that practice have indirectly contributed to the throw being in it's current state

FWIW, in my games I've not yet seen one single 'against the head' achieved this season [shakes head] , once the season wide trial results are in some knucklehead will suggest "we might as evolve it as #9 giving it directly to the no8 - as a conduit for getting the game restarted quicker !

 

[VM75]

View attachment 3627

The red line indicates the path of the ball's nearpoint to the opposing hooker. Whilst the amount of ball available indeed gets less the closer it gets to him, nonetheless under the old law the ball on its angled feed does have more of it available on the oppo hooker's side of the mid line until the point where only its point is on the midline.

when the point of the ball is only ever on the midline it is always further from the oppo hooker until the place where under the old laws it would have met it


didds

your 'old law' diagram does't accurately reflect Law Didds, i.e.... if no hooker touched the ball it was still expected to continue along the midline, not drift off of it

 

[didds]

your 'old law' diagram does't accurately reflect Law Didds, i.e.... if no hooker touched the ball it was still expected to continue along the midline, not drift off of it

well... I dont; doubt that at all. But its not generally what I see desctibed histprically here ie a bit of the ball shoud be on the midline. As it "al;ways" get hooked and nortmally before the half way point the cnaces of it still being on it if it was missed is pretty minimal.

But taking that as it is, faie enough, and if the ball's end point was just on the midline at the far side's LH props outside shoulder then you still get a triangle of possible striking area . Unde rthe new laws you only get a veryt thin rectangle to strike in.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Under the old laws the ball would have to hit the ground beyond the LH. As such there would be no point that the ball would ever be hookable by the opposition with the squint feed. The whole ball will be on the wrong side by that time. So nothing lost in the change from a Practical perspective. It was just a slight of hand with the wording all in order to weight in favour of the side throwing in.
w

 

[Paule23]

Under the old laws the ball would have to hit the ground beyond the LH. As such there would be no point that the ball would ever be hookable by the opposition with the squint feed. The whole ball will be on the wrong side by that time. So nothing lost in the change from a Practical perspective. It was just a slight of hand with the wording all in order to weight in favour of the side throwing in.
w

This law change is really interesting. In theory, along with the team in possession having to hook it is designed to stop quint feeds, give the possessing team an advantage and stop the all getting stuck in the tunnel, but you can achieve this without moving the fed closer to the possessing teams frnt row, just enforce the law as was and not allow a squint feed.

I like the change forcing a team to hook, it does mean you cannot just let the ball sit there. Allowing all the FR to hook is causing some trouble at the level i referee at with the ball bobblin out of the tunnel more frequently as more legs get involved. I would go back to a midline, straight throw, stay with possessing team must hook but only allow hookers to hook. Opposition does not have to hook as they may not know.see the ball coming in so if forced would just be doing a token foot wave.

 

[crossref]

It's always been the case that anyone in the front row can hook. Thats not a change

 

[OB..]

View attachment 3627

The red line indicates the path of the ball's nearpoint to the opposing hooker. Whilst the amount of ball available indeed gets less the closer it gets to him, nonetheless under the old law the ball on its angled feed does have more of it available on the oppo hooker's side of the mid line until the point where only its point is on the midline.

when the point of the ball is only ever on the midline it is always further from the oppo hooker until the place where under the old laws it would have met it


didds

I see your point, but is it really easy to hook a ball moving away from you? (I only played hooker once, at school, and said "never again").

Not that any of this matters, since nobody is penalising the continuing crooked feeds.

 

[didds]

Well, you have a chance of hooking a ball moving away from you as opposed to never actually being able to reach it in the first place I guess!

and I agree about the academic nature of this discussion compared to reality anyway. Which rather coems back to my (and others') point that this is merely moving deckchairs on the titanic/fiddling while Rome burns/emporer's new clothes becasue all that had to happen was to insist on proper straight feedsanyway. If anything insist on the ball's midpoint travelling down the midline if the concern is its angled-but-still-just-legal-ish trajectory

Somebody above mooted about not striking before the ball lands etc - on the basis that "nobody" pings a crooked feed what makes us think they'll be pinging a strike when the ball is in the air?! {caveat =- I expect many of you guys still ping crooked feeds!]

didds

 

[ChrisR]

For the pros I'm now (it's futile to resist) OK with squint feeds as they never get punished and so consistently advantage the feeding side.

I'm not OK with how the front rows get managed and how the scrum has become a vehicle for penalties and not an effective means of restarting the game.

In the USA Selects vs. Uruguay "A" the first scrum went to Uruguay. After "Set" but before the ball went in the Uruguay front row 'hinged' and dropped the US on their collective face. PK to Uruguay set the tone for the rest of the match. How many scrums do you think went to completion after that?

 

[Taff]

..... In the USA Selects vs. Uruguay "A" the first scrum went to Uruguay. After "Set" but before the ball went in the Uruguay front row 'hinged' and dropped the US on their collective face. PK to Uruguay set the tone for the rest of the match. How many scrums do you think went to completion after that?

But again, "Hinging" is a pretty easy offence to spot and is already brilliantly covered by the lawbook.

20.8(g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. Sanction: Penalty kick

I still can't see why it just isn't enforced. PK for the first offence. PK and warning for the 2nd offence. PK and :noyc: for the 3rd offence.

 

[ChrisR]

Taff, totally agree re. easy to spot. Problem is there seems to be a bias (check, there is a bias) against the non-feeding side. Any collapse is deemed to be the fault of the non-feeding side. Need some stats.

I bet that if collapsed scrums were just re-set but on the third collapse both front rows went to the bin and on their return they were warned that another series of collapses would garner a second yellow then front rows would stay up.

A more effective and less radical approach would be to fine the clubs (professionals only) based on collapses (without regard to fault).

 

[Taff]

Taff, totally agree re. easy to spot. Problem is there seems to be a bias (check, there is a bias) against the non-feeding side. Any collapse is deemed to be the fault of the non-feeding side. Need some stats.

I'm pretty sure that if somebody was to analyse 100 collapsed scrums, the non-feeding side would be responsible for the vast majority of them. In fact I'd put £20 on it. :biggrin: So statistically, the Refs are probably right.

Ask yourself though WHY would the non-feeding side be responsible for the vast majority of them? At elite level especially, the non-feeding side have virtually no chance of winning the ball. When did you see a strike against the head last on TV? It's so long ago, I can't even remember it. So the feeding side are almost guaranteed possession and therefore it isn't in their interest to collapse the scrum or generally fanny around. Conversely, realistically the only thing the non-feeding side can do is create as much disruption and chaos as possible, so it is in their interest to collapse the scrum or generally fanny around.

Isn't this what Brian Moore's been pointing out for years? If there was no offset SH and the ball was put in straight, the opposition do have a chance of winning the ball ... so they won't collapse the scrum. Admittedly it's less than a 50-50 chance, but it's still good odds and probably good enough to concentrate on scrummaging instead of disrupting.

 

[didds]

well I suppose there is the point about bluffing the ref into awarding a PK for the putting in team - but yes indeed, I concur .

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Taff, when the bias is tilted to the ops then the last thing the non-feed team want is to drop the front row and give them a PK. The last two matches I watched had PKs awarded to the feeding team before the ball was put in.

Why do they drop it before the ball goes in? Simple, if the ball goes in and gets to the hind foot and the front row goes down then the referee can play advantage (new 2016) and the ball gets served away and the PK chance may be lost.

Am I cynical? You betcha, but with good reason.