[Scrum] Not straight

[Tonystaf]

In the South Africa v Ireland game, a scrum was awarded for a not straight throw. The ball was then put in not straight at the scrum. The game continued. Has the "not straight law at the scrum" been repealed? The inconsistency is confusing.

 

[OB..]

In the South Africa v Ireland game, a scrum was awarded for a not straight throw. The ball was then put in not straight at the scrum. The game continued. Has the "not straight law at the scrum" been repealed? The inconsistency is confusing.

The throw at a lineout is quite different from the throw in at a scrum.

1. Distance: at a lineout the ball travels at least 5 metres and usually much more; at a scrum about 1.5 metres.
2. Setting: at a lineout the ball is in the air until first touched and clearly visible; in a scrum it is in a forest of legs and the referee's view is often obscured.
3. Equity: At a lineout there has been no offence. There is a limited built in advantage for the throwing team. Allowing a crooked throw as well would be excessive; at a scrum the non-throwing side has infringed and the scrum itself has a built in loose head advantage.

At my levels you do see crooked feeds penalised. You also see the occasional heel against the head. It is much more a case of a real contest between hookers. At top levels, it is more a pushing contest. You occasionally see the ball sitting in the tunnel (obviously a straight feed) because the effect of hooking reduces the push.

"Straight" is officially defined as "having some part of the ball over the mid-line", which still looks crooked to many people

With that proviso, yes, I would like to see credible feeds, but I don't think it would make much difference. Lineouts are much closer to being a genuine contest for the ball.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Don't confuse the laws of our Game with the laws of TV Rugby!!

 

[Tonystaf]

Don't confuse the laws of our Game with the laws of TV Rugby!!

This is the more analysis of the situation than whilst I appreciate the very technical reply of the first response. The first response obfuscates the intention of the laws.
The incident in the game was penalised fr not straight, it wasn't dependent travelling 5m, it happened.
I will ask again has the law against the not straight feed been repealed in the laws of rugby.
How can we teach juniors what the laws when there are clearly different sets of laws been used at different levels?
The competitive element is been removed for players who want to compete in different areas of the game.

 

[OB..]

This is the more analysis of the situation than whilst I appreciate the very technical reply of the first response. The first response obfuscates the intention of the laws.
The incident in the game was penalised fr not straight, it wasn't dependent travelling 5m, it happened.
I will ask again has the law against the not straight feed been repealed in the laws of rugby.
How can we teach juniors what the laws when there are clearly different sets of laws been used at different levels?
The competitive element is been removed for players who want to compete in different areas of the game.

Have you noticed that all referees at all levels allow a scrum half to pick the ball out of a ruck? That is technically handling in a ruck, but it improves the game
Until fairly recently, a hand-off was illegal because by definition the ball carrier was playing a man without the ball.
If you want to get picky, releasing the ball forward to take a kick should not be allowed.

I understand where you are coming from, and I did say that at the lower levels referees are much stricter. Just point out to juniors that TV rugby often judges thing differently. After all if Mum or Dad drives the family car like Lewis Hamilton drives his F1 Mercedes, there would be problems aplenty.

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

In the South Africa v Ireland game, a scrum was awarded for a not straight throw. The ball was then put in not straight at the scrum. The game continued. Has the "not straight law at the scrum" been repealed? The inconsistency is confusing.

To answer the main question... No! however you need to look at the level of the game and the styles of refereeing.

At the "Elite level" the refereeing emphasis is on game flow and game management. Below that level the pure application of law and game management applies more; for example the lineout is considered to be a more even contest for the ball and the path of the throw in can be clearly seen, therefore "Not Straight" is more easily visible.. The scrum on the other hand is a more closely fought contest and as OB says the path of the ball is more obscured so provided it goes into the tunnel correctly there is a little more leeway over what is considered straight at the elite level to keep the game moving.

Hope this helps

 

[ChrisR]

Tonystaf,

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. Lineouts are still a highly competetive facet of the game but scrums at the professional level have deteriorated into gamesplaying in the front row to milk penalties. Allowing the squint feed has increased the chance of a scrum completion. I think that it's a cynical compromise and reinforces the lack of competition for scrum ball.

At the youth level I bet there is very little time spent on winning the ops ball in the scrum and this just reinforces the lack of interest in straight feeds.

At your next match ask the front rows if they are going to strike against the head. If they say "No" then you can tell the SHs to dispense with the straight feed. If they (either team) say "Yes" then you can let the SHs know you want it straight.

 

[Pegleg]

Have you noticed that all referees at all levels allow a scrum half to pick the ball out of a ruck? That is technically handling in a ruck, but it improves the game
Until fairly recently, a hand-off was illegal because by definition the ball carrier was playing a man without the ball.
If you want to get picky, releasing the ball forward to take a kick should not be allowed.

I understand where you are coming from, and I did say that at the lower levels referees are much stricter. Just point out to juniors that TV rugby often judges thing differently. After all if Mum or Dad drives the family car like Lewis Hamilton drives his F1 Mercedes, there would be problems aplenty.

There are things here I agree with and things that are not really the point. "Dropping" a ball to kick it is essential. So It has to happen to allow kicking which IS allowed.

We have had to allow the SH to pick the ball out because our rucks are not really rucks they are pile-ups. HAD the elite guys kept a handle on ruck infringements back in the 1970s and 1980s we might not have the mess we now have and the need to allow an illegallity would probably not have developled.

Driving a racing car on a circuit and driving along the high street are very different activities it totally different vehicles. The comparrison is not really valid. In part because the two activitie have clearly defined and DIFFERENT rules / Laws that cover them. Rugby does not do that.

Hand offs, yes they were illegal but we chose to ignore the law so eventually the law makers changed the law to fit the illegality. Of course we could have enforced the law and there would have been no need to change the law. The tail is wagging the dog.

So what bit do I agree with?

Well the inference I take from your penultimate sentence. The senior game has different laws to the ones in the law book. There is in effect a "secret (email?)" law book that the pro game employs. HERE is the problem. Ordinary players see the seniors "get away" with stuff that I and most on here would be blowing the whistle for. These player and the spectators will quote law at you with the question / comment: "Why's that not a penalty? It's in the law book". Often the only answer we can give is "...TV (pro) rugby often judges thing differently..." . That really is not acceptable to supporters.

The solution is simple.

In the most recent draft of "trials & changes", WR codified the play on / advantage option following collpased scrums (in the Elite game). Something that has been an "unwritten law" for a number of years, now it is laid down. People don't have to like the law but at least the game can point to the fact the NO or WB etc are applying the laws and we can support that comment. The game becomes more transparent and honest. SO let us have an "ELITE LAW BOOK" Or "ELITE VARIATIONS" as an appendix to the law book. WR can then comfortably allow the crooked feed for the reasons that people have stated.

Until then WR looks to be at odds with the elite refs. We get announcements that there will be ZERO tolerance to crooked feeds and after a week or two it is business as usual. It's a nonsense

 

[Phil E]

I have asked lots of top refs why they don't police the straight put in. I have never got a satisfactory answer.
The usual one is "I have more important things to look for". What, more important than a fair contest for the ball?
Or, "safety is more important..."well by not blowing up for collapsed scrums, they scotched that argument.

I just don't know why they don't police it. It makes no sense to ignore a basic law that is fairly simple to watch for. If you're too busy (and I'm not at my level) then get the AR to call it in for you.

If they told clubs, "this year we will be strict on the put in" and pinged it every time it happened, it would soon stop.

 

[crossref]

I am sure the reason is that pro-scrums have become so hard to ref they are just desperate to get the scrum over and done with, with the ball out of the back and away ASAP

 

[OB..]

Pegleg - the examples of laws I quoted were intended to demonstrate that taking a particular literal interpretation of a law can mislead. That is because the laws are flawed. Hand-offs have always been treated as legal, as are kicks and now picking out of a ruck. The official definition of a straight feed at a scrum will still look crooked to most people, and trying to equate the situation to that at a lineout is unhelpful.

The F1 example was a reductio ad absurdum to show that "driving a car" can be applied to Dad and Hamilton but mean different things. International rugby differs from that in the local park in the abilities of the players, in what the referee can expect from them, and how he manages things (plus the extraneous effect of television).

Some years ago I had the opportunity to ask Phil Vickery what he thought about crooked feeds. He said that as long as they were not "taking the p*ss", he was happy. In other words feeds into the second row were cheating, but he accepted that at international level, the power in packs is these days such that heeling against the head was too unlikely to worry about; pushing is what matters. That is not true of park rugby.

Fortunately the latest procedures do seem more likely to produce stable scrums than was the case a few years ago.

 

[OB..]

I have asked lots of top refs why they don't police the straight put in. I have never got a satisfactory answer.
The usual one is "I have more important things to look for". What, more important than a fair contest for the ball?
Or, "safety is more important..."well by not blowing up for collapsed scrums, they scotched that argument.

No. The rule is that they can be allowed to continue if it is safe to do so. Safety earlier on consists in getting the binds safe, angles correct etc. Both scrums are trying to get an edge at the same time as the ball is being fed in.

I have a vivid mind picture of an England v Australia scrum where the ball sat in the tunnel for several seconds. Neither hooker dared to strike because his team would immediately get pushed backwards. Would that be a commonplace if referees insisted on a straight feed? I don't claim to know. It does seem that pushing is more important than hooking, but at least Tom Youngs admitted that he had to learn to hook under the latest procedures.

 

[Pegleg]

Yes but the literal interpretation over common sense can be shown to be foolish. What we have with the crooked feeds is referees at the elete level ignoring (ion the face of it their masters). Fans and players get annoyed and refs in general get it in the neck. The hand off was made legal because it was treated as legal. Generally that is not a good way to make laws.

The principle of reductio ad absurdum is fine as long as it down nor become so absurd as to look all conection. Frankly it becomes unhelpful.

I agee that the players at the top level don't have a great problem with feeds being "weighted". But they do have a problem when a ref finally gives a free kick in the 78th minute of a game following the straightest put in of the game.

As I said I have previously stated, I have no problem with the feed going to the non 8 AS LONG AS IT IS OK IN LAW. Otherwise ping it. I would not want it but hey I'll comply wiht the laws as they are given, subject to reasonable interpretation.

 

[Shelflife]

The current situation of allowing the SH to put the ball straight in to the 2nd row is a joke, I agree totally with Phil E that if they pinged it for a few weeks it would disappear from the game, why allow a team that cant/wont hook an advantage over a team that can ?

I would also go a step further and insist that they police the scrums properly, they have 2 ARs and a TMo that can give them guidance and if the front rows cant/wont comply then they get penalised and carded. A few games where a prop is sinned binned will see him dropped pretty quicky so that he can work on his technique.

Sometimes i wonder are the elite refs so far removed from the real game that they would struggle doing a J2 game in wild and wet Connemara on their own with no one to help them.

 

[Tonystaf]

The current situation of allowing the SH to put the ball straight in to the 2nd row is a joke, ...........

You must excuse me I am not a ref and did not realise you had to be a ref to post.
My concern is the lost of the competitive element in a game for all shapes and sizes.
Putting the ball in at 45 degrees does not allow fair competition.
A scrum can be used tactically during a game. Putting the ball in at 45 degrees removes this.
To win the "ball against the head" either in defence or in attack used to be a great facet of the game. This has largely gone.
Let's try and return the game to what it once was "a game for all shapes and sizes"

 

[OB..]

You must excuse me I am not a ref and did not realise you had to be a ref to post.

You don't

My concern is the lost of the competitive element in a game for all shapes and sizes.
Putting the ball in at 45 degrees does not allow fair competition.
A scrum can be used tactically during a game. Putting the ball in at 45 degrees removes this.
To win the "ball against the head" either in defence or in attack used to be a great facet of the game. This has largely gone.
Let's try and return the game to what it once was "a game for all shapes and sizes"

45 degrees is very unusual, and unhead of at my levels.

Does anybody know how often the ball was heeled against the head in whatever you consider to be the "good old days" of international rugby?

 

[Ian_Cook]

45 degrees is very unusual, and unhead of at my levels.

I certainly have not seen anything as squint as that recently.

Does anybody know how often the ball was heeled against the head in whatever you consider to be the "good old days" of international rugby?

I seem to recall that it happened at least couple of times in each game (we used to call them "tightheads" in my day.)

I think is could be time to re-post the little graphic I made up a few years ago so that Tonystaf can see visually what you mean when you say that a legal scrum feed can look squint and does not have top be gun-barrel straight..

1. Its is accepted practice is the feed must be straight such that some part of the ball must be on the middle line of the scrum...

The diagram is drawn so that the length of the line is close to the distance from the SH's hands to the centre of the scrum below his hooker's head, to scale with the size of the ball. This shows that a squint of feed up to 8° towards his own side is still acceptable.


2. Because of the length of the throw, it is much more obvious when a line out throw is squint than when a scrum throw is squint.

These are drawn roughly to scale. Both sets of throws (line-out at top, scrum at bottom) are thrown are the same angles... A-0°, B-1° C-2°, and D-3°.

A line out throw out by 2° is obvious

 

[L'irlandais]

This on-line analysis of the Irish scrum clearly shows Conor Murray (Munster player) feeding not straight, several times in this year's Six Nations. Looks (to me) to be a bit more than 8 degrees too, but I agree that a 45 degree feed into the second row would be rare. I cannot remember ever seeing one.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This on-line analysis of the Irish scrum clearly shows Conor Murray (Munster player) feeding not straight, several times in this year's Six Nations. Looks (to me) to be a bit more than 8 degrees too, but I agree that a 45 degree feed into the second row would be rare. I cannot remember ever seeing one.

Also, look where he stands.

To me he appears to be half a pace right of the centreline, lined up with his lucy's torso. From that position, he does not need to feed the ball all that squint to put it under his hooker's feet.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Can I check that Heaslip's switching of position is illegal and should be sanctioned with a PK?