[Scrum] Not straight

[ChrisR]

Here is my coaching position on squint feeds: I don't care......

unless I have a front row that can compete for the opponent's ball. Then I care a lot. If I have a hooker & TH combo that can win the strike then fair feeds are requested.

Otherwise I don't care as long as it's consistent (no sudden FKs late in the game). Instead our focus on their ball will be defending their possession on their feed.

Therefore I would be fine with the referee asking in the PMB if either side intends to challenge for the other's ball.

 

[crossref]

but is there some chicken-and-egg here: one reason you go into games contemplating not challenging for the opposition ball is because the feeds are generally a bit squint, making it hard.

 

[didds]

TV rugby has plenty of elephants in the room.

They are glossed over with trite rubbish like "it keeps the flow of the game". Whilst this response may indeed be reasonable for ruck ball that is stuck and similar ilk during live play, I personally cannot see it has any real impact ion static, restarting from dead ball situations like scrum put ins and throwers not behind the line etc etc etc.

I am of course the child that has pointed out the emporer's new clothes.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

but is there some chicken-and-egg here: one reason you go into games contemplating not challenging for the opposition ball is because the feeds are generally a bit squint, making it hard.

Not quite.

If you have two equally competent FRs then the Hooker of the team throwing in still gets first bite of the cherry on a straight feed. That is why in the old days, even with straight feeds, it wasn't a 50/50 contest; "tightheads" were not common but they did happen.

One of the problems these days is that there is so much emphasis is on pushing that the team throwing in loses its advantage if they try to hook the ball because they are out-gunned 7 to 8 in the pushing contest. You have legendary Argentine scrum coach Don Francisco Ocampo (inventor of "La Bajada") to thank for this.

There is a Law in the book which should prevent the Hooker from pushing (or at least make it difficult for him) although it conflicts with another clause in the same Law (thanks WR :noyc

[LAWS]
20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each
front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position
to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on
at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that
team’s props.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

(a) conflicts directly with (c) in the opening sentences.

I would change these two Laws to

20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All Props in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each Prop must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Hooker in a position to hook. Until the ball is thrown in, the hooker must be in a position to hook the ball. The hookers must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on at least one foot. A hooker’s foremost foot must not be in front of the foremost foot of that team’s props. The Hookers may not push in the scrum until they have attempted to hook the ball.
Sanction: Free Kick

This would return at least this part of the scrum compulsorily to a situation we used to have voluntarily, where both hookers would always attempt to hook for the ball. The referee could then enforce straight feeds in the knowledge that he was not disadvantaging the side throwing in.

 

[L'irlandais]

In the Irish scrum analysis, the referee seemed overly concerned with the loose head's bind, to the point of completely ignoring, Green 2's foot up at 3:00 minutes, or Black 9 kicking the ball in the tunnel at 72:10.
Post #20 > Not sure what law one would use to prevent Green 8 changing his bind? If it's not forbidden by the LoTG, then it's allowed, right?

 

[lawsons]

Nigel Owens hasn't given a not straight in over 2 years (his words) and Wayne Barnes has never given one (his words). They don't even look for it. So it's not an issue that the IRB are interested in frankly. It's quite common to see balls straight to second rows right in front of the ref but no action taken (as it would be inconsistent to do so).
Personally until the IRB change their stance the crooked feed is no more. I warn scrum halfs if it is silly and then ping them if they don't listen, but otherwise get on with the game.

 

[Pegleg]

... it's not an issue that the IRB are interested in frankly.

So why do they, from time to time, waste everyones time by issuing edicts to say that it is going to be enforced? Why bother? Just take it out of the "elite Law book" and we can all get on with the game.

 

[Camquin]

Given they are not looking at the feed, foot up, binding or pushing before the ball is fed, what are they looking at?

 

[lawsons]

So why do they, from time to time, waste everyones time by issuing edicts to say that it is going to be enforced? Why bother? Just take it out of the "elite Law book" and we can all get on with the game.

Absolutely no idea. Makes them look foolish in my eyes. Mind they said it about hookers joining the maul in front of the ball carrier, then no one pinged it, so they have form.

 

[Pegleg]

Indeed they do. I just can't fathom why they do not just admit publicly that there are two law books. It would make all our lives easier.

 

[Accylad]

Not sure what law one would use to prevent Green 8 changing his bind? If it's not forbidden by the LoTG, then it's allowed, right?

My position on this is that the 8 can be in either location but can't change once the scrum has begun. In my mind because he can't change his bind without unbinding and he can't unbind without leaving the scrum early there is the penalty if you choose to use it. I will find a reason to reset and have a quiet word.

 

[Pegleg]

He can unbind with one arm. So if he can manage it? It would be simpler, AGAIN, if WR made the 8 bind throughout with two arms there would be less ambiguity.