Rugby World suggests "5 ways to improve the game"

[Pegleg]

Interesting:

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/laws-refereeing-5-ways-improve-game/

 

[Phil E]

No it isn't.

I'll informed nonsense that contradicts itself repeatedly.

 

[Pegleg]

Enforcing the straight put in not a good idea then Phil? Fair enough.
The present use of the TMO is muddled at best with glaring example of times where the TMO could clean up errors being not taken and of refs bottling it and passing the buck in others So there are two valid points.

The 2 point PK is daft for me and will lead to confusion.

There's good and bad in there. But I was intersted in your well thought out and presented argument Mr E.

 

[Dickie E]

Interesting:

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/laws-refereeing-5-ways-improve-game/

Thanks pegleg for throwing up something worth a read

 

[Dixie]

1. Unsuccessful end to the maul:

It’s messy, ugly and above all unjust, because the defenders lie where they like and obstruct the ball with impunity. Not that the attack has much time to get the ball back in any case, because referees are blowing up the moment the maul collapses ... Action needed: First, defenders in the way should be required to roll away just like they’re obliged to do at rucks. Second, referees should pause to see if the ball might emerge – not instantly whistle for a scrum.

This view is only tenable if a collapsed maul is not a safety hazard. If it is adopted, then so should be the abandoned ELV permitting deliberate collapsing of the maul. So long as rugby views a maul collapse as potentially dangerous to the person at the bottom (possibly with a knee being bent out of shape by a thousand pounds of weight) then the referee must be required to blow immediately.

A solution that the writer does not seem to have considered is to coach that a maul must be avoided at all costs unless if can be built in such a way as to ensure that the ball will be available in a collapse. In other words ... it's the players' fault if they lose it for failing to use it.

2. Scrum Pain:

Action needed: Referees must enforce straight feeds, thus forcing hookers to heel the ball and the team in possession to lock out. The result will be a true scrum contest and cleaner ball.

No argument from behind this keyboard. However, earlier he mentions:

As instructed, referees are waiting for the scrum to be stable before allowing the ball to go in, but sometimes the delay is simply too long.

and proposes that the ball should be fed quicker in any event. This is pointless - instructing referees to permit feeding an unstable scrum will re-encourage the Hit'n'Drive, and will result in more resets as scrums go down. If the delay is unconscionable, it's because one side or both are pushing before the feed - FK one or other to gain compliance and get the game moving.

3. Time Wasting at the Scrum:

Action needed: Simple – if the first scrum isn’t completed properly, stop the clock and only restart it when there’s a decisive outcome (the ball comes out or one side is penalised).

There writes someone who has never, ever, had to keep accurate time in a rugby match!

4. TMO muddle

Action needed: A jury can find a defendant guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”, so let’s see that principle applied to the rugby field. If the attack has crashed over the line, allow the try to stand unless evidence is found to the contrary.

I would be happy with this, and I suspect it was what was initially intended.

5. Scrum offences - referee uncertainty and the 3-point sanction.

And that’s the problem. It’s a subjective view on a technicality of the game that can have a huge bearing on the outcome. So is it right that offenders incur a three-point sanction? “Oops, lost my bind there for a moment.” 3-0. ... Action needed: Some offences are worse than others, so why not allocate different points values. For technical set-piece offences, bring back the two-point penalty (like it was before 1891)!

My preferred option would be FK for all scrum offences, with YC for individual or team repeated offending.

 

[Browner]

1.Leave BC possession guarantees to R.League. ( maul turnovers happen 2-6 times in my matches from 120-280 carries into contact...its simply not a blight)

2. Enforce the 'pre-feed non shove', that resolves most issues.

3. Appoint touchline timekeepers at grassroots and its possible, until then ......

4. Merely crashing over isn't sufficient, but TMO usage can be improved, but its here to stay whatever.

5. Safety will ensure scrum PKs remain high value ( to do otherwise will open up this wound) ....unless the "6 point try trial" says otherwise.

At least 'Rugby World' is being read and talked about this am !

 

[Phil E]

There's good and bad in there. But I was intersted in your well thought out and presented argument Mr E.

ATTR, I didn't have the time to go through it line by line. But with the exception of maybe one point, most of the others are either wrong or get contradicted later in the piece.

 

[Pegleg]

Would it be better to read before offering a damning opinion? Others seem to have managed to do so. Your short hand is not understood. Sorry I'm not good with computer / text speak.

 

[Taff]

My suggestion is that if a scrum is pulled down and the Ref can't tell which prop was pulling it down, the PK should be given against the prop with the shortest bind.

That way, both props will try to have a longer bind than their opponent - which should prevent the scrum being pulled down in the first place.

 

[Pegleg]

Is it illegal to have a short bind? Are you not guessing if you do that?

 

[Browner]

Is it illegal to have a short bind? Are you not guessing if you do that?

Taff's proposal would make it so, I like his tangent thinking.

 

[Taff]

Is it illegal to have a short bind? Are you not guessing if you do that?

The lawbook requires props to bind "on the back or side" of the jersey.

You can't bind "on the back or side" of the jersey if you have a short bind.

 

[Pegleg]

Re: Rugby World suggests 5 ways to improve the game

It certainly is possible to bind with a short bind and be legal. I player in the front row (both sides) and was able to do so. TBrowner is correct this could only be done with a change in law Under existing laws you'd just be making it up as you go along. That's never good.

Furthermore, the idea of penalising the shorter bind in a bit odd. Presumably a shorter arm will result in a shorter bind than a longer arm so we ping the little guy? Where is the equity in pinging a guy because his arm is shorter than the other prop?

I understand the sentiment but can we try to look at who is collapsing and not just picking an arbitrary physical feature to penalise players?

 

[Camquin]

Provided the bind is legal it does not matter how short it is.
But it is illegal to bind on the arm.

So why wait for the scrum to go down and risk injury?
If a prop binds on the arm - as is the case in the scrum pictured in the article - why let the ball go into the scrum at all?

Camquin

 

[Browner]

Provided the bind is legal it does not matter how short it is.
But it is illegal to bind on the arm.

So why wait for the scrum to go down and risk injury?
If a prop binds on the arm - as is the case in the scrum pictured in the article - why let the ball go into the scrum at all?

Camquin

 

[Pegleg]

Provided the bind is legal it does not matter how short it is.
But it is illegal to bind on the arm.

So why wait for the scrum to go down and risk injury?
If a prop binds on the arm - as is the case in the scrum pictured in the article - why let the ball go into the scrum at all?

Camquin

Well said Camquin. Deal with the offences don't make them up.

 

[RobLev]

Re: Rugby World suggests 5 ways to improve the game

It certainly is possible to bind with a short bind and be legal. I player in the front row (both sides) and was able to do so.

<TANGENT ALERT>
Serious question: Why bind short (ie with a bent arm) at all? It makes it easier to pull the opposing front row down of course, but more difficult to lock the scrum together.
</TANGENT ALERT>

TBrowner is correct this could only be done with a change in law Under existing laws you'd just be making it up as you go along. That's never good.

Furthermore, the idea of penalising the shorter bind in a bit odd. Presumably a shorter arm will result in a shorter bind than a longer arm so we ping the little guy? Where is the equity in pinging a guy because his arm is shorter than the other prop?

I assumed that the reference to the shorter bind was to the angle of the elbow, not the absolute distance shoulder to fist.

I understand the sentiment but can we try to look at who is collapsing and not just picking an arbitrary physical feature to penalise players?

See above. Why bind short if you don't want the option to destabilise the oppo front-row?

 

[Pegleg]

You can bind with a shorter bind than the opponent without pulling down.

1; by keep the elbow up. I can assure you I can bind short and legally. I did it for years.

2; If you have shorter arms than the other prop your bind will always be shorter.

If I was referring to a short bind I'd not be referring the a bent arm pulling down. I would assume that the initial reference also was referring to the same issue or I'm sure he have referenced a bent arm pulling down. Which is a very different and actually illegal act.

If he mend a bent arm pulling down and not a short bind I apologise

 

[Pegleg]

Re: Rugby World suggests 5 ways to improve the game

Actually a bent (legal) arm does not make it less easy to lock the scrum. Binding long leaves you exposed and many props avoid it for that reason.

Bent and up is legal and, unless the law change to make it illegal, should be allowed. Watch for arms angle etc to see what i happening.

 

[ChrisR]

Personally, and as a former prop/hooker, I'd like to see the laws allow a prop to drop his bind without penalty. Including putting his hand on the deck. IMO stability comes from the props posture, not from his bind.