Last weekend saw another level reached for me. Joubert was so slow on his engagement count that it was not only painfully boring but bordering on ludicrous. There is nearly 90 st of player weight behind the front row and it is all leaning on and has to be counterbalanced. When front rows are stood up and leant back that is easily done. When they go into the crouch position it is not.
The engagement sequence has little or no effect in what comes afterwards and to have the game constantly interrupted because packs do not get it right is nonsense when you compare what they are allowed to do thereafter which does directly cause instability, collapse etc.
I've been told there has been an edict for referees to make sure the packs are stationary, square and still before the set is called, the thinking being that this will stabilise what comes thereafter. We now have the law that would make a difference if it was applied where it should be - after engagement and before the feed, applied where it isn’t needed.
Another thread on here referred to Kelly Brown's ignorance of the scrum laws and technically that criticism is correct. However, when it has become accepted practice that this is the way elite referees will look at the scrum Brown's ignorance is understandable. What better proof can I present for my argument that elite referees have allowed this early push to become practice?
On Sunday I listened to Clancy giving binding, body angle advice to front row players. This isn't his job as a referee and in fact wouldn’t be his job unless he has specialist technical knowledge, which he doesn't. We now have referees at elite level who are coaching things they shouldn’t and not refereeing things they should.
Can things get any more ridiculous?
