Solving the Reset-scrum Issue

[Rit Hinners]

I think I've come up with an idea that could solve the issue of scrums having to be constantly reset. It would require no Law changes and nothing from the reff.

Pay ALL front row players based on how many scrums are sucessfully compleated. Any scrum that is reset will not count.

I have no idea on the pay structure in prorugby but I think it could work. Say a prop gets $6000/game, change the contracts so that they get $4000 a game and $600/scrum. (just throwing out numbers here.)

This will encourage the front 6 to keep their feet and stop the "dark arts".

The only problem I can forsee with this idea is that a frontrow, looking to fill his wallet, might knock on a bit more often than they do normally.

Comments?

 

[Robert Burns]

mmm,

Yellow card repeated knock on from the front row!

Back row might be upset!

 

[chopper15]

So what monetary incentives do you propose for all other positions?

 

[PaulDG]

The biggest problem here is the assumption that people are motivated by money.

While some are, many are not.

Time and time again, we see players commit repeat offences and throw the game away for their teams - winning isn't important to them, money isn't important. Beating the other guy is what has become important at that stage.

I can't imagine any front row player I know going into contact thinking "If this scrum stays up, we make money, if it doesn't we lose it".

And if that was to be their thinking, what would it do to the game? Suppose the opposition don't care about the money - winning (or perhaps not losing) a particular match might mean a place in a big competition and that might mean a lot.

While perhaps for the opposition who already know relegation is going to happen and they may be facing pay cuts next year, and for them the money is a lot more important?

Might that "conflict of interest" spill over into frustration and violence on the pitch?

 

[FlipFlop]

I still think the answers to most problems lie in the past.....

Why not form the scrum as follows:

FR bind and then engage.
2nd rows bind then engage
Back row bind and engage

There is not hit, and no weight behind it until all 16 are bound and in. There is unlikely to be any motion, and any that is can't be described as "not taking the hit" - it has to be pushing or pulling.

Build the scrum in a static way, and perhaps it will remain static until the ball comes in.

Ref's calls would be: "FR, 2nd Row, back row" Then step away and SH presents the ball.

 

[andyscott]

Simples, ping em early, bin if neccessary, threaten them with uncontested.

Needs a strong ref, and would be backed publically for zero tolerance, as many people are getting quite frankly effed off with the farce.

 

[OB..]

I still think the answers to most problems lie in the past.....

From the RFU Full Committee minutes 19 August 1932

The board is convinced that the practice of over-specialisation, particularly in the schools, has led to serious deterioration in forward play. The modern conception of the laws has been to limit and reduce scope and possibilities of forward play.
Owing to this practice there is very little appreciation by a forward accustomed to playing in one position of the duties of those playing in other positions, and such appreciation is essential to the efficient working of the scrummage.
The Board strongly urges that, so far as possible, the practice of limiting a player's activities to one particular position should be discontinued; and it particularly emphasises the importance of such a course to the case of schoolboys. It is convinced that, at any rate in practice games, the old principle of "first up, first down" should be revived in order not only to cultivate the qualities of grit and determination, but also to discover the most promising material, to impress on that material the importance of genuine scrummaging and of keeping on the ball in open play.

 

[Donal1988]

Speaking of tough refereeing I dont know did anyone see Leinster v Glasgow where James Jones gave Leinster 4 yellow cards. I dont think there was any issue with the first 3 cards but there was a lot of talk that the last card was "harsh".

Ross had been penalised on two occasion for illegal binding on the arm and by now recieved a warning for same offence from referee. Referee did CTPE and Ross bound on his opponents arm. This seemed to have no material effect but he was yellow carded :noyc:

Anyone else see it and what they think. Certainly right in law and sends a message but in 71st minute when you have already given 3 yellows maybe manage it.

 

[OB..]

Speaking of tough refereeing I dont know did anyone see Leinster v Glasgow where James Jones gave Leinster 4 yellow cards. I dont think there was any issue with the first 3 cards but there was a lot of talk that the last card was "harsh".

Ross had been penalised on two occasion for illegal binding on the arm and by now recieved a warning for same offence from referee. Referee did CTPE and Ross bound on his opponents arm. This seemed to have no material effect but he was yellow carded :noyc:

Anyone else see it and what they think. Certainly right in law and sends a message but in 71st minute when you have already given 3 yellows maybe manage it.

Penalised twice and formally warned, presumably under 10.3 (a), and then he immediately does it again? I don't see that materiality has any relevance at all, nor the time, nor the previous cards (given to other players). Simply ignoring the referee's very clear instructions is daft.

 

[Donal1988]

Thanks OB - well it wasnt immediate but pretty soon afterwards. Good feedback.