Will IRB changes at the Scrum work?

First topic message reminder :

While the intent is to be commended I think there are some problems.

The first is while the word Pause has been removed, in pratice the actual time elapsed between the crouch and set commands is still down to the ref, so it may make little difference.

However the biggest problem is that the change does not address the real problem and that is the "HIT". What needs to happen is that the distance between the two front rows needs to be reduced so that the two packs do not end up charging at each other. The engagement of the two front rows needs to be less forceful. This would reduce the number of srums that go straight to ground and actually allow the props to get a proper bind. The props get a lot of stick but it cannot be easy to achieve any sort of bind let alone a legal one, given the speed and force of engagement. Advantage is sought by winning the hit, rather than as in the past by strength and technique. It would also mean that hooker could hook and we may actually see some stikes against the head.

What do you think?

ooh, very good point.

all the front rows focus is on their opposition... not the petulant, whistling ponce at the side

I'd love to see a trial of what you suggested.

a pre-season workshop behind closed doors, each pack from a number of premiership sides invited to just scrum, say.. 8 times. Compulsory for all refs to attend and the IRB refs commission.

oh... and Chairman Moore stood to one side with a megaphone and his best insults.

they could do it in the Stoop and charge money for entry.

£50 to watch Barnes/Caplan/Joubert/Walsh/Rolland reduced to tears as they fail yet again to spot the most obvious of errors.

aucklandlaurie wrote: No the lineout has been through the process, being South African you probably didnt notice, but there was a time when you werent allowed lift in the lineouts and for years there was a conservative school of thought that said that if lifting was allowed it would ruin the game and take the contest out of the lineout, meanwhile the Boks didnt take any notice of the laws, and just lifted anyway (Well they did when they played New Zealand) thankfully after a while the powers that be realised that not only was not going to hurt the game at all but actually improved the game, they relaxed the law and South Africa had a headstart on everyone else. But good on you guys for just doing it.

Well good on you how the All Blacks are ahead in the race to evolve the ruck.

damage_13 wrote:ooh, very good point.

all the front rows focus is on their opposition... not the petulant, whistling ponce at the side

I'd love to see a trial of what you suggested.

a pre-season workshop behind closed doors, each pack from a number of premiership sides invited to just scrum, say.. 8 times. Compulsory for all refs to attend and the IRB refs commission.

oh... and Chairman Moore stood to one side with a megaphone and his best insults.

they could do it in the Stoop and charge money for entry.

£50 to watch Barnes/Caplan/Joubert/Walsh/Rolland reduced to tears as they fail yet again to spot the most obvious of errors.

It does work, mate, that is how it worked when I played, never thought it was a problem then.

I am in agreement with you Portnoy, stead scrum straight feed THEN all hell can break loose. Side putting in gets the advantage of knowing when the ball is put in. Asking hookers to actually hook removes many of the current problems.

however we will instead continue to see a rapid march towards RL type scrums.

portnoy
I disagree with Maesteg that the feed must be straight but I agree with him on everything else.

He makes an excellant point about a prop touching a bit of grass, how in gods name can that be some sort of infringement that merits three points.

aucklandlaurie wrote: portnoy
I disagree with Maesteg that the feed must be straight but I agree with him on everything else.

He makes an excellant point about a prop touching a bit of grass, how in gods name can that be some sort of infringement that merits three points.

I agree on that, it must be the most ridiculous penalty in the book.... although come to think of it, the early engagement... the retaliatory slap... etc.

One other question to all you guys, do you not have a problem with the fact that a flanker may not lose his bind before the ball is out?

In my view as long as he remains onside what is the problem, if his pack is strong enough to retain parity in the scrum why may he not lose his bind?

So long as he retreats behind the back foot Bil.

Portnoy wrote:So long as he retreats behind the back foot Bil.

I agree, so long as the flanker retreats to the offside line (5m back at scrums?) he should be allowed to disenage.


More important question is how the hell do flankers end up binding on th eopponents second row?

aucklandlaurie wrote: portnoy
I disagree with Maesteg that the feed must be straight but I agree with him on everything else.

He makes an excellant point about a prop touching a bit of grass, how in gods name can that be some sort of infringement that merits three points.

Can't disagree with that, laurie. But the RSG l think is mainly responsible for re-set scrums and has developed the 3rd prop genre.

Biltong

Im an old openside flanker, its ridiculous, once the flanker releases his bind he leaves his scrum with one man down, so you have to make a calculated call. Ideally, and so long as he stays on side as you say there is not detrement to the game,again an unneccessary pedantic law that contributes absolutely nothing to the game.

And dont start me off on crooked lineout throws when the "other" tesm hasnt contested the throw. let it go and lets see some rugby for a change.

So gentlemen in but a few posts, and less than 30 minutes we have found the solution to the scrum,

1. flanker may lose his bind as long as he falls back to the offside line.
2. let the feeding team decide whent he hit is engaged.
3. To ensure the scrum doesn't collapse, the prop may touch the grass in order tor etain balance.
4. the feed still needs clarification.

biltongbek wrote:So gentlemen in but a few posts, and less than 30 minutes we have found the solution to the scrum,

1. flanker may lose his bind as long as he falls back to the offside line.
2. let the feeding team decide whent he hit is engaged.
3. To ensure the scrum doesn't collapse, the prop may touch the grass in order tor etain balance.
4. the feed still needs clarification.

I reckon we're bl..dy brilliant, I could sort out that tip tackle in under ten seconds too.

right then chaps. Tweet away !

I'm gonna see If I can condense that list to a tweet but with 4. being a straight feed

biltongbek wrote:So gentlemen in but a few posts, and less than 30 minutes we have found the solution to the scrum,

1. flanker may lose his bind as long as he falls back to the offside line.
2. let the feeding team decide whent he hit is engaged.
3. To ensure the scrum doesn't collapse, the prop may touch the grass in order tor etain balance.
4. the feed still needs clarification.

Not quite Biltong -

4. the feed still needs clarification.[/quote] will lead to sneaky codes to gain advantage.
4. the feed still needs clarification. needs enforcement

Anyone up to a parallel Line-out discussion?

Portnoy, excellent idea, but why don't we take it a step further, if you have the time we could do it on this basis.

Open a thread titled "606V2 scrum rules."

Then put the IRB's scrum rules as a condensed version with main points, not the legal jargon.

We then let gys provide opinions and after a week we "alter" the rules the way we see it, the same for the ruck, line out etc.

Once we have looked at all the laws we forward it to the IRB and demand it to be looked at. Hopefully we can get some feeback.

Not until this discussion is finished Biltong, And anyway, I'm not going to interpret or précis any set of carefully-phrased Laws.

But aren't you of the legal profession?

No. Get a trained lawyer to paraphrase the legalese.

I'm a barrack-room lawyer - like the ones who thought that Votes for Women campaign was not unjust. Similarly rugby should never engage with Apartheid regimes. (Born and bred to kick out against regimes and wrong rugby laws).