Law Change.

Very simple if you were on the IRB Referee's council what law would you put forward or which would you change. Personally I would get rid of the rule about taking the ball back into the twenty two, but only from set plays like a scrum etc, because I feel it can often penalise a piece of great defensive play.

No question: I'd get rid of the hit: get the two packs to come together easy as you like, get them to shove only once the ball has been fed.

I'm willing to bet my right arm that "Get rid of the hit" tops this by a country mile.

On the nail there red_stag.

Stag, they could keep the hit, as long as referees enforced the rule that the scrum has to be square and steady before the ball's fed. Once teams saw that there was no advantage to 'winning the hit' they wouldn't bother trying.

Even so, yes, they should get rid of the hit!

Agree with that one.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Stag, they could keep the hit, as long as referees enforced the rule that the scrum has to be square and steady before the ball's fed. Once teams saw that there was no advantage to 'winning the hit' they wouldn't bother trying.

Even so, yes, they should get rid of the hit!

Luckless there is no such thing in law as the hit. The only law change would be a complete no tolerance of shoving.

the thing about the scrum is, every match i have seen which isint professional the scrum seems fine e.g in my u16 matches the scrum collapses maybe once or twice a game and thats it, now i know Pro teams are much bigger and stronger but surely if a group of u16 can manage it why cant the pros???

red_stag wrote:The only law change would be a complete no tolerance of shoving.

Well I'll say that then.

welshy824 wrote:the thing about the scrum is, every match i have seen which isint professional the scrum seems fine e.g in my u16 matches the scrum collapses maybe once or twice a game and thats it, now i know Pro teams are much bigger and stronger but surely if a group of u16 can manage it why cant the pros???

Attitude. IMO the problems at the scrum are first and foremost the fault of the players and coaches. They are not going to change their attitudes so the IRB must starting forcing their hands.

But the 'no shoving' law already exists, at least in principle (i.e. that the scrum should be stationary and square before the put in). It's simply a case of a blind eye being turned by the elite refs (as with crooked put ins).

I would though change the law so that if the ball is visible at the back of the ruck, an opponent is allowed to go for it - would sto the situation where the SH stands with the ball available and takes 15 seconds to direct traffic before popping a short pass to the next pod of forwards.

I'd like to see something done about impeding players off the ball which seems to be happening more and more these days as refs so often miss it or overlook it - not so much a law change as making it something that I'd like to see cited post match though.

welshy824 wrote:the thing about the scrum is, every match i have seen which isint professional the scrum seems fine e.g in my u16 matches the scrum collapses maybe once or twice a game and thats it, now i know Pro teams are much bigger and stronger but surely if a group of u16 can manage it why cant the pros???

When I've played at higher level U16 matches the Scrum collapses more often than just at scrum or school level, possibly because the higher the level the bigger the players.

1. Get rid of the p in the c-t-p-e setting routine. If the players won't do it properly, give the ref the option to set the scrum in whatever way he deems fit to allow the game to continue fairly.

2. At the breakdown, non-engaged players to keep 2m behind the back feet unless they are showing intent to re-engage properly. There is no place for 'guards'.

Portnoy wrote:1. Get rid of the p in the c-t-p-e setting routine. If the players won't do it properly, give the ref the option to set the scrum in whatever way he deems fit to allow the game to continue fairly

Good point so many times playing in the front row you feel over balanced as the ref says pause. Also I believe they do it in NZ in the domestic competitions over there.

MR. scotland27 wrote:

Portnoy wrote:1. Get rid of the p in the c-t-p-e setting routine. If the players won't do it properly, give the ref the option to set the scrum in whatever way he deems fit to allow the game to continue fairly

Good point so many times playing in the front row you feel over balanced as the ref says pause. Also I believe they do it in NZ in the domestic competitions over there.

They certainly don't. Whether we agree with it or not the IRB consider this to be safety directive. If a referee didn't do this and there was a scrum injury the referee would be sued.

Two requests from me (one get rid and one request):

1. Lose that silly rule that a moving ball in the try area is out when a player has his foot in touch when touching the moving ball. A totally minor point, but it's a bug bear with me. The ball should be out only when it crosses the line. Simple.

2. Line-outs should always be a full line-out. I don't like teams being able to clutter the back line with forwards when cutting the line out. One of the great things about scrums is that it enables teams to go for 1st phase attacking moves because all forwards are committed and there's space in the line. The line out should be the same. All forwards should be committed.

Not a rule change request, but something that needs to be enforced: crooked feeds at scrum time need to be penalised. These need to be picked up on to make the scrums competitive. The hooker role is being marginalised, particularly in the SH. The ball needs to go in straight.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Not a rule change request, but something that needs to be enforced: crooked feeds at scrum time need to be penalised. These need to be picked up on to make the scrums competitive. The hooker role is being marginalised, particularly in the SH. The ball needs to go in straight.

Jayzus and hallelujah. Staggy's always on the back-foot with this one. But I couldn't agree more.

MR. scotland27 wrote:

welshy824 wrote:the thing about the scrum is, every match i have seen which isint professional the scrum seems fine e.g in my u16 matches the scrum collapses maybe once or twice a game and thats it, now i know Pro teams are much bigger and stronger but surely if a group of u16 can manage it why cant the pros???

When I've played at higher level U16 matches the Scrum collapses more often than just at scrum or school level, possibly because the higher the level the bigger the players.

it didnt happen when i was at region level at u16 though, i mean we watched playbacks of scrums etc to see moves that us back rowers could do and it hardly collapsed, it collapsed at school level as my school team has 10 players of high quality, 6 are/have played for regions, 1 welsh capped at u16, and others who are good quality players.

and in my club team one of our props is about 16/16 stone the other one 13+stone so not exactley small

Portnoy not on back foot. I just think sometimes the scrum half does little wrong but his team are driving forward before the ball is in. It has the same effect and relates back to the point about stationary when ball is fed.

I also think "straight into the second row" is a very very very exaggerated phrase.

red_stag wrote:

MR. scotland27 wrote:

Portnoy wrote:1. Get rid of the p in the c-t-p-e setting routine. If the players won't do it properly, give the ref the option to set the scrum in whatever way he deems fit to allow the game to continue fairly

Good point so many times playing in the front row you feel over balanced as the ref says pause. Also I believe they do it in NZ in the domestic competitions over there.

They certainly don't. Whether we agree with it or not the IRB consider this to be safety directive. If a referee didn't do this and there was a scrum injury the referee would be sued.

Don't know if they still do it now but when I last watched it they did.

http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?10529-new-scrum-engagement-trial

Scotland, if its an IRB trial then they might do

But you couldn't just decide to do it as you don't agree with it. Believe it or not I get props time to time ask me to leave out pause.

I'd change the rule about qualification of players to foreign nations who have already represented another country.

Thats what I meant they were trialling it at NZ domestic level.

Oh right I thought you just meant refs decided randomly to do it.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I'd change the rule about qualification of players to foreign nations who have already represented another country.

Thanks for your input. I believe this has been discussed in great depth elsewhere on the site.

red_stag wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Stag, they could keep the hit, as long as referees enforced the rule that the scrum has to be square and steady before the ball's fed. Once teams saw that there was no advantage to 'winning the hit' they wouldn't bother trying.

Even so, yes, they should get rid of the hit!

Luckless there is no such thing in law as the hit. The only law change would be a complete no tolerance of shoving.

In physics, there is no such thing as centrifugal force, but it seems to be real enough that we know it's effect.

If the law doesn't recognise the hit, then the law's an ass.

Portnoy wrote:If the law doesn't recognise the hit, then the law's an ass.

Of course it is. I said it to a player in a game. He said "they have to take the hit". I told him to wait til ball is in to shove. He said it is a LAW they have to take the hit. I told him if he could find the term "the hit" relating to the scrum I'd buy him a beer after the game. He couldn't find it

Proper rucking, by that i don't mean stamping on someones head but if they're lying on the ball then thats their fault.

I'd also like to see less subs being used in a game as it destroys the flow.

And THE HIT!

We really should take out the hit. Not only does it make scrums less stable, I think it deskills the hooker in certain ways. It's about winning the hit and driving over the ball now, rather than hooking it back.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Proper rucking, by that i don't mean stamping on someones head but if they're lying on the ball then thats their fault!

Theres nothing to stop that currently. If you intentionally ruck a player its a penalty. If a player gets rucked as you go for the ball then thats fine. France v South Africa last season has some brilliant examples of this.

Notch wrote:We really should take out the hit. Not only does it make scrums less stable, I think it deskills the hooker in certain ways. It's about winning the hit and driving over the ball now, rather than hooking it back.

That is very true as a hooker it is so much more about hitting the other front row harder. But the scrum is an integral part of the game we love so why dismantle it as it really represents a huge physical and mental battle. I get as frustrated as everyone else with reset scrums, but I think that taking the hit out is the wrong way about it.

Scotland - you do realise you can make static shoves too

I have a brother who is a tighthead and he can't understand notion of removing the hit as he thinks it will lose the test of strenght other wise.

MR. scotland27 wrote:That is very true as a hooker it is so much more about hitting the other front row harder. But the scrum is an integral part of the game we love so why dismantle it as it really represents a huge physical and mental battle. I get as frustrated as everyone else with reset scrums, but I think that taking the hit out is the wrong way about it.

I don't see taking the hit out as dismantling the scrum but rather combined with enforcing straight put ins it is key in turning it back into a contest for the ball as it should be at the heart of the game

Passive engagement at the scrum with no charging allowed. Pushing only once the ball has been put in by the scrum half.

red_stag wrote:Scotland - you do realise you can make static shoves too

I have a brother who is a tighthead and he can't understand notion of removing the hit as he thinks it will lose the test of strenght other wise.

I guess it is a front row thing but whe the Scrum works it is glorious to behold, so although rare it would be bad IMO to stop this from happening.