IRB's new scrum engagement rules to be trialled in the Rugby Championship

The IRB's new "Crouch, Bind, Set" rules were due to be introduced worldwide at the start of the NH club season. However SANZAR have opted to bring them in early, in the Rugby Championship, with a view to having players used to them prior to the AIs

http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/189547.html

The trial is aimed at enhancing player welfare by reducing the impact of engagement by up to 25 per cent, as well as consolidating first-time completion rate of scrums and therefore enhancing the spectacle for fans. Referees will also be instructed to ensure that the scrum is static before the ball is put into the scrum and that the ball goes in straight.

 

The bolded part is all they needed to do in the first place, too much emphasis is put on the engagement when the real problem is that teams push early and get away with it.

And who started this whole early hit, drive rather than hook, and crocked feed eh, kiwi?????

"I know one way to make things easier for everyone...lets change the rules every year".

doddieman wrote:And who started this whole early hit, drive rather than hook, and crocked feed eh, kiwi?????

The drive was NZ. I'm pretty sure the crocked feed was universal though..

They already started using it in the Currie Cup first division last week, haven't seen any games yet, but I am told it has helped.

NOt sure I like the idea of the hit being taken away, but there you have it, lets find a way to reduce scrum time whilst we do nothing about the law interpretations at the breakdown, after all, entertainment is what people want, isn't it?

It's the same as for the JWC isn't it. Well the bit about making the scrum be stable first anyway. Seem to work well.

100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

While the scrum has always been a physical and technical contest, the "hit" is a fairly recent (inside the last 20 years) innovation.

Check out the scrums here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgP5li-8F-g, 2 minutes in. Actually, I reckon the for the 2nd feed the English 9's feed is squint. Scandalous!

I always post this link during scrum debates. Newport v Pontypool, 1992. Have a look at the scrum on 30 seconds. No hit, no shenanigans, and crucially no power until the ball goes in. However, it doesn't disadvantage the dominant scrum. Here Pontypool win one against the head as they are much more powerful than Newport:

https://youtu.be/Ksa2rKcKf8c

I see this as being a good way forward. Don't see the problem with going back to this, and it sounds like the 'new' rules are along these lines. The hit is great to watch but with the power of pro packs the hit causes collapses. It also means that in a split second the props have to decide if they've won the hit or not, and if not then maybe they go down to get a reset and another chance. As the refs often don't know what's going on the props losing the hit get a couple of bites at the cherry. With this video example the packs can at least have a chance of a tussle (more time than in a hit) and competition for the ball as they're set and stable before the push.

The hit seems a bit silly these days because after the hit the ref still has to make sure the scrum is steady, so what's the point of the hit? May as well come together, get set and stable and then scrummage when the ball is out in (straight!).

I was still playing club rugby in 1992 and I can tell you that we had "the hit"

Watch the video and see what I'm talking about !

Kiwi wrote: IRB's new scrum engagement rules to be trialled in the Rugby Championship

New post by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Today at 3:13 pm
The IRB's new "Crouch, Bind, Set" rules were due to be introduced worldwide at the start of the NH club season. However SANZAR have opted to bring them in early, in the Rugby Championship, with a view to having players used to them prior to the AIs



http://www.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/189547.html

The trial is aimed at enhancing player welfare by reducing the impact of engagement by up to 25 per cent, as well as consolidating first-time completion rate of scrums and therefore enhancing the spectacle for fans. Referees will also be instructed to ensure that the scrum is static before the ball is put into the scrum and that the ball goes in straight.

Presumably therefore the SH will continue to operate local rules thereby overriding IRB laws of the game.

No change there then.

It may not be a "hit" in the true sense kf the word, but the engagement is decided by the players and not the referee. Not pushing before hand is fine , the question is whether the professional players will adhere to that?

You could argue that instead of giving away a free kick for early engagment you can get a free kick awarded against you for an early push.

I would prefer that to now where the referee calls engage, set, bind, or whatever it may be next week.

Anything so long as it's lawful.

But this new SH interpretation clearly won't be.

The Laws are pretty clear and the proposed ones don't come into force until September.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's the same as for the JWC isn't it. Well the bit about making the scrum be stable first anyway. Seem to work well.

I agree, the scrums in the JWC looked a lot better than some of the stuff we've been seeing at the senior level, and the referee was definitely instructing the 9s as to when they could put the ball in.

I also agree with the comments that this and enforcing a straight feed will do more for the scrum as a spectacle than crouch, bind, set. Crouch, bind, set, I believe, is more to reduce injuries.

Jeeze,how long does it take to get these clowns to go back to setting the Scrum.THEN enforce the laws on straight feeds,delaying the put in etc.
Maybe then you will go back to playing Hookers who,rake for the ball instead of hanging out on the wings.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Anything so long as it's lawful.

But this new SH interpretation clearly won't be.

The Laws are pretty clear and the proposed ones don't come into force until September.

It's common sense to change though Portnoy.

Some TRC games overlap with the start of the NH season - it'd be silly to switch halfway through a tournament. In any case, the IRB allows variations to the Laws where all participants agree, hence Super Rugby still only having 1 prop on the bench this season (the 8-man bench comes in next year in SXV).

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Anything so long as it's lawful.

But this new SH interpretation clearly won't be.

The Laws are pretty clear and the proposed ones don't come into force until September.

It's common sense to change though Portnoy.

Some TRC games overlap with the start of the NH season - it'd be silly to switch halfway through a tournament. In any case, the IRB allows variations to the Laws where all participants agree, hence Super Rugby still only having 1 prop on the bench this season (the 8-man bench comes in next year in SXV).

Frankly Kiwi, It's the way things work.

The SH set the Laws and the SH operators know that the can get away with any illegal activities they can influence.

In this case, the IRB flunked its mock when they announced that the Law changes will be made at the start of the NH season.

The SH will be applying future laws in INTERNATIONAL games for hemispheric advantage.

Could NH sides do that?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Anything so long as it's lawful.

But this new SH interpretation clearly won't be.

The Laws are pretty clear and the proposed ones don't come into force until September.

It's common sense to change though Portnoy.

Some TRC games overlap with the start of the NH season - it'd be silly to switch halfway through a tournament. In any case, the IRB allows variations to the Laws where all participants agree, hence Super Rugby still only having 1 prop on the bench this season (the 8-man bench comes in next year in SXV).

Frankly Kiwi, It's the way things work.

The SH set the Laws and the SH operators know that the can get away with any illegal activities they can influence.

In this case, the IRB flunked its mock when they announced that the Law changes will be made at the start of the NH season.

The SH will be applying future laws in INTERNATIONAL games for hemispheric advantage.

Could NH sides do that?

Given that the NH have more votes than the SH do on the IRB, of course they could. And back at ELV time they flatly refused to even trial some of the ELVs, meaning that games in different hemispheres were played under different rules.

Pots and kettles there. Though admittedly introducing an innovation before they have to would be a little out of character for the NH

Pete... in fairness thats because the full ELVs were a complete joke and made most people sick.

It is true that the 6N sides hold more votes then the RC sides (12 to 8) but there are 9 other votes out there for people to sway the board one way or another. These include 2 from Japan, Samoa, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Romania and Morrocco (yeah I just checked - total loser).

How those votes go or where they see their allegiances is anyones guess.

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

But the scrum without the hit would be a physcial and technical contest. All the hit does is cause collapsed scrums, and collapsed scrums aren't contests of anything apart from who can stand up again the quickest.

What is the point of the scrum in rugby?Is it a means of restarting play,a genuine contest for possession or something else?

Currently it seems to me that top level teams use it as a means to win penalties and that has to change,personally I would like to see teams forced to use the ball at the base similar to the new 5 second rule at a ruck.Right now if a team gets a shove they keep the ball in to win the penalty,this is the only area of the game where the opposition cannot compete for the ball.Even in a rolling maul a player can come through the middle and try to tackle the carrier.

While these new rules might or might not improve things I'm glad they're trying something.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

But the scrum without the hit would be a physcial and technical contest. All the hit does is cause collapsed scrums, and collapsed scrums aren't contests of anything apart from who can stand up again the quickest.

Until about 1992, the hit did not exist. Even under the current laws it is technically illegal asd you cannot do it without pushing.

Someone once posted a Youtube clip of Pontypool demolishing a team in the scrum, set under the old rules evrything was stable and stationary until the ball came in, and then they shoved.

All the hit does is create instability and reward brawn over technique. Good hookers used to be skillfull, now they are usually auxillary back row forwards.

fa0019 wrote:Pete... in fairness thats because the full ELVs were a complete joke and made most people sick.

It is true that the 6N sides hold more votes then the RC sides (12 to 8) but there are 9 other votes out there for people to sway the board one way or another. These include 2 from Japan, Samoa, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Romania and Morrocco (yeah I just checked - total loser).

How those votes go or where they see their allegiances is anyones guess.

I agree with you on the full ELVs, I was just pointing out that the NH have in the past made a common sense decision to differ from the IRB's laws, just like the SH are now.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

While the scrum has always been a physical and technical contest, the "hit" is a fairly recent (inside the last 20 years) innovation.

Check out the scrums here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgP5li-8F-g, 2 minutes in. Actually, I reckon the for the 2nd feed the English 9's feed is squint. Scandalous!

small problem (a big one really) the physique, strength and size of players is much much bigger, with far more force used. This type of engagement is just asking for trouble with bad timings deliberate or otherwise.

There was a post a year or so back that Chairman Moore used to give an example of a good scrum, methinks it was a Wales match, the impact was less than the one above as they were closer.

Another big change is that with a straight feed the Hooker is no longer a prop, so the force should be less than it could be given the size of todays front rows.

The scrum isn't just a re-start, its a contest in its own right... but for the ball or pressure exertion, not like it is at the moment, to see who can con the ref into giving a penalty.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

But the scrum without the hit would be a physcial and technical contest. All the hit does is cause collapsed scrums, and collapsed scrums aren't contests of anything apart from who can stand up again the quickest.

I am going to reserve my judgement on whether without the hit the scrums aren't going to collapse anyway. Scrums collapse because props want them to collapse, and therefor my feeling on the new laws are with trepidation, I suspect the same problems will still occur.

On a few occasions on this board and v1 (possibly 606 before that), I've suggested that in the bad days of continual scrum collapses, that frustrated refs could just abandon the CTSE commands or its variants for a simple Front rows combine, Engage, make steady, second rows in, steady, back rows in, steady, SH feed.

I was told that that would be illegal and outside refs' pay grade.

Now it appears that illegality is a variable concept up for negotiation and local advantage.

Whether a facet of play is legal or not, the boyz'll find a way to make it work their way.

There are no Laws - only locally applied rules.

That is my point.

LondonTiger wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

whocares wrote:100% agree with biltong.
Not happy with the way the scrum is being changed. The hit is part of the scrum. Always been a physical and technical contest.

But the scrum without the hit would be a physcial and technical contest. All the hit does is cause collapsed scrums, and collapsed scrums aren't contests of anything apart from who can stand up again the quickest.

Until about 1992, the hit did not exist. Even under the current laws it is technically illegal asd you cannot do it without pushing.

Someone once posted a Youtube clip of Pontypool demolishing a team in the scrum, set under the old rules evrything was stable and stationary until the ball came in, and then they shoved.

All the hit does is create instability and reward brawn over technique. Good hookers used to be skillfull, now they are usually auxillary back row forwards.

LT, see my post further up this page - I've posted it again on this thread (I post it all the time!)

But it's not the refs that decided to do this. It's the unions. And the unions control the sport locally (and though the IRB globally).

The IRB issue guidelines on their preferred interpretation. As do the Unions. The SH refs have been told to ignore forward passes, the NH refs have been told to ignore players going off their feet to compete in rucks.

Bilt

Of course some scrums are going to collapse - always have and always will, sometimes because props would rather collapse the scrum than go backwards and sometimes because of a loss of footing.

What the new rules should reduce is the number of times props go down because of missed binds in the very dynamic moments of 'the hit'.

With a bit of luck we should see about a 50% reductin in the number of scrum resets in top level games.

To be honest, the Boks should be promoting this rule change, as it should be beneficial to bigger and stronger packs rather than smaller and more dynamic ones - the scrum should become more of a contest of static strength plus technique rather than about who gets their timing of just pre-empting the ref's engage call right.

Like most I'm happy to see removal of the hit. Will be good for strong scrummaging teams, especially with a straight put in required. I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Dummy Half, lets hope it does, but I am still concerned about a few things.

Firstly, the push is called by the referee, not by the team feeding the ball. So you will still have mistimed scrums, still have penalties, free kicks etc.

As you say, if a prop wants to drop the scrum he is going to.

If this works then great, but I can't for the life of me understand why they believe it is better for a referee to decide when to engage or scrum.

We used to call the hit ourselves, the feeding team had the ball and therefor the advantage. It was never an issue, there were never free kicks for early engagements called by a referee.

In my view the trouble in the scrums became more prominent since the IRB made the referees call crouch, touch, pause and engage.

As a prop your entire focus is on your opponent, within a few scrums you know how quick he reacts, how fast he can bind his arm and whether he goes low or high.

You would be focused on the moment when (if their feed) he makes his first twitch to take the hit, you would know exactly where you are going to hit for the bind, how fast you need to be, whether he is going to hit you in a downward momentum or upward.

And now you have to split your attention to listen to some skinny dude who most likely never even packed in a scrum ever to know then you can engage.

Just peeves me off.

HammerofThunor wrote:But it's not the refs that decided to do this. It's the unions. And the unions control the sport locally (and though the IRB globally).

The IRB issue guidelines on their preferred interpretation. As do the Unions. The SH refs have been told to ignore forward passes, the NH refs have been told to ignore players going off their feet to compete in rucks.

Frankly HoT, this is at the crux of the problem.

Take the 'momentum' interpretation of the IRB laws committee.

The Laws at their very essence proscribe a ball going forward towards the opposition touchline.

That is still a fundamental rugby law and remains in the official law book.

It is physically impossible for momentum to be applied to over-rule that eternal solid state principle of the universe.

What do they do?

Firstly they allow flat passes (rather than backward ones)
Then they allow momentum ones
Then the artistic (i.e. not scientific) shape of the passer's hands.

What next?
It's God's will?

I think with taking the hit away it will perhaps be easier to see how or why the scrum has collapsed, making it easier for refs. At the moment it's a bit of a guess after the hit as to why it's gone down - it's often a split second. If the scrum is set and stable the ref can watch the scrum half putting the ball in straight as there shouldn't be anything to watch in the scrum at that time as it should be steady. When the ball goes it, if all is well and straight, the power comes on and the ref can give his full attention to that. The drive will be less of a split second passage of play compared to the hit, so the ref should have more time to judge if and why a scrum has collapsed - perhaps we could insist a touch judge runs in to observe the blind side of the scrum to avoid shenanigans from those props out of the refs sight.

The hit is the weapon of choice for better skilled scrums to take advantage of the opposition. No hit means static scrums most of the time as good luck to get 900kg forward packs moving that way (in the professional world). Sounds too much like league for my liking and could be the beginning of the end of props as coaches could as well replace them by backrowers.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:But it's not the refs that decided to do this. It's the unions. And the unions control the sport locally (and though the IRB globally).

The IRB issue guidelines on their preferred interpretation. As do the Unions. The SH refs have been told to ignore forward passes, the NH refs have been told to ignore players going off their feet to compete in rucks.

Frankly HoT, this is at the crux of the problem.

Take the 'momentum' interpretation of the IRB laws committee.

The Laws at their very essence proscribe a ball going forward towards the opposition touchline.

That is still a fundamental rugby law and remains in the official law book.

It is physically impossible for momentum to be applied to over-rule that eternal solid state principle of the universe.

What do they do?

Firstly they allow flat passes (rather than backward ones)
Then they allow momentum ones
Then the artistic (i.e. not scientific) shape of the passer's hands.

What next?
It's God's will?

I think the hands backwards/forwards is a good distinction - it is impossible to throw the ball towards the opposition try line if the direction of your hands went backwards. Just impossible. Momentum can carry it forward though, as those endless youtube videos show - even when you are running and throw it backwards over your head the ball will still travel towards the opposition try line. Therefore a distinction is needed and the hands backwards one does that nicely.

Funny. I was told the hit was used add uncertainty to scrum to ensure the good scrum doesn't always win. I've also heard the IRB are thinking that all hookers should train in Wales to achieve a similar thing in the lineout 

HammerofThunor wrote:Funny. I was told the hit was used add uncertainty to scrum to ensure the good scrum doesn't always win. I've also heard the IRB are thinking that all hookers should train in Wales to achieve a similar thing in the lineout 

That won't add uncertainty - just means that every team will revert to kicking for touch safe in the knowledge that they will get the ball back from the lineout  

Griff wrote:I think the hands backwards/forwards is a good distinction - it is impossible to throw the ball towards the opposition try line if the direction of your hands went backwards.  Just impossible.  Momentum can carry it forward though, as those endless youtube videos show - even when you are running and throw it backwards over your head the ball will still travel towards the opposition try line.  Therefore a distinction is needed and the hands backwards one does that nicely.

 Well that depends. I think, and prefer, for players to have to compensate for their forward momentum. I think it's ridiculous that a player could run at the try line, throw the ball back over their head, catch it over the line and score a try. Or do something similar to get past a defensive line. I also don't believe that any ref any where would allow a pass that was caught the wrong side of the try line.

HammerofThunor wrote:Funny. I was told the hit was used add uncertainty to scrum to ensure the good scrum doesn't always win. I've also heard the IRB are thinking that all hookers should train in Wales to achieve a similar thing in the lineout 

The hit in my experience benefitted the team who's props were technically more astute on the hit itself.

My biggest priority was to read my opponent and get to know his strengths and weaknesses in the first few scrums. The manner in which I planned where to strike my binding arm had everything to do with how I was going to manage my opponent.

If I scrummed against a prop who was quick of mind and realised how the speed of my bind was my weapon it was like a dance of two striking Cobra's, who would gain the upper hand in the bind.

If I was much quicker than my opponent, it was half the battle won.

By binding to the side of the Tight head's jumper underneath his armpit, and in one motion lock my shoulder and elbow perpendicular to the ground I was set, the only difference there after being whether my opponent was physically superior to me or not.

In the first few scrums my aim was just to test his strength by having the power go through both my legs in a straight line to my back.

If I found I could manage to shuffle him, (move him with my shoulders) I knew he was mine. Then the game was on.

SO the reason why I am so pro Hit is because the scrums then (before the era where the referee decides the timing of the hit) was an absolute piece of art. There was nothing more satisfying to me than reading my opponent and being able to firstly beat him to to bind, no matter whether they called the hit or us.

Happy days those.

I think it would be physically and scientifically impossible to throw a ball backwards over your own head while you were running forward and catch it again, even if it did have forward momentum. You see, the runner also has forward momentum so throwing it backwards means that in the intervening time they would have run forward away from the ball too and so would not be in a position to catch it!

Perfectly acceptable for a player to throw over his head backwards to a teammate to catch and score - happens all of the time. But when you see the replays you'll notice that even though it is thrown backwards the ball travels forward with momentum. Would be very unfair to call it a forward pass, otherwise all passes while running would be forward, pretty much. We'd have to stop still before making a pass!

HammerofThunor wrote:

Griff wrote:I think the hands backwards/forwards is a good distinction - it is impossible to throw the ball towards the opposition try line if the direction of your hands went backwards.  Just impossible.  Momentum can carry it forward though, as those endless youtube videos show - even when you are running and throw it backwards over your head the ball will still travel towards the opposition try line.  Therefore a distinction is needed and the hands backwards one does that nicely.

 Well that depends. I think, and prefer, for players to have to compensate for their forward momentum. I think it's ridiculous that a player could run at the try line, throw the ball back over their head, catch it over the line and score a try. Or do something similar to get past a defensive line. I also don't believe that any ref any where would allow a pass that was caught the wrong side of the try line.

From the first day I discovered that the  momentum interpretation was being sanctioned I was alarmed.

So I watched the IRB videos

Then the 'shape of the hands interpretation was brought in

And I did the same

And guess what?

I'd also like the closest lines judge to be brought onto the pitch to stand in good visual distance to check the bind on the other side when the scrum engages. Of course they'll need to back-pedal like mad when the ball comes out, but I feel it would force the props to behave themselves both sides.

damage_13 wrote:I'd also like the closest lines judge to be brought onto the pitch to stand in good visual distance to check the bind on the other side when the scrum engages. Of course they'll need to back-pedal like mad when the ball comes out, but I feel it would force the props to behave themselves both sides.

Problem is that the TJs also have to keep an eye on the back line.
Do you want Ireland to win every game?

Griff wrote:I think it would be physically and scientifically impossible to throw a ball backwards over your own head while you were running forward and catch it again, even if it did have forward momentum.  You see, the runner also has forward momentum so throwing it backwards means that in the intervening time they would have run forward away from the ball too and so would not be in a position to catch it!  

Perfectly acceptable for a player to throw over his head backwards to a teammate to catch and score - happens all of the time.  But when you see the replays you'll notice that even though it is thrown backwards the ball travels forward with momentum.  Would be very unfair to call it a forward pass, otherwise all passes while running would be forward, pretty much.  We'd have to stop still before making a pass!

 All you would need to do is slow down a touch. Easy. And I don't think it would be unfair to called such a pass forward. I see no problem with passing at speed being more difficult than passing while stationary. The fundamental core principle to rugby (IMO) is that you can't pass forward. Regardless of anything else this interpretation breaches that. Allows defences to be breached by forwards passes (again, regardless of how it occurred). I also do not believe it is (or realistically can be) applied uniformity across the pitch.

Hammer, every pass that is made at speed, even when appearing to be aimed backwards, does go forward. If you're running with the ball in your hands, the ball has forward momentum already. We would have to call nearly every pass forward because they all travel towards the try line even if they're passed to a man behind you. Perhaps the only ones that wouldn't would be the scrum half's stationary passes from the scrum/ruck/maul and those when not running, so I think for the sake of the game you have to let them go (or we'd have walking rugby!)

Griff wrote:Hammer, every pass that is made at speed, even when appearing to be aimed backwards, does go forward.  If you're running with the ball in your hands, the ball has forward momentum already.  We would have to call nearly every pass forward because they all travel towards the try line even if they're passed to a man behind you.  Perhaps the only ones that wouldn't would be the scrum half's stationary passes from the scrum/ruck/maul and those when not running, so I think for the sake of the game you have to let them go (or we'd have walking rugby!)

Not quite. Most passes do go backwards. They only go forward if the forward component of the players velocity is greater than the backwards velocity of the pass. The faster you run the more backwards speed you need to put into the pass.

Have a look here on about 1:33. How could you ever call that a forward pass in a game? The supporting player is about 4 metres behind the passer, but it's clearly forward in the IRB definition of forward - traveling towards the opposition try line. We have to let those go for the sake of the game. Plus, we'd forever be pooring over videos like this in games before telling the ref the decision - bonkers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Griff wrote:Have a look here on about 1:33.  How could you ever call that a forward pass in a game?  The supporting player is about 4 metres behind the passer, but it's clearly forward in the IRB definition of forward - traveling towards the opposition try line.  We have to let those go for the sake of the game.  Plus, we'd forever be pooring over videos like this in games before telling the ref the decision - bonkers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

I can call that forward because it went forward. The player should have been further back. I'd also go for having a GPS in the ball and have it hard and fast.

However if that is the case (allowing forward passes) it needs to be done properly. In that video there is no reason why the over head pass couldn't have been caught by the throwing player if they slowed down. Do that on the try line and score a try. If that's allowed then fine. But it's not. We've had refs call forward due to line on the pitch. If IRB released an example on the try line saying it's fine, I'd accept it. But I don't think they would. THAT's why I don't like it.

But then I don't like players going off their feet to win turnovers either.