Recent content by didds

'Twas ever thus though. So what has changed such that 40 years ago hookers hooked => 7 v 8 shove, versus today ? - bajada aside of course! I have a thought or twenty (and Ian's last sentence is a large part of those ), but I am interested in what y'all think is why this wasn't an issue decades...

its a dead art at these higher/pro/elite levels. Nobody strikes any longer. Recent law requirements just mean a hooker waggles a foot minimally somewhere in the tunnel as the ball is put underneath the second row's feet.

I'd like to see that trialled across ALL levels Ian. Seems a decent stab at a sensible enough solution.

and of course NOW the side receiving the PK CAN opt for a scrum. funny old world innit ?

This

well, I dont see that as overly complex? Volun-selected's suggestions is no different to a PK to touch then. If we are going down the route of no QT its the same mentality as a PK to touch - ie other side cant QT. same same. Id suggest the tackle height laws at only certain levels of the game...

Can't disagree with that. like an "old fashioned penalty" (plus the no QT etc)

This. A drum I've been banging (Im sure to all of you's sighing!) for years.

BikingBud for president

oh absolutely. though the end result is all the games that are NOT on TV - approximately 99.999999999999999999999999999% of them globally - will have to have the same set of laws.

thats what YOU do. Will that however be universal? And maybe - just maybe - that saves the ONE try that saves the game for the pushing early side... Frankly that no FKs to scrums thing is drafted by somebody yet again who hasn't the foggiest. Long playing record time - FKs outside of 22s are...

perhaps as per other posters here he had told them to keep quiet and not bother him ;-)

I know that, you know that, we know that ... but....

something I wrote 27 years ago... https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.rugby.union/c/Eq0rvyTd2iQ/m/NCkZf5XuqBEJ

PT probably for "I'm bored of repeated PKs in this zone" TBH.