PDA

View Full Version : crooked feeds



Roy Williams
06-06-11, 20:06
CROOKED FEEDS
Has it now become acceptable - without changing the rules? On odd occasions one will be penalised but it is a token gesture. If so let's change the rule and not slip it in by default.
The same can be said about non-straight lineout throws.

Any clarifcation on policy would helpful.

OB..
06-06-11, 20:06
Welcome.

Despite the can of worms question!

Lineouts and scrums are very different. The scrum gives a significant advantage to the team throwing in, so much so that a heel against the head is like hens' teeth outside local parks.

The RFU defined "straight" to mean that some part of the ball should be over the mid-line. To me that means the hooker should have to hook the ball, which gives at least something to the opposition, since they will usually have an 8-man shove going.

Refereeing this is not easy since there are more important safety related issues such as props lifting, twisting etc. Moreover the ball only travels 1m and is inside a tunnel of legs.

I agree that a lot of the time it has gone too far. I would like to see the referee insist that the scrum was "stationary and parallel" (Law 20.1 (j)) before he allowed the scrum half to throw the ball in. Then he would have time to look for a crooked feed.

At a lineout the ball has to travel at least 5m in the air before it is played, so it is much easier to spot a crooked throw. Moreover the lineout is a much closer contest, with a smaller built-in advantage to the throwing team - that means straightness is more significant. "Straight" means it gets played between the shoulders of the two lines (allowing for closing the gap to compete for it). I claim that this is in general well refereed.

Davet
06-06-11, 21:06
Roy,

Policy, at grass roots level, is that not straight is not accepted.

Deeps
06-06-11, 21:06
Roy,

Policy, at grass roots level, is that not straight is not accepted.

Here, here.

dave_clark
06-06-11, 21:06
Roy,

Policy, at grass roots level, is that not straight is not accepted.

is it? one of the ELRA courses i've hosted, the tutor (former level 2, current level 7) said that he wasn't concerned about scrum feeds. better things to be worried about.

i disagreed with him however, given the choice between a former top level ref and a tosser with a bad back, i suspect the attendeesnwould have sided with him.

OB..
06-06-11, 22:06
Phil Vickery said he was not bothered about the feed unless it was ridiculous (he didn't phrase it quite like that!)

B52 REF
06-06-11, 23:06
OB- not sure RFU policy is "some part of ball must be over middle line". Some years ago mr.lander postulated this and there was an rfu training video showing end of ball hitting mid line as o.k. Myself and others vigorously contested this ("thin end of wedge etc." "fair contest" "straight along the middle line"). After heated debate i believe it was concluded that steve and the videos imporession that "a little bit not straight is o.k i.e. "most" of the ball on one side of the middle line was a bad place to start from in trying to ensure a staight fair contest. " The Video was withdrawn.
Players should endeavour to get the middle of the ball to land on the middle of the line so there is fair comp. and we should manage their efforts accordingly.

B52 REF
06-06-11, 23:06
Also about 3 (?) years ago at lensbury pre-season we were told following IRB guidance to apply zero tolerance to crooked feeds as one of the seasons "themed priorities" - 4 weeks into the season all the t.v. refs seemed to have forgotten this advice (or were told to ?) and they went back to normal -i.e. only ping if outrageous whereas us "community" refs continue to apply the law as writ.

OB..
06-06-11, 23:06
OB- not sure RFU policy is "some part of ball must be over middle line". Some years ago mr.lander postulated this and there was an rfu training video showing end of ball hitting mid line as o.k. Myself and others vigorously contested this ("thin end of wedge etc." "fair contest" "straight along the middle line"). After heated debate i believe it was concluded that steve and the videos imporession that "a little bit not straight is o.k i.e. "most" of the ball on one side of the middle line was a bad place to start from in trying to ensure a staight fair contest. " The Video was withdrawn.
Players should endeavour to get the middle of the ball to land on the middle of the line so there is fair comp. and we should manage their efforts accordingly.

I remember the video, but we simply accepted it. Nobody said it had been withdrawn.
I'll stick with my Phil Vickery quote - there are more important things because you have no real chance of heeling against the head.

SimonSmith
07-06-11, 00:06
USA Rugby instructions are zero tolerance

FlipFlop
07-06-11, 06:06
USA Rugby instructions are zero tolerance

Give USA Rugby management guidelines general trends in these things, then this proves the rest of the world is deliberately ignoring it! :D :D :D

chopper15
07-06-11, 08:06
USA Rugby instructions are zero tolerance

Re. OB: I would like to see the referee insist that the scrum was "stationary and parallel" (Law 20.1 (j)) before he allowed the scrum half to throw the ball in. Then he would have time to look for a crooked feed.

. . . but only as a fanciful objective, Simon.:hap:

SimonSmith
07-06-11, 13:06
I get the impression not.

It came up at the Assessors Course I was attending. We were fixed with a very steely gaze and told "zero tolerance", even for our higher grade referees.

We'll see. This comes out every couple of years or so and nothing ever changes, so I won't hold my breath. I, however, will be looking at it when I assess

Simon Thomas
07-06-11, 13:06
what is Altonian David (aka Dave) Metcalf's view on this topic ?

B52 REF
07-06-11, 13:06
ST- From the horses (or daves anyway) mouth "Scrum feed must be contestable and straight into the tunnel between the front
rows. A zero tolerance approach is expected."

why not come to esher thursday night and ask him if he's around or even compare romain p's zero tolerance with n.owens-over a few jars courtesy of the chairman :)

B52 REF
07-06-11, 14:06
oops- meant weds. night- churchill cup

Simon Thomas
07-06-11, 14:06
oops- meant weds. night- churchill cup

Sorry m8, I will at Benares (http://benaresrestaurant.com/) in Berkeley Square dining with clients - someone has to do it :wink: !

Give Mr Metcalf my best regards if you see him.

B52 REF
07-06-11, 16:06
clients? - you could have opted for something other than a cheap curry!!:wink: enjoy- and if you hear a nightingale sing you've missed the train home.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
07-06-11, 17:06
Sorry m8, I will at Benares (http://benaresrestaurant.com/) in Berkeley Square dining with clients - someone has to do it :wink: !



100 for a curry?? :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

My Indian's 12 tops and bring you're own Cobra (no licence) - 7.95 on a Tuesday!

Michelin stars my shiny arse!!!:mad:

Simon Thomas
07-06-11, 17:06
clients? - you could have opted for something other than a cheap curry!!:wink: enjoy- and if you hear a nightingale sing you've missed the train home.

it's ok, I am staying overnight in a little hotel round the corner on Picadilly.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
07-06-11, 17:06
it's ok, I am staying overnight in a little hotel round the corner on Picadilly.

I bet you get a bloody taxi as well!!:wink:

OB..
07-06-11, 18:06
I bet you get a bloody taxi as well!!:wink:

I bet he needs it!! :cool:

Bryan
07-06-11, 19:06
Back on topic.

In the IRB "Key Areas" memo I got last week, there was NO MENTION of scrum put-ins. "Zero tolerance" was only used on early engagement and failing to engage (i.e. the soft hit).

The focus is on binding and body positions, and not on the #9.

Deeps
07-06-11, 20:06
Before we become polarized, the over riding principle must be a fair competition for the ball, regardless of the probability of getting one against the head. Just because it is unlikely is not a valid reason to ignore the requirements of Law. Similarly, stating that there are more important things to be looking for is a cop out; either get the scrum process sorted so that it is not that dangerous or employ an AR to look for you.

Make it fair then you might encourage the old art of hooking back into the game again to complement the otherwise boring spectacle of two minor herds of beef pushing against each other. We seem too quick to eradicate individual skills and to replace them with organised muscle instead.

While managing a Colts squad for a level 6 club, I was privileged to witness a young man who had an uncanny knack of stealing the ball against the head, in some cases while his own scrum was being pushed back. It was a pleasure to watch as it caused consternation among oppositions accustomed to fed balls and 8 man shoves.

didds
07-06-11, 22:06
because you have no real chance of heeling against the head.


and certainly with the ball anything but straight there is NO chance of heeling it against the head! ;-)


its a circular argument, and we've been here before - so now the side not putting in see no point in a heel, so they try other shenanagins, and the side putting in have to use their added shenanagins to combat the initial shenanagins except sometimes the secondarty shenanagins becomes the primary shenaagins and so the non putting side have to use tertiary shenanagins to counteract the primary shenagins that was delivered as a secondary shenanagins early etc.

When you aren't interested in striking, binding, pulling back, dropping, lifting, boring, shoving early, getting a bigger hit etc etc become far more imperative/important/desperate.

BM puts it better.

didds

OB..
07-06-11, 22:06
Before we become polarized, the over riding principle must be a fair competition for the ball, regardless of the probability of getting one against the head.But the competition in the scrum is not dead even (= fair?) because the side throwing in have a built-in advantage.
Just because it is unlikely is not a valid reason to ignore the requirements of Law. True, but that was not the argument. I would like us to be able to judge the throw-in, which is why I advocate getting the scrum stationary and parallel before the referee lets the scrum half thrown the ball in. Then a crooked feed can get a higher priority, since many safety related issues will already have been resolved.
Similarly, stating that there are more important things to be looking for is a cop outNO.
either get the scrum process sorted so that it is not that dangerous or employ an AR to look for you. Yes to the process (let's make it reasonable for the referee to judge), but no to the AR for the same reasons as not asking him to judge forward passes.


Make it fair then you might encourage the old art of hooking back into the game again AIUI it is received wisdom at the top levels that you cannot seriously expect to win a tight head unless the opponents make an error - you are better off concentrating on the 8 man shove.

OB..
07-06-11, 22:06
and certainly with the ball anything but straight there is NO chance of heeling it against the head! ;-)

But I am advocating that the referee should get the scrum stationary and parallel precisely so that the referee can then have the time to watch the throw.

I was making the point that even if the throw in IS straight, in a modern scrum you have no realistic chance of winning a tight head. Having the throw-in straight forces the hooker to hook which at least gives some small benefit back to the defenders.

A scrum is (usually) a penalty for a minor infringement. It is not entirely appropriate to want it to be a fully even contest, even if that were possible. Let's not push that aspect too far.

didds
07-06-11, 22:06
I missed your earlier point OB - apologies. Though I have to respectfully disagree that in a straight and stable scrum with the ball put in along the middle there is no realistic chance of winning a tight head. back in the day when maybe scrums werre like this (god knows - I was too busy blowing out of my large derriere!) my mate Bobby Barrett used to take heads quite regularly - including against Steve Brain :-)

didds

B52 REF
07-06-11, 23:06
OB -Fair does not mean even/equal, the putting in side at LO and scrum have several advantages making it rightly an unequal comp.- why add to those advantages by allowing unfair comp. for the ball (i.e ignoring crooked feed)

Bryan - the key areas memo. is what the IRB want you/us to concentrate on at present presumably having given up on getting you/us to follow their last 3 edicts on zero tolerance over crooked feeds :wink:

OB..
08-06-11, 00:06
OB -Fair does not mean even/equal, the putting in side at LO and scrum have several advantages making it rightly an unequal comp.- why add to those advantages by allowing unfair comp. for the ball (i.e ignoring crooked feed)I have never argued that it is right to ignore a crooked feed. I have always claimed that the way the scrum is managed at the moment it is a lower priority than the various safety issues. I would like the scrum management to change so that it is sensible to be able to check the throw.

However I still think the only significant advantage to the opposition of a straight throw would be the opportunity to push 8 against 7.

Deeps
08-06-11, 01:06
OB - Without nitpicking individual points at this late hour, I think we are in broad agreement as to what we should like to happen with the management of the scrum.

I don't like unfair play or players cheating, similarly I don't like the referee establishment ignoring a Law or choosing not to enforce one for whatever reason. It's in the book for a reason and along with all other laws it should be enforced to ensure fair play for failing to do so can easily affect the final result. If the referee is too busy monitoring safety to monitor fair play then scrums are unsafe and need to be changed.

If the elite choose to pay lip service to the iRB's zero tolerance directive then there is a discipline problem that needs addressing.

SimonSmith
08-06-11, 01:06
I agree with Deeps. And I'm going to fan the flames.

The argument seems to be "can't prioritize 'not straight' because I'm so busy with the other stuff"

Well, it seems like M. Poite is the only one doing his damn job then. Scrummage refereeing at the Elite level wouldn't be tolerated at the grassroots level. So if they're so busy managing the other stuff, why is it such a mess?

If they're going to just ignore the feed, I'd like to see some benefits from that.

didds
08-06-11, 09:06
However I still think the only significant advantage to the opposition of a straight throw would be the opportunity to push 8 against 7.

welll.. that and the fact that the opposing hooker might have at least a chnace of getting a foot near the ball.

If that advantage was so negligible as to be "impossible" then how have strikes against the head ever happened in the past aside from total cock ups?

didds

didds
08-06-11, 09:06
If the referee is too busy monitoring safety to monitor fair play then scrums are unsafe and need to be changed.

If the elite choose to pay lip service to the iRB's zero tolerance directive then there is a discipline problem that needs addressing.


I like the cut of your jib Sir!

didds

OB..
08-06-11, 10:06
I don't like the referee establishment ignoring a Law or choosing not to enforce one for whatever reason.
I think that is over-simplification. As I have pointed out several times, there is a conflict in the laws between getting the scrum stationary and parallel, and getting the ball in without delay. If you prioritise the latter (Nigel Owens for example), then your attention at the hit should surely be on safety, not crookedness.

Do Match Observers ever record not straight as a non-compliance? If so, why do authorities ignore that? If not, how can you blame the referees for doing what they are expected to do? Simply saying referees should spot crooked throw-ins does not really address the problem, since they cannot act alone.

Phil E
08-06-11, 12:06
I am going to a Sportsmans lunch on Friday (followed by CB dinner in the evening :swet: ) where the guests include Jason Leonard, Ben Kaye and Mervyn Davies.

Should I ask for their comments on scrums?
What would be a well phrased question to ask?

OB..
08-06-11, 12:06
"Is a straight throw-in at a scrum really important?"
"How would you deal with the problem of scrums being reset all too often?"

Bryan
08-06-11, 14:06
Bryan - the key areas memo. is what the IRB want you/us to concentrate on at present presumably having given up on getting you/us to follow their last 3 edicts on zero tolerance over crooked feeds :wink:
I'm with you, but the serious point is that there are bigger concerns at the scrum right now than the put-in, and that the RWC Playoff stage appointments will not be based on how the referee manages the Scrum-half at the scrum!

didds
08-06-11, 15:06
I'm with you, but the serious point is that there are bigger concerns at the scrum right now than the put-in, and that the RWC Playoff stage appointments will not be based on how the referee manages the Scrum-half at the scrum!



but there is a possibility that IF the concerns are dealt with then the rest can follow.

for sure there's one certain way to find out.

didds

andyscott
08-06-11, 15:06
Do Match Observers ever record not straight as a non-compliance? If so, why do authorities ignore that? If not, how can you blame the referees for doing what they are expected to do? Simply saying referees should spot crooked throw-ins does not really address the problem, since they cannot act alone.

It has never been recorded on one of my assessments, mind you I am sure to ping a put in at the start of the game, somewhere mid pitch ;)

tim White
08-06-11, 16:06
It does get reported by me :mad:

B52 REF
10-06-11, 22:06
For the record- churchill cup-8th june messrs poite(RP) and owens(NO);
RP's game- 2 sets of FR unwilling to provide a stable and straight scrum pre-putin i.e. wanting to d**k around. RP spent a lot of time managing this (often on "wrong" side and was only using AR's for "binding" issues),lots of ball into moving scrums but very few resets/collapses. HOWEVER 80% of feeds were crooked.
NO's game- FR's much less inclined to d**k around and scrums stable and straight (NO "wrong" side only once for a reset scrum after collapse). ONLY 10% of feeds crooked (and they could be called marginal).
RP not over happy with his scrum management by his own high standards but apparently liable to get a good review as "2 very difficult packs". Seemingly not over concerned with put in as had "more important things to do".
NO -did he strike it lucky with his FR's that day or was it down to his breif???