PDA

View Full Version : [Scrum] 2016 LAW TRIALS - 20.1 (g) FORMING A SCRUM



Ian_Cook
25-12-15, 20:12
Proposal
• The referee will call “crouch” and then “bind”.
• In the “crouch” position the front rows will be shoulder to shoulder with their opponents (having passively engaged) stable and supporting their own weight without pushing.
• On the “bind” call the props will position their arms in the correct ‘bind’ position. [The correct ‘bind’ is as outlined in current Law 20.1 (g)]
• the front rows (+ back 5 players) will tighten binds and set themselves for the throw-in.
• The ball is then thrown-in without delay, Law 20.5.

Justification
1. The current engagement process is causing significant problems in the Game, and the percentage of successful completions is unacceptably low.
2. The throwing-in team are disadvantaged, as the opponents 8-man shove (power + weight) is coming through prior to the throw-in.
3. We believe that a trial, as outlined above, would enable a very interesting evaluation.

Primary Objectives:
• To ensure the required stability with no ‘hit and/or chase’ and to comply with Law 20.7 (a): “Play in the
scrum begins when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum half”.
• To enable the hooker of the throwing-in team to set and strike for the ball.
• To allow teams who wish to play off the scrum to do so.
• To assist referee decision/sanction accuracy.

chbg
26-12-15, 00:12
Just transfers the early shove from slightly after "Set" to slightly after "Bind" (with the encouragement to "set themselves for the throw-in").

ChrisR
26-12-15, 11:12
3. We believe that a trial, as outlined above, would enable a very interesting evaluation.

Interesting? Not what I'd call it.

Paule23
27-12-15, 23:12
Ensure the current laws regarding an early shove. No need to remove the 'set' which I believe is a useful stage, and gives you time to assess the bind/ensure there is a bind prior to the full engagement.

I don't see how removing the word 'set' prevents the legal early shove, as said by chug it will just move it a little earlier in the sequence.

ChrisR
29-12-15, 14:12
1. The current engagement process is causing significant problems in the Game, and the percentage of successful completions is unacceptably low.
2. The throwing-in team are disadvantaged, as the opponents 8-man shove (power + weight) is coming through prior to the throw-in.

My experience with the CBS engagement sequence is that it is significant step in the right direction when it is appropriately applied. Meaning that at "crouch" the front rows are ear-to-ear, that correct binding is enforced and the the scrum is stable and static before the ball comes in.

I have to ask: At what level are the "problems"? Exactly, what are the problems?

The issues that I've seen on the TV are not a result of CBS and they won't go away by changing the engage sequence.

Decorily
29-12-15, 18:12
I think leaving the scrum half to determine exactly when to throw in the ball is likely to become a problem....would think keeping the current signal from the referee would be a better option!

Ian_Cook
30-12-15, 07:12
1. The current engagement process is causing significant problems in the Game, and the percentage of successful completions is unacceptably low.
2. The throwing-in team are disadvantaged, as the opponents 8-man shove (power + weight) is coming through prior to the throw-in.

My experience with the CBS engagement sequence is that it is significant step in the right direction when it is appropriately applied. Meaning that at "crouch" the front rows are ear-to-ear, that correct binding is enforced and the the scrum is stable and static before the ball comes in.

I have to ask: At what level are the "problems"? Exactly, what are the problems?

The issues that I've seen on the TV are not a result of CBS and they won't go away by changing the engage sequence.

Nonetheless, the scrums were never a real problem with regard to continual collapses and time wasting until the iRB, in its wisdom, put the referee in charge of the engagement. Before that, the players just put the scrum down themselves, put the ball in and got on with it. In and out in seconds.

This is how scrummaging SHOULD be


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdfE_aL0cI

► Referee whistle for scrum.
► 11 sec later, both scrums ready to engage
► 3 sec later, scrum set, ball thrown in
► 4 sec later, ball clear from back of scrum

From referee's whistle to ball in play - 18 seconds. When to you EVER see that in the modern game?


I think leaving the scrum half to determine exactly when to throw in the ball is likely to become a problem....would think keeping the current signal from the referee would be a better option!

I think the exact opposite. See video above

At elite level, scrumhalves practice with their scrum every day and then play on the weekend. I think the SH is far more experienced and in a much better position to judge a stable scrum than a referee.

I have lost count of the number of times when watching showbiz rugby on TV, I am left wondering why the referee is waiting so long to tell the SH to put the ball in when the scrum has been stable for some time.

For mine, as soon as the scrum is square and stable, the SH needs to get it in. If he delays, THEN tell him to get it in.

OB..
30-12-15, 11:12
This is how scrummaging SHOULD be
We cannot re-invent the past because too many things have changed.

tim White
30-12-15, 12:12
We cannot re-invent the past because too many 'professional players' took advantage of it.

We expect a contested restart, otherwise award a free kick.

We want a game for all shapes and sizes, a controlled engagement has given us back this after all the period of massive 'hits'

ChrisR
30-12-15, 13:12
Nonetheless, the scrums were never a real problem with regard to continual collapses and time wasting until the iRB, in its wisdom, put the referee in charge of the engagement. Before that, the players just put the scrum down themselves, put the ball in and got on with it. In and out in seconds.

I also remember them dropping into engage without a crouch. Scary.

I agree that having the referee call the engage allowed both sides to prime the pump and brought on the 'win-the-hit' contest and subsequent problems. But we'll not get that genie back in the bottle. At least we have minimized it by the current sequence.

Feedback from this site seems to indicate that this isn't a grass roots issue and that the delays and resets are considered a problem only because they harm the entertainment value of the professional game. Well then, fine the teams for the delay and resets. Let the teams deal with the players.