PDA

View Full Version : uncontested scrums following sin bins



didds
12-11-05, 21:11
today;s eng/aus game made me consider the follwing scenario...

team A has a strong opack and have outscrummaged team B for over an hour. Team B are under pressure on their own line at scrummage time. The slip and slide and collapse once too many times - trhe ref yellow cards a prop. Off cgoes the prop.

Team A elect for a scrum as trheor penalty - on comes a replavcement prop and off goes a flanker. Down goes the scrum, team A heave away, team B slip and slide and eventually collapse once too mahy times.

Ref awards PT and suin bins another prop.

Team A slot the conversion, catch the restart and within a minutre are back under team B's posts, their scrum feed...


but Team B now have no STE front rows left as two props are in the sin bin for another 7 minutes at least... so the scrums go uncontested. (or however many sinbins are needed to get to thise position as per the level opf the game).

I fully accept safety is paramount - I hage no problem with the NEED to go to uncontested sscrums because of this.

BUT...

Team A are now effectively prevented from using what is a totally legal advantage BECAUSE team B's "cheating"has left them deviod of suitable front rows

Is this equitable?
If not - what are the alternatives, especially seeing as clearly teams cannot be expected to keep a bench of an "infiinte" number of STE FR.

didds



(note : I am not talking of unfortunate injuries, of which nobody can legelislate for. Incidentally apparently it was only a slight neck strin after all for that unfortunate Australian chap. Not that I am actually surprised at the lack of severity of his injury .... ;-).

Simon Griffiths
12-11-05, 22:11
I'm a firm believer that a sin-binning that forces uncontested scrums should have further ramifications. For example a one week ban. It might make them think twice about cheating again.

Any other ideas to go in the melting pot, sadly this is becoming quite an issue, certainly at the top levels, luckily it doesn't seem to be quite so prevelant further down.

ex-lucy
12-11-05, 23:11
penalty try ..... has to be ...

o/wise why bother in having props that look like me ..

AlanT
12-11-05, 23:11
How about:

(a) giving an extra 5m/10m forward for every scrum where the oppos don't have a full FR, (ie to compensate the full FR team for an advantage they would otherwise have), and

(b) the oppos having to remove another man from the pitch if the scrum is within 5m/10m of their line until the ball next goes dead.

Ricampbell
13-11-05, 10:11
I would suggest that in the first instance then bring on the sub - as is current practice.

In the second instance or whatever instance that makes unplayables if they can only bring on a player that cannot allow scrums to go ahead then they cannot bring him/her on. IE a one man advantage becomes two if there has been a binning and an injury.

There is the injury situation to also think about but it is an idea

didds
14-11-05, 12:11
I'm a firm believer that a sin-binning that forces uncontested scrums should have further ramifications. For example a one week ban. It might make them think twice about cheating again.

simon - an interestind idea. The one "problem" with it is that it still does nothing to overcome the loss of a legal attacking weapon by the non-offending team.

I did see a suggestion elsewhere that the non-offendinfg team can play as few as 3 in the scrummage (sin-binned team must still pack all 8) thus giving them numbers elsewhere...

didds

didds
14-11-05, 12:11
ex-lucy ... so you award a PT for EVERY scrum whilst the props are in the sin-bin?

I am not sure I have understood you here.

didds

didds
14-11-05, 12:11
alant- very interesting ideas ... and certainly getting closer to some equity.

It is tough on the innocent 3rd party that has to leave the field through no fault of his own of course, but that unfortunate situation already exists ...

didds

ExHookah
14-11-05, 12:11
o/wise why bother in having props that look like me ..

Good point. With fewer and fewer circuses left, we need to allow somewhere for props like you to perform ;)

Robert Burns
14-11-05, 13:11
It was said by one of our Australian refs (Tim I think) about giving the non offending side the option of having a free kick instead of the scrum during the uncontested period.

The more I think about it the more I like this idea, the offending team doesn't get this choice and just has the normal scrum.

didds
14-11-05, 14:11
... except as we have debated on anoytjer thread somewhere sometime that a FK is a bit of a mnixed blessing and that in many cases its fairly toothless - it can't be kicked directly to touch to gain territory (aside from within a 22), the oppo probably in most cases has enough time to create a curtain defence, and so there is little option but to crash it up to create a ruck/maul in order to attempt to recreate the benefits of a scrummage ie oppo forwards concentrated in one area.

And of course in this case the scrummage option has all but disappeared ... even if still permissable to elect for it, the oppo back rowe aren't held in by any pressure ands are on their toes ready to "attack".

didds

Brian Ravenhill
14-11-05, 14:11
The surprising thing from Saturday was how long it took Eddie Jones to work out how to nullify the English scrum. Sadly in the past few years I have had two games go to un-contested scrums immediately after half time because the first prop has injured his back from running backwards so fast at scrum time, only to be replaced by an other prop who’s back goes at the first scrum engagement.
I have no proof that this was similar to Saturday’s scenario but it wouldn’t surprise me that coaches at that level employ those tactics. Gloucester did exactly that a couple of season ago to Leicester, and the laws were amended to ensure that props should play either side of the scrum. Something has to be done to sort this out or else we risk losing the scrumage as we know it in the game.

PS did anyone see CBBC plugging the new Jonnie Wilkinson Hot Shots, and an interview with Phil Greening and an Under 20’s England fly half? I turned to my 4 year old son and said ‘Daddy has played against the fat one.’ To which my son replied ‘What the one with the funny ears?’ If we de-value the scrumage the cauliflower ear may become extinct.

Davet
14-11-05, 14:11
I was wondering at the time, on Saturday, if England could have politely asked for the ref to un-sin-bin the prop in question. Maybe another player could have been "sacrificed" as per front row rules.

OB..
14-11-05, 15:11
Law 20.1 (f) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.

Exception : When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.

This would imply that England could have removed one player from the scrum, but Australia could not.

Sin-binning is a result of an offence. Injury is not (well, not always ...). I would not like to see a team penalised unduly for genuine injuries, just in order to cater for sin-binnings.

Jacko
14-11-05, 17:11
This would imply that England could have removed one player from the scrum, but Australia could not.



Would it?? I think it implies that the possible scrum numbers would have been Aus 8 against Eng 8
Aus 7 against Eng 8
Aus 8 against Eng 7
Aus 7 against Eng 7

OB..
14-11-05, 18:11
That's funny. 2 hours ago it meant what I said. Now it doesn't. However much I review the video. Jacko's right.

However it would be one way of giving an advantage.

ex-lucy
14-11-05, 20:11
didds .. sorry, i meant with a scenario like Sat .. gold repeatedly dropping it nr their posts ... i felt a pen try was on .. i must stop posting on a sat night ..

in general ... i agree with the idea of a FK or even a PK for the team who goes to uncontested ... being an exprop i think it is heinous to 'give up' this most important area of the game ....

didds
15-11-05, 00:11
sorry Ob - my bad. what I meant was (that I had read elsewhere) there is a suggestion that the laws be changed such trhat a side "inconvenienced" by the oppos sin bins wrt uncontested scrums could then elect to field only a front row (or a front foive or whatever) against the oppo full 8 uncontested etc etc etc.

sorry for the confusion.

didds

Davet
15-11-05, 14:11
Sin-binning is a result of an offence. Injury is not (well, not always ...). I would not like to see a team penalised unduly for genuine injuries, just in order to cater for sin-binnings.

Sin Binnings can be the result of team offences in any event, but regardless..why not penalise the team by removing another player? If the FR player who is unbinned commits a further offence then the sacrificial lamb stays off, if another offence is committed pick another lamb and so on...

OK I know the FR player doesn't suffer for his actions (at least not until he is alone with his "mates" later) but the team does, as they do when a PK goes over, and the stronger scrummaging side is not penalised by going uncontested.

It could be at the request of the innocent teams captain rather than automatic. If that were the case then it would not be a common happening, but would stop sides "deliberately" going uncontested when faced with a dominant opposing pack.