Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 102

Thread: Front row player forced up

      
  1. #61
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 3
    Join Date
    03 Sep 14
    Posts
    3,330
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Received)
    507

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Ok you know best.


    CBS?


    Crouch Bind Set. Oh dear.

    Time for ignore I feel.

  2. #62
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    108
    Blog Entries
    1

    Cool Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by Pegleg View Post
    Ok you know best.


    CBS?


    Crouch Bind Set. Oh dear.

    Time for ignore I feel.
    nope. Trying to get pre CBS linked to your LHP position. Hardly a relevant association.

    So what position did you play post CBS?
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 03-07-17 at 22:07.

  3. #63
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    1,049
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    108
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    Easier, ChuckieB? In what way?
    Moving to the dark side of observance of the laws.

  4. #64
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    441
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    89

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I'd suggest that if its because the player is not strong/experienced enough to deal with it, then he needs to be subbed for someone that can. If there isn't anybody then the ref will need to be advised and the scums will need to go uncontested. its not as if there are no options at all, and burying heads in the sand won't help the situation ultimately.

    My "accepting" of it was ditected at the more elite end of the scale - you rightly identify that there are two games in operation under one set of laws - and if standing up is stopping the oppo from benefiting from skillful play then it needs to be penalised. In this regard I maintain then that standing up needs to be properly outlawed rather than bending another law to achieve that ... when very possibly the law that is being shoe horned into use may not actually be being broken.

    didds
    My memory of playing, is that the first team to 'Stand up' had lost the contest and as such were now usually marching back to either;
    a] lose their ball .... or release it to their 9 under now significant pressure to get it away
    or
    b] if the shovers had the ball then they simply controlled the ball & marched downfield until the opposition either halted them or committed some other PK offence further downfield.

    A good 8/9 would then assess a retreating back division & with his back row break-a-way. [I'm now getting misty eyed!]

    Id like to think that if there were less early PK'ng of the stand'rs we might actually see more back-row-breakaways returning to the game [advantage being played] a bit like some of these https://youtu.be/jUz1ytcnn3c

    i'm suggesting that 'standing up' should be removed from the PK dictionary.
    Last edited by VM75; 04-07-17 at 19:07.

  5. #65
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,227
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Received)
    320

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    VM75: "i'm suggesting that 'standing up' should be removed from the PK dictionary."


    It's not even in the rugby dictionary! But I agree with the point that you make.

  6. #66
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    441
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    89

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    I'd suggest that if its because the player is not strong/experienced enough to deal with it, then he needs to be subbed for someone that can. If there isn't anybody then the ref will need to be advised and the scrums will need to go uncontested. its not as if there are no options at all, and burying heads in the sand won't help the situation ultimately.

    My "accepting" of it was directed at the more elite end of the scale - you rightly identify that there are two games in operation under one set of laws - and if standing up is stopping the oppo from benefiting from skillful play then it needs to be penalised. In this regard I maintain then that standing up needs to be properly outlawed rather than bending another law to achieve that ... when very possibly the law that is being shoe horned into use may not actually be being broken.

    didds
    This is where we differ. Fundamentally I don't agree that a scrum should go uncontested merely because my props are stronger than yours. If your props conceded the scrum by standing up then that's tough, their backs will now have to retreat for as long as my team have the ball at the 8's feet. We may break off to launch an attack whilst we drive forwards, but we may wait for a retreating player to infringe a law.

    Imagine that our tactical advantage is that we have strong forwards & conversely you have fast backs - that's rugby Didds, utilise whatever advantage you have, rather than reward a standing-up team by creating an 'uncontested situation' - that only serves to cancel my teams stronger scrum.

    Pro rugby just wants the game to restart 'somehow' so it's invented this go-forward reward, until someone can come up with a set of laws that can transcend the divide between Pro & community then we are stuck with the current position.

    IMO it's Hobsons choice, amateur guys need the 'escape valve' pro game wants to stop the defending side from ruining the spectacle.

    I'm all ears, if someones got a better 'workable' solution

  7. #67
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,227
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Received)
    320

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    I've got some ideas but they won't be universally popular.

    If . . . the purpose of the scrum is to restart the game with a fair contest for the ball
    Then . . . limit the drive forward until the contest for the ball has been won.

    That means that if the team in possession is being driven back the scrum continues but the drive forward must end if the go-forward team has possession. This law stops being applied if the ball is within 5m of goal.

    A scrum going backwards may wheel the scrum by any means.

    If you belong to the Church of the Dominant Scrum you may not like these. If you'd like to see the scrum return to its original purpose then you might.
    Last edited by ChrisR; 13-07-17 at 21:07.

  8. #68

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,727
    Thanks (Received)
    64
    Likes (Received)
    937

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    This is where we differ. Fundamentally I don't agree that a scrum should go uncontested merely because my props are stronger than yours.
    I was talking about grass roots down with the dead men levels. I would suggest that a ref that continued with contested scrums when one of the FR players was clearly not able to cope ie was obviously not ST&E, would be putting himself in a difficult place if anything subsequently went very wrong.

    I agree at elite levels that shouldn't ever happen.

    didds
    Last edited by didds; 14-07-17 at 10:07.

  9. #69

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,727
    Thanks (Received)
    64
    Likes (Received)
    937

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisR View Post
    I've got some ideas but they won't be universally popular.

    If . . . the purpose of the scrum is to restart the game with a fair contest for the ball
    Then . . .
    ... why not just use U19 laws? can't wheel, can't drive more than 1.5m

    I wouldn't want to see it personally. But if its ONLY supposed to be a restart why not? (Devil's Advocate here!)

    Or of course it may actually be an area of skill and strength, which goes past the requirement to just restart the game but instead be in itself a contest for the ball.

    didds
    Last edited by didds; 14-07-17 at 10:07.

  10. #70
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    3,227
    Thanks (Received)
    33
    Likes (Received)
    320

    Default Re: Front row player forced up

    This is my point:

    Once the ball has been won and is available at the #8's feet the purpose of the scrum has been achieved. With the exception of 5m scrums any further driving by the ball winning scrum is now for the purpose of earning a penalty. This the blight that is the top level games.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •