Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

      
  1. #21

    Referees in Australia
    TigerCraig's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Sydney North & NSWRRA
    Grade
    Level 1 Ref/Level 2 AR
    Join Date
    19 May 08
    Posts
    1,361
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    195

    Default Re: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

    Quote Originally Posted by didds View Post
    But surely only if the destruction is becoming unsafe? If its just a case as per what we saw last saturday of the beaten side losing players off the edges, and spinning around loosely with nobody standing up or ending up on the ground, that's not unsafe (certainly compared to a huge smash tackle! LOL ) so why make such a "threat" ?

    didds
    Agree, but if the alternative is a PK at every scrum?

  2. #22

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    9,667
    Thanks (Received)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    930

    Default Re: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

    Well that's my point I guess. The PKs are awarded in these cases because a law that was introduced for a totally different reason (eg keeping defences a tad more open, ensuring props don't bore etc) are being used when those areas of concern are not actually being done. ie the beaten scrum is not boring to cheat on the oppo hooker etc, or detaching to join a defensive line, or running sideways to wheel the oppo and destabalise the oppo ball at the back etc. Beaten scrummagers are merely "not straight" or "lost binds" becasue they are soundly beaten, not because they are trying to get one over on their oppo


    didds
    Last edited by didds; 1 Week Ago at 11:11.

  3. #23
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    301
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    66

    Default Re: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

    Wouldn't it be easier just to move the technical infringements to be FKs, and leave the dangerous/cynical ones as PKs. Multiple FKs become a PK for repeated offence anyway...

    Boring in, pulling down, driving up are all deliberate things...
    Popping up because you are beaten is probably not...

  4. #24
    Coach/Referee

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    03 May 13
    Posts
    850
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    163

    Default Re: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcroker View Post
    Wouldn't it be easier just to move the technical infringements to be FKs, and leave the dangerous/cynical ones as PKs. Multiple FKs become a PK for repeated offence anyway...
    .
    Is this not effectively the way it is at the moment?

  5. #25
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    301
    Thanks (Received)
    10
    Likes (Received)
    66

    Default Re: "Modern" interpretations of scrum dominance.

    I don't recall many FKs against England at the weekend - weren't they all resets or PKs?

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
  •