Scrums and rolling mauls.

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Baldon » Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:39:36


In my humble opinion it takes too long to set a scrum when one could
get on with the game without all these times consuming petty
engagements regarding the formation of setting a scrum, I am talking
about all this "touch" "engage" nonsense that the ref deems necessary.  
I find it too time consuming and would favour scrapping this to make a
more fluent game.  Another old chestnut we would do well to phase out
is the rolling mall where I won't buy into anything that suggests that
players are not off-side.

I think it's time to use scrums as a means to restart the game and this
would be beneficial to take the game into the modern age.  I dare say
that quite a few Englishmen would look at this with horror but I
believe that England should learn to play a more modern expansive game.

--
"Ce n'est qu'un d but, continuons le combat !"

Count Baldoni

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Mentalguy2k » Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:14:03


Quote:
> In my humble opinion it takes too long to set a scrum when one could get
> on with the game without all these times consuming petty engagements
> regarding the formation of setting a scrum, I am talking about all this
> "touch" "engage" nonsense that the ref deems necessary.  I find it too
> time consuming and would favour scrapping this to make a more fluent game.
> Another old chestnut we would do well to phase out is the rolling mall
> where I won't buy into anything that suggests that players are not
> off-side.

> I think it's time to use scrums as a means to restart the game and this
> would be beneficial to take the game into the modern age.  I dare say that
> quite a few Englishmen would look at this with horror but I believe that
> England should learn to play a more modern expansive game.

For all the good scrums are, the referee might as well do that AFL thing
where they whang the ball into the ground so it rebounds high into the air,
and let them fight it out from there.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Dechuck » Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:25:51


Quote:
> In my humble opinion it takes too long to set a scrum when one could get
> on with the game without all these times consuming petty engagements
> regarding the formation of setting a scrum, I am talking about all this
> "touch" "engage" nonsense that the ref deems necessary.  I find it too
> time consuming and would favour scrapping this to make a more fluent game.
> Another old chestnut we would do well to phase out is the rolling mall
> where I won't buy into anything that suggests that players are not
> off-side.

> I think it's time to use scrums as a means to restart the game and this
> would be beneficial to take the game into the modern age.  I dare say that
> quite a few Englishmen would look at this with horror but I believe that
> England should learn to play a more modern expansive game.

If it is just used as a restart we may as well have League "scrums?". Pack
them properly get rid of the "hit" so the scrum is steady at the start and a
straight feed is what is needed imho.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:34:56

Scrums are an essential part of the game, both because of their historical and traditional uniqueness to the game that makes rugby what it is; and because they ensure the necessity of having players with a wide spread of physical attributes -- what other football code gives fatties an essential role? Lose the scrum and we end up with league, a with a forward pack of loose forwards.

What does need to happen is a return to historical scrums. Watch a tape of a gem from the seventies -- the players form and fold into the scrum very quickly and then start pushing. This who ***about the hit is the main cause of instability of modern scrums, and the perceived need to scrum ever lower.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Mentalguy2k » Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:28:55


Quote:
>Scrums are an essential part of the game, both because of their historical
>and traditional uniqueness to the game that makes rugby what it is; and
>because they ensure the necessity of >having players with a wide spread of
>physical attributes -- what other football code gives fatties an essential
>role? Lose the scrum and we end up with league, a with a forward pack >of
>loose forwards.

So maybe the onus is on the fatties to stop ***ing about and do it
properly and fairly if they want to have a role in the game's future. But
it's win-at-all-costs nowadays, so they're not bothered. "One game at a
time" and all that.

Quote:
>What does need to happen is a return to historical scrums. Watch a tape of
>a gem from the seventies -- the players form and fold into the scrum very
>quickly and then start pushing. >This who ***about the hit is the main
>cause of instability of modern scrums, and the perceived need to scrum ever
>lower.

But it's a fact in pro sport that the goal is to push the laws and bend them
out of shape while still technically remaining within them, to gain the best
advantage.

Whatever new rules are brought in for the scrum (or existing rules modified)
it'll take someone 5 seconds to work out how to twist it for the most gain,
one team will perfect it and within a week, every team will spot it and be
doing it. Like the wonky scrum feed, it had to start somewhere but there's
no scrum-half these days who respects the laws and history of the game
enough (or doesn't want to win enough) to say "I'm going to put this one in
straight for the good of rugby and because to do otherwise would be
cheating".

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:39:13

Quote:



> So maybe the onus is on the fatties to stop ***ing about and do it

> properly and fairly if they want to have a role in the game's future. But

> it's win-at-all-costs nowadays, so they're not bothered. "One game at a

> time" and all that.

It can't be up to the players. The front rows aren't going to get together before the game and agree to do old-fashioned scrums. No player is going to nobly set a new standard by not going the hit, not packing higher, and not  pushing until after the ball has gone in. They have an obligation to their clubs, their team mates and their supporters to  rort every rule in the book to try and get an advantage.

Once again, it's up to the IRB, so there is less chance of anything constructive happening than of Mowithey admitting he's a fat *** Australian.

Quote:

> But it's a fact in pro sport that the goal is to push the laws and bend them

> out of shape while still technically remaining within them, to gain the best

> advantage.

Exactly. Which coaches and players have always done once the old private school play the game for the game's sake
 rah rah ethos died out.

Quote:

> Whatever new rules are brought in for the scrum (or existing rules modified)

> it'll take someone 5 seconds to work out how to twist it for the most gain,

> one team will perfect it and within a week, every team will spot it and be

> doing it. Like the wonky scrum feed, it had to start somewhere but there's

> no scrum-half these days who respects the laws and history of the game

> enough (or doesn't want to win enough) to say "I'm going to put this one in

> straight for the good of rugby and because to do otherwise would be

> cheating".

If the rules say there's to be no hit, I don't see how the team can rort that. If the rules say no pushing until the ball has gone in, likewise.Some things really are just black and white. And I'm not all that concerned about how straight the feed is. The scrum is a restart after one team makes an error. The offending team shouldn't have too many opportunities to benefit from that. I'm not saying the ball can go under the number eight's feet exactly. As long as it goes in the tunnel, I'm not too fussed.
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Gib Bogl » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:13:34


Quote:
> Whatever new rules are brought in for the scrum (or existing rules
> modified) it'll take someone 5 seconds to work out how to twist it for
> the most gain, one team will perfect it and within a week, every team
> will spot it and be doing it. Like the wonky scrum feed, it had to start
> somewhere but there's no scrum-half these days who respects the laws and
> history of the game enough (or doesn't want to win enough) to say "I'm
> going to put this one in straight for the good of rugby and because to
> do otherwise would be cheating".

Maybe the ref should put the ball in.
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Dechuck » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 08:34:23


Quote:



> So maybe the onus is on the fatties to stop ***ing about and do it

> properly and fairly if they want to have a role in the game's future. But

> it's win-at-all-costs nowadays, so they're not bothered. "One game at a

> time" and all that.

It can't be up to the players. The front rows aren't going to get together
before the game and agree to do old-fashioned scrums. No player is going to
nobly set a new standard by not going the hit, not packing higher, and not
pushing until after the ball has gone in. They have an obligation to their
clubs, their team mates and their supporters to  rort every rule in the book
to try and get an advantage.

Once again, it's up to the IRB, so there is less chance of anything
constructive happening than of Mowithey admitting he's a fat ***
Australian.

========================================================================

I personally believe a spate of scrum PENALTIES is needed if the scrum is
not steady at the put in. That is the only way that teams will learn it is
to their disadvantage. Actually it is like the breakdown the laws are clear
penalise and yellow card the players till they learn it is to the teams
disadvantage,

This is one of the problems you get when trying to let the game flow by
ignoring the laws

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:44:41

Quote:


> > Whatever new rules are brought in for the scrum (or existing rules

> > modified) it'll take someone 5 seconds to work out how to twist it for

> > the most gain, one team will perfect it and within a week, every team

> > will spot it and be doing it. Like the wonky scrum feed, it had to start

> > somewhere but there's no scrum-half these days who respects the laws and

> > history of the game enough (or doesn't want to win enough) to say "I'm

> > going to put this one in straight for the good of rugby and because to

> > do otherwise would be cheating".

> Maybe the ref should put the ball in.

Only if he definitely feeds it to the second row. Otherwise the non-offending team's advantage suffers another big setback.
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:53:17

Quote:

> I personally believe a spate of scrum PENALTIES is needed if the scrum is

> not steady at the put in. That is the only way that teams will learn it is

> to their disadvantage. Actually it is like the breakdown the laws are clear

> penalise and yellow card the players till they learn it is to the teams

> disadvantage,

> This is one of the problems you get when trying to let the game flow by

> ignoring the laws

Now now Chucky, stop catering to your inner Englishman.

The last thing that is needed is more penalties. That teaches nobody anything and slows the game to a crawl. And it will only encourage clever teams to sucker the ref into unfairly giving penalties against the opposition, or wildly spray penalties around in the general hope it will punish somebody for doing something.

I'm glad you mentioned the breakdown, because that's a perfect case in point. The actual breakdown as it is interpreted bears absolutely no resemblance to the laws as they are written, and that needs to be cleaned up as a matter of urgency.

Personally I think they should they should abandon the ruck laws entirely, as no actual proper rucks are ever formed in the modern game. They should cover the contest for loose possession entirely in the maul law, make it apply to the ball on the ground as well as being held up, allow hands to be used, and include some provision such as the maul that is moving forward or making any sort of forward progress at all gets the put in. That should encourage teams to commit as many forwards as possible to the breakdown and get them out of the defensive screen where they are currently doing such an excellent  job of turning rugby into league.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by BrritSk » Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:05:14


Quote:

>> Whatever new rules are brought in for the scrum (or existing rules
>> modified) it'll take someone 5 seconds to work out how to twist it for
>> the most gain, one team will perfect it and within a week, every team
>> will spot it and be doing it. Like the wonky scrum feed, it had to start
>> somewhere but there's no scrum-half these days who respects the laws and
>> history of the game enough (or doesn't want to win enough) to say "I'm
>> going to put this one in straight for the good of rugby and because to
>> do otherwise would be cheating".

> Maybe the ref should put the ball in.

Nice.  :)
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Dechuck » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:04:53


Quote:

> I personally believe a spate of scrum PENALTIES is needed if the scrum is

> not steady at the put in. That is the only way that teams will learn it is

> to their disadvantage. Actually it is like the breakdown the laws are
> clear

> penalise and yellow card the players till they learn it is to the teams

> disadvantage,

> This is one of the problems you get when trying to let the game flow by

> ignoring the laws

Now now Chucky, stop catering to your inner Englishman.

The last thing that is needed is more penalties. That teaches nobody
anything and slows the game to a crawl. And it will only encourage clever
teams to sucker the ref into unfairly giving penalties against the
opposition, or wildly spray penalties around in the general hope it will
punish somebody for doing something.

============================================

you break the law you need to be penalised instead of this let things go for
the sake of an open game and hope the players do the right thing. I would
suggest more liberal use of the the yellow card or maybe the introduction of
a green card :-5 min sin bin. One thing the ill fated Australian Cup/
League(?) showed was sin binning players for deliberate violations worked

I'm glad you mentioned the breakdown, because that's a perfect case in
point. The actual breakdown as it is interpreted bears absolutely no
resemblance to the laws as they are written, and that needs to be cleaned up
as a matter of urgency.

Personally I think they should they should abandon the ruck laws entirely,
as no actual proper rucks are ever formed in the modern game. They should
cover the contest for loose possession entirely in the maul law, make it
apply to the ball on the ground as well as being held up, allow hands to be
used, and include some provision such as the maul that is moving forward or
making any sort of forward progress at all gets the put in. That should
encourage teams to commit as many forwards as possible to the breakdown and
get them out of the defensive screen where they are currently doing such an
excellent  job of turning rugby into league.
-------------------------------------------------
1) it will reduce markedly the contest at the breakdown reducing turnover
chances, I just love the 15 phase pick and push NOT

2) it will turn the game into a series of rolling mauls unless the offside
is looked at

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by ian diddam » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:44:23

Quote:

> I am talking about all this "touch" "engage" nonsense that the ref deems
> necessary.  

The ref does not deem it necessary.

the iRB does.

The ref is merely (allegedly) applying the laws at the iRB have drafted them.

Tho I confess the argument quickly falls down seeing as they also seem to ignore plenty of others that the iRB have drafted!

didds

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:50:18

Quote:


> you break the law you need to be penalised instead of this let things go for

> the sake of an open game and hope the players do the right thing. I would

> suggest more liberal use of the the yellow card or maybe the introduction of

> a green card :-5 min sin bin. One thing the ill fated Australian Cup/

> League(?) showed was sin binning players for deliberate violations worked

OK, let's establish two things.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that penalising players leads to more productive play. The British have been following this approach for a century or more and all it leads to is games constantly punctuated by penalties and an emphasis on playing negative rugby that induces penalties for the opposition. And nobody hopes that players will mysteriously decide to do the right thing. Players have to be wheeled, coaxed, persuaded, cajoled, instructed, commanded and threatened into doing the right thing -- and many of them will, which removes the need for the game to stop for yet another ***ing penalty. The point of rugby is not to watch the referee blow his whistle -- the point of rugby is to enjoy playing the game; and enjoy watching the game.

Secondly, and logically subsequent to that final point, the referee's job is not to constantly and diligently search for infringements on the field that can be awarded a penalty. There are about nine*** of those a second and theoretically seventy-five minutes of every game could be absorbed in the awarding and execution of penalties. Now, even the law book actually states that penalties are not to be awarded on purely pedantic, technical grounds but only when they have materially disadvantaged the non-poffending team.

So let's get right away from the whole concept of managing the game by penalties, and focus on positive and productive guidance from sensible, well-considered laws, through education, good coaching and positive, proactive game management by referees. It is not "letting things go". It is guiding the players to fulfil the whole point of the game -- enjoyable play and enjoyable spectacle.  

Quote:

> 1) it will reduce markedly the contest at the breakdown reducing turnover

> chances, I just love the 15 phase pick and push NOT

I disagree. There is currently little contest at the breakdown after the initial tackle. There is a brief period where a single defender has access to the ball and then the attacking loose forwards, and often backs, arrive, dive over the ruck and seal off access, drive defending players from the ruck and back into their own territory, and tackle adjacent players without the ball and remove them from the vicinity -- all in complete disregard from any number of laws.  Get teams to commit all their forwards to the breakdown as the game was intended to do, and make movement a necessity so that every breakdown does not simply become stacks on the mill.

Quote:
> 2) it will turn the game into a series of rolling mauls unless the offside

> is looked at

The first thing I would do is make it legal to collapse the maul. Defending teams would hesitate to do that, because the attacking team had forward movement and would retain possession. Instead, there would be incentive for them to commit all their forwards and try and push the maul back the other way. If it became stationary, the ref could order the team in possession to use it or lose it, and away we go, with lost of space out wide.
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by alve » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:12:44

snip boring

Quote:

> Secondly, and logically subsequent to that final point, ...

lol.