Scrums and rolling mauls.

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Uncle Dav » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:23:05



Quote:

> 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.

Watching one of the traditional Easter league derbies, Mrs UD asked "why
do they bother with scrums in league?"  I told her it's a mean of
re-starting play, but it does seem daft, just as constant re-setting and
penalising in union scrums does.  Once in a very long while you see
league teams pushing at scrums and turning the ball over, but surely a
tap and go would make more sense?

In union it's becoming more and more of a shambles.  For purely safety
reasons, it will eventually disappear and while it can ostensibly give
an advantage, I think we could easily do away with it sooner rather than
later.

UD

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Mentalguy2k » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:52:02


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.

But this will never change because pro rugby players play to win, it doesn't
matter how they win. They'll all say afterwards "yeah it would have been
nice to score 5 tries and entertain the crowd but it's better to play
negatively and win than to play flair rugby and lose". A team who has just
won a game has no regrets, everything's rosy.

You can bring in as many rule changes as you like, but teams will just adapt
to push those rules to gain an advantage (and win) like they have the
existing rules. Clubs pay their players to win games and titles, they don't
pay them to keep people on the edge of their seats and the players' loyalty
is to the club first, audience second.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Mentalguy2k » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:02:26


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!

Like the kick and chase, there's just no point in it because referees ignore
the run-blockers. Defenders *clearly* watch the runner and either take a few
steps then stop dead in his path or run across him, both with the "look ref
I'm not" hands-in-the-air routine - clear pre-meditated obstruction, never
penalised.

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by caspar milquetoas » Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:21:29

Quote:


> But this will never change because pro rugby players play to win, it doesn't

> matter how they win. They'll all say afterwards "yeah it would have been

> nice to score 5 tries and entertain the crowd but it's better to play

> negatively and win than to play flair rugby and lose". A team who has just

> won a game has no regrets, everything's rosy.

> You can bring in as many rule changes as you like, but teams will just adapt

> to push those rules to gain an advantage (and win) like they have the

> existing rules. Clubs pay their players to win games and titles, they don't

> pay them to keep people on the edge of their seats and the players' loyalty

> is to the club first, audience second.

Yes, of course players will try and exploit any rule change to their own advantage, and it is constantly a battle of assets against liabilities that the rule change promotes more positive plays than loopholes to be exploited.

But crowds don't pay just to see their team win, not even die-hard curmudgeons; they want to see the best features of rugby demonstrated with skill and daring, AND their team to win as a result.

And rugby must meet this need. It's no good Uncle Daving it and just throwing up the hands and moaning, eee by gum it's all gone ter shit since I were lad like.

If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. Socrates said that. Either him or some new age HR consultant. The engine must be fine-turned until racing at peak performance, and other unlikely metaphors.  

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Colin Ree » Wed, 03 Apr 2013 01:15:57

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

For those who can listen to it, this is quite enlightening.  You can feel
Phil Vickery and Brian Moore getting more frustrated as various people
talk about new laws and trials, but no-one will give a straight answer as
to why referees don't penalise for early pushes or crooked feeds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/
b01rxp8z/5_live_Sport_5_live_Rugby_The_Scrum/

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Mentalguy2k » Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:00:59


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

> For those who can listen to it, this is quite enlightening.  You can feel
> Phil Vickery and Brian Moore getting more frustrated as various people
> talk about new laws and trials, but no-one will give a straight answer as
> to why referees don't penalise for early pushes or crooked feeds.

Maybe referees deliberately ignore a crooked feed because it gets the ball
in and out quicker and the less time a scrum is "competing", the less things
can go wrong.
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Dechuck » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:09:02


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.

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

the empasis on free flowing rugby leads to the mess we are in now with
scrums and the breakdown. How many times do you see the ref telling the 1/2
back to put the ball into a scrum that is wheeling or unsteady

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.
===============================================

As a ref you don't search for penalties but do implement the laws

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ref is not there to guide the players but to make sure it is a fair
contest

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.

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

exactly apply the laws as they stand

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

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

the rolling maul has always been legalised offside

 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Colin Ree » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:01:25

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

>> For those who can listen to it, this is quite enlightening.  You can
>> feel Phil Vickery and Brian Moore getting more frustrated as various
>> people talk about new laws and trials, but no-one will give a straight
>> answer as to why referees don't penalise for early pushes or crooked
>> feeds.

> Maybe referees deliberately ignore a crooked feed because it gets the
> ball in and out quicker and the less time a scrum is "competing", the
> less things can go wrong.

For Nigel Owens' excuses you'll need to go to the end of the programme,
and then - since it was cut short - carry on here to listen to Moore and
Vickery's responses.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/
b01p44tl/5_live_Sport_5_live_Extreme_06_12_2012/
 
 
 

Scrums and rolling mauls.

Post by Colin Ree » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:38:10

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

>>> For those who can listen to it, this is quite enlightening.  You can
>>> feel Phil Vickery and Brian Moore getting more frustrated as various
>>> people talk about new laws and trials, but no-one will give a straight
>>> answer as to why referees don't penalise for early pushes or crooked
>>> feeds.

>> Maybe referees deliberately ignore a crooked feed because it gets the
>> ball in and out quicker and the less time a scrum is "competing", the
>> less things can go wrong.

> For Nigel Owens' excuses you'll need to go to the end of the programme,
> and then - since it was cut short - carry on here to listen to Moore and
> Vickery's responses.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/
> b01p44tl/5_live_Sport_5_live_Extreme_06_12_2012/

Whole programme available as a downloadable podcast.  Don't know if this
is accessible to people outside the UK, but well worth a listen.  
Interesting discussion of the new experiments being tried down-under with
respect to binding the front rows first and therefore lessening the
"hit".  Seems to chime with a few contributors here.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/
podcasts/5live/5lspecials/5lspecials_20130328-2058a.mp3