What, the new laws haven't worked?
We haven't had many collapses in SR?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-2...?section=sport
Printable View
What, the new laws haven't worked?
We haven't had many collapses in SR?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-2...?section=sport
No it's just that they've always wanted to trial a number of options and obviously this is another one they want to look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
The annoying thing for me is that the Force and Rebels didn't get invited again.
I remember thinking about this during the Kings' embarrassment on Saturday night. THe Kings seemed to set every scrum WAY back from the Force. I commented on it at the time, because I hadn't seen front rows that far apart for years. Usually, these days it's temple to temple, but there was a visible gap during that game. I thought that was the cause of several collapses early in the game, where the Kings would hit, then soften, causing our guys to simply run out of stretch, through not being prepared for all that forward momentum. Once they got our blokes standing up, more than pushing, they started to drive through and made our fellas look pretty ordinary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auntie
Since the ref didn't do anything to fix it, it's hard to blame the kings. Blaming the ref doesn't seem to get us anywhere, so the only blokes you can lay any fault to is the Front row (and after 1/2 time the forwards coach) who didn't step forward in the setup to close the gap, if that had happened a few times, it would have (at least) caused the ref to do something.
Some of the engagements in that game were brutal by modern standards.
Brian Moore (ex-England hooker) is seeking views from rugby fans on elite scrums. If you're interested in taking part, simply fill in this quick and easy 5-question survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JDQP362
As those of you who follow English rugby will know, Brian has very strong views on the modern day scrum and how it is refereed!
Not sure if any of you completed the scrum survey I posted the other day but if you did, here are the results....makes for interesting reading.....some interesting perspectives.
http://www.brianpitbullmoore.com/inf...info_id=218906
A little disappointing that people still believe the referees are acting on their own and ignoring the scrum offences.
no referee acts on their own, and if they did they would end up refereeing the lowest grade every week until they didn't. We have multiple training sessions, coaching, reviewing of game video & assessments. We are coached to only penalise the 'Clear & Obvious' in order to keep the game flowing, i.e. if you have to think was it or wasn't it, it wasn't.
All the refs I know in WA will penalise binding, early engage & the feed if they feel it's beyond the boundaries of acceptable.
The other thing to remember as well is that at the elite level, before the season commences the coaches & referees with the unions all get together to agree on how the game is going to be managed. So the coaches, players & referees are all on the same page as to what the referees are trying to prevent and how they need to coach their teams to stay legal.
A good equivalent is you speeding in your car on the mitchell freeway. You could probably speed most days and not get caught, that doesn't mean the police aren't doing their job, it just means you've been lucky. Eventually you will get caught, this doesn't mean the police are inconsistent, it means that this time they saw it and did something about it.
If you deliberately try to break the law, you will always get away with it more than you get caught, that's the the nature of probability. But once your known to do it, people will watch for you, so the chance of getting caught then are higher.
Sorry Ref but this analogy has no merit. Here we are talking about one ref and one of the assistant refs standing and looking intently at a single piece of play and calling to engagement. Comparing it to a traffic cop looking after the whole of the Mitchel Freeway is admitting that there is too much to observe going on at scrum time and as such its tough to catch all the shenanigans. I hope that is not what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by RugbyRef
The obvious stuff like binding and going early gets pinged most times but there is far too much cheating that sits under the refs nose at scrum time and is constantly missed. Look at Alby and his crooked feeds... bleeding obvious. Look at some of the "best" loose heads around, boring in continuously and getting away with it causing a collapse or wheel. Rarely do these get pinged and if they do it may be once a game.
I still feel that most refs at all levels are focused on one or two things that they have been directed to watch and miss some of the key issues.
When a scrum packs down at the same time and the props push straight, there is hardly ever any issue and it is a fine contest to watch. When the dark arts are applied in the front row, anything is possible and it usually does lead to some form of "guess work" penalty, or so it seems.
In all honesty, how many things are there for a ref to watch?
Set up and spacing (not head to head etc as well as the gap)
Timing of the engage
Have the props bound correctly and are they maintaining their bind?
Are the front rows pushing straight.. ish?
Is the ball fed correctly by the scrum half?
Are the loosy's bound until scrum completion
Is the ball out and the scrum over.
Anything else?
This is the ref's and assistant ref's responsibility to ensure that the above are happening and as such get a smart restart to the game. Player are always going to bend the rules or in the props case, try and blatantly cheat (got to love the props) but the refs are there, two feet away, watching, both sides..... too tough to do?
If so, I do love the idea of an ex prop wandering on at scrum time to oversee the action and discipline those miscreants who ruin one of the most unique aspects of the game.
Note: No disrespects to the refs out there.. would not want your job for love nor money BUT... IMHO they could do better.
Why do the refs call for the ball to be put in? They shouldn't be doing that. The ball should only go in once the scrum is square and steady. Everyone wants to get an advantage on the "hit." The scrum is meant to "PACK," not "hit!" When the scrum packs at the call of "engage" or currently "set," it's not even meant to be moving. It's common knowledge that in the laws of rugby,you're not allowed to push before the ball goes in. The scrum engages, once it's steady and square, the half puts the ball in (straight!) and simultaneously the pushing begins and the hookers strike for it.
The onus should be on the ref and the two packs to get that scrum steady before the ball goes in, no matter how long it takes; if they keep stuffing around, it's a penalty. The idea that the scrum-half has to put the ball in immediately is erroneous. The law says he only puts it in when it's stationary.
Instead of calling "Put it in, half!" while the scrum is moving, the ref should be calling "No pushing! Keep it square! Wait for the ball" etc; and maybe blowing his whistle until he gets his message across.
Although the current practice seems to be (for the attacking team) hit and push immediately whilst the scrumhalf shoots the ball into the tunnel in an attempt to make the most of any advantage. This is easily countered by hitting and pushing just as hard in defense. This is easily countered by hitting and softening, without the scrumhalf feeding the ball, which is countered (by a talented enough front row) by feeling the release and falling on your face (trying your best to keep your shoulders high and not moving your feet) which probably has some sort of counter and reversal until we all get back to the beginning again. No wonder refs so often guess about scrum penalties.