Cockerill Ban amended

[SelimNiai]

It's not so much Richard himself, it's a mentality that he epitomises that seems to be prevalent amongst a large number of Tigers fans.
They always feel as if everyone is out to get them.
Taken in isolation those comments would be forgotten within minutes, the sheer number of complaints he makes is what winds people up.

It's similar to the one that a large minority of Bath fans seem to have too.
Being that they think all of the other clubs are laughing at them for some reason.

Small wonder why these 2 clubs are the ones I pretty much despise

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think you probably hate Bath because you support Bris!

 

[SelimNiai]

I think you probably hate Bath because you support Bris!

Its one of the reasons

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Just came on to post this but you beat me to it.

What an excellent article. My head is spinning from all the nodding I was doing while reading it!

So you circle-nod? As in circle-headbang?

 

[smartcooky]

So you circle-nod? As in circle-headbang?

Literal v figurative language

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I got that, actually

 

[Patchey]

Comments about players returning from International duty injured considered, are Leicester the British version of Toulon?

 

[ratsapprentice]

In what way?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

To be fair that injury comment was mostly newspaper hyperbole. He said it's frustrating they came back injured, which it would be as they're two of his starting players.

That Moore article is excellent, as well. Particularly liked "Even assuming Richard could have managed a meeting with the IRB in between disciplinary hearings[...]".

 

[psychic duck]

Great article by Brian Moore and I admire the passion he has on the subject, he firmly puts that idiot Cockerill in his place.

I can't help thinking that the reason Cockerill is moaning about the changes is because he wants to protect and maintain the success that Leicester have with current laws where they are one of the top sides at winning penalties.

The scrum couldn't continue as it was. It's a spectator sport and if I was new to rugby and I saw a group of fat men continuously flopping down and then the referee awarding points after just guessing the penalty then I would think the sport is crap.

 

[j'nuh]

Comments about players returning from International duty injured considered, are Leicester the British version of Toulon?

In that Toulon is the England team of '07, whereas Tigers is the England team of '11?

 

[Peat]

Moore's point here:



Is why I find both Cockerill and Youngs' comments so offensive, Peat.
The rules themselves are not dangerous, the way in which teams/coaches try to ignore them is.

And another...

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....tory-19745124-detail/story.html#axzz2dskVBfdB

There is not a rugby team in existence that will not ignore the rules to gain an advantage, regardless of player safety. Not one. Any rule that fails to account for this is flawed by default.

 

[j'nuh]

There is not a rugby team in existence that will not ignore the rules to gain an advantage, regardless of player safety. Not one. Any rule that fails to account for this is flawed by default.

I don't think we should change the rules to suit the whims of the lowest common denominator. The only reason players will bend the rules is because referees let them. Come down hard on the rule benders, and they'll soon see the light.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I can't agree with that at all, Peat.
The rules themselves don't allow for it, the refs accommodating the wishes of coaches does.

If players are dealt with severely (i.e carded) then they will comply.

 

[Peat]

edit edit: Just found Rob Baxter arguing many of the same points as Cockerill - http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...t-depower-the-scrum-make-it-a-bigger-contest/ - Get stuck in lads

Back to main post.

If the refs consistently penalise it, well and good.

But they didn't in the last set of scrummaging laws - nor were they able to deter the constant collapsing - nor constant slipping of the bind - nor have they done anything about forearm fends - nor are they are they getting to grips with the rucks - nor are they consistent with offsides etc.etc.

Not all of them dangerous, or happening all the time, or the refs' fault, but a good selection of some of the myriad ways the laws are broken routinely on a rugby pitch and in the scrum particularly. So forgive me for being skeptical that the refs will penalise the early drive off the park - and unless they do, teams will go for it, and Brian Moore asking whether they'll abstain from this potentially dangerous practice is ridiculous.

edit: And I'm not calling for the rules to be changed, I'm asking for a bit of reality about what pro rugby teams do, and how much information the refs can take in at once using a single pair of eyes. Refs don't let players cheat because they think "Why not" or "Ohh, go on, it will make them happy", it's because they can't see what's going on all the time at real speed from one position. Any rule that doesn't take into account human falliability is flawed - and by this token, I'll freely admit that a lot of rugby's key laws will be flawed forever to some extent.

I'm not even saying that this law is particularly flawed - I don't know yet - but in general, if a rule is cannot be enforced properly, we find new rules that can. Well. Should.

 

[j'nuh]

I think the goal in stopping this kind of behaviour should be for the IRB to send out a message to referees to come down particularly hard on those "playing the rules". Instead of waiting for a string of penalties and an official warning when in the game, I think the referee should warn the players before the game has even begun. A deliberate crooked feed in the scrum? Straight yellow. It may be a disproportionate punishment, but crooked feeds would basically disappear overnight if the IRB took this response.

EDIT: re: Baxter's comments, the scrum is already a massive part of the game to the point that it plays too much influence on the game. Tightheads are among the most expensive players in the squad. Despite the salary cap, Tigers spent years with Cole and Castro in the squad. Games can be won and lost on the basis of whether your tighthead is good enough. If the scrum's influence is lessened, I think it's a good thing for the sport. But he makes a false dichotomy: the old rules make the scrum competitive and rugby unique, and the new rules are on the path to turning the sport into rugby league. I want the scrum to be what it should be: competitive and influential, without being overbearing, time-consuming, or a lottery. Basically, I want the scrum to be as important to the game as the lineout is.

 

[smartcooky]

edit edit: Just found Rob Baxter arguing many of the same points as Cockerill - http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...t-depower-the-scrum-make-it-a-bigger-contest/ - Get stuck in lads

[TEXTAREA]However I fear there is a danger that players of this ilk â€" big, scrummaging props with a heart as big as their waistline â€" will become a dying breed under the new engagement laws, which seem, to me anyway, a method of depowering the scrum and making sure the ball is in play more rather than anything to do with player safety.[/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: This is not depowering of the scrum. The only difference is that the illegal hit has been removed, and the Law requiring the scrum to be square and stable, (which already existed), and the Law requiring the ball to be put in straight (which already existed), are going to be enforced

[TEXTAREA]These new engagement laws could just be the thin end of the wedge as we head towards a game where the scrum is simply a method for re-starting play. We need to be careful what we wish for, as our game could end up being a 15-man version of Rugby League where the big front rowers are replaced by lighter, more mobile players whose primary role is to defend.[/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: That is exactly what the scrum is supposed to be. It actually says that in Law. The scrum was always supposed to be a hooking contest, not a pushing contest.

[TEXTAREA]If that happens, the ball might be ‘in play’ more but will there be any space to use it? In my mind we need to think about the bigger picture and not lose sight of the fact of what makes rugby unique; the scrum is a fantastic facet of the game. Instead of depowering the scrum we should make it an even bigger contest, that way more space will be created as the big forwards will be exhausted from the level of exertion needed at scrum time and able to defend less effectively as the game wears on, thus creating space for attacking rugby to take hold.[/TEXTAREA]
MUDDY THINKING: There are only about, on average, 10 - 12 scrums in a game. There are upwards of 150 rucks and mauls.

[TEXTAREA]Focusing on the player safety aspect for a second, let’s not forget that we’re going to start having hookers with their feet off the floor again because they will have to strike for the ball in the middle of the tunnel, while all the time props will be putting them under severe pressure by making it difficult for them to see what they’re doing. Common sense will tell you that it is more difficult to stabilise the front row when you have three players standing on five legs instead of six. [/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: What commonsense will tell you is that the scrum will have to be stable before the ball is put in. The Hooker will not be under any more pressure, because no pushing is allowed. If either side pushes before the ball goes in, they will be penalised. Its not as if the hooker has to stay with his feet off the ground. Once the ball is hooked (and that takes all of 1/10th of a second) the hooker is free to put his feet back and push with the other seven guys.

 

[Peat]

I think the goal in stopping this kind of behaviour should be for the IRB to send out a message to referees to come down particularly hard on those "playing the rules". Instead of waiting for a string of penalties and an official warning when in the game, I think the referee should warn the players before the game has even begun. A deliberate crooked feed in the scrum? Straight yellow. It may be a disproportionate punishment, but crooked feeds would basically disappear overnight if the IRB took this response.

If you take up a very harsh, deterrent-based approach to "playing the rules" you will probably wreck the game. There is simply too many things happening and too many accidental ways to infringe and you will get results by reffing. If you have the ref concentrate on just one aspect of the rules - lets say crooked feeds - you have an open charter for cheating in areas the ref can't be watching at that moment; the proximity of the backlines, the flankers staying bound, the props staying square for three possibly examples. I am not saying no tolerance reffing has no place in the game, but it needs to be carefully applied. Look at the crackdown on Spear Tackling, which is about as strong a case for non-tolerance exists; we still see spear tackles, we still see confusion at what is and what isn't, we see controversial decisions which have a huge impact on games. That's worth it in this case. For straight feeds? Don't think so.

As for deliberate crooked feeds, mind reading doesn't exist yet.

EDIT: re: Baxter's comments, the scrum is already a massive part of the game to the point that it plays too much influence on the game. Tightheads are among the most expensive players in the squad. Despite the salary cap, Tigers spent years with Cole and Castro in the squad. Games can be won and lost on the basis of whether your tighthead is good enough. If the scrum's influence is lessened, I think it's a good thing for the sport. But he makes a false dichotomy: the old rules make the scrum competitive and rugby unique, and the new rules are on the path to turning the sport into rugby league. I want the scrum to be what it should be: competitive and influential, without being overbearing, time-consuming, or a lottery. Basically, I want the scrum to be as important to the game as the lineout is.

You want the scrum's influence lessened, but want to hand out yellow cards for crooked feeds? Short term very counter-intuitive with no guarantee of long term success.

I've no real argument with the idea the scrum is over influential and the influence should be lessened. I'd probably agree with it. But I think its legitimate for people to think otherwise, and think its quite interesting there's a solid core of people at the top of the game who are arguing against the change. I would not wish to be over-hasty in dismissing their concerns. And I do think we should consider whether we're doing down our national competitiveness by agreeing to a change that probably reduces the impact of the scrum as a weapon, something we in the North are mostly good at and those in the South mostly not good or not interested in. Would we have won the Lions series under the new rules?

[TEXTAREA]However I fear there is a danger that players of this ilk – big, scrummaging props with a heart as big as their waistline – will become a dying breed under the new engagement laws, which seem, to me anyway, a method of depowering the scrum and making sure the ball is in play more rather than anything to do with player safety.[/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: This is not depowering of the scrum. The only difference is that the illegal hit has been removed, and the Law requiring the scrum to be square and stable, (which already existed), and the Law requiring the ball to be put in straight (which already existed), are going to be enforced

Continually mentioning that some of the changes are 'merely' enforcing currently laws again, and implying this makes it a small thing, is very disingenuous. If you are not implying it, your word choice leaves something to be desired.

Also - either there are less penalties coming from the scrum, in which case it has been depowered, or there is the same amount, and the media reports saying there are more completed scrums are false.

[TEXTAREA]These new engagement laws could just be the thin end of the wedge as we head towards a game where the scrum is simply a method for re-starting play. We need to be careful what we wish for, as our game could end up being a 15-man version of Rugby League where the big front rowers are replaced by lighter, more mobile players whose primary role is to defend.[/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: That is exactly what the scrum is supposed to be. It actually says that in Law. The scrum was always supposed to be a hooking contest, not a pushing contest.

How can he be wrong for saying what it has been and what it could be heading to? He is not talking about the intent in the Laws, which is what you refer to. There is a difference between it being simply a method for re-starting play and it being a hooking contest as well. The former is Rugby League, the latter is a battle for possession. He is clearly worried about it heading to the former rather than the latter, which is totally understandable.

[TEXTAREA]If that happens, the ball might be 'in play' more but will there be any space to use it? In my mind we need to think about the bigger picture and not lose sight of the fact of what makes rugby unique; the scrum is a fantastic facet of the game. Instead of depowering the scrum we should make it an even bigger contest, that way more space will be created as the big forwards will be exhausted from the level of exertion needed at scrum time and able to defend less effectively as the game wears on, thus creating space for attacking rugby to take hold.[/TEXTAREA]
MUDDY THINKING: There are only about, on average, 10 - 12 scrums in a game. There are upwards of 150 rucks and mauls.

The ruck does not create sufficient space and it does not exhaust the current lean athletes that play the top level game. The maul is an endangered species that exists only when the defence are attempting a turnover, or from lineouts. While there are not as many scrums, they are punishing, and would be even more punishing if the scrums required forwards to be even bigger and stronger for them, compromising their fitness, and creating gaps around the field. Can't say I agree it would be a good idea, but it's an interesting one, and there's nothing muddy about the thinking.

[TEXTAREA]Focusing on the player safety aspect for a second, let's not forget that we're going to start having hookers with their feet off the floor again because they will have to strike for the ball in the middle of the tunnel, while all the time props will be putting them under severe pressure by making it difficult for them to see what they're doing. Common sense will tell you that it is more difficult to stabilise the front row when you have three players standing on five legs instead of six. [/TEXTAREA]
WRONG: What commonsense will tell you is that the scrum will have to be stable before the ball is put in. The Hooker will not be under any more pressure, because no pushing is allowed. If either side pushes before the ball goes in, they will be penalised. Its not as if the hooker has to stay with his feet off the ground. Once the ball is hooked (and that takes all of 1/10th of a second) the hooker is free to put his feet back and push with the other seven guys.

I've been over my skepticism that the the early push will be consistently refereed out of the game.

 

[ratsapprentice]

edit edit: Just found Rob Baxter arguing many of the same points as Cockerill - http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feat...t-depower-the-scrum-make-it-a-bigger-contest/ - Get stuck in lads

It's not so much Richard himself, it's a mentality that he epitomises that seems to be prevalent amongst a large number of Tigers fans.
They always feel as if everyone is out to get them.
Taken in isolation those comments would be forgotten within minutes, the sheer number of complaints he makes is what winds people up.

I completely disagree with Baxter too.

But they didn't in the last set of scrummaging laws - nor were they able to deter the constant collapsing - nor constant slipping of the bind - nor have they done anything about forearm fends - nor are they are they getting to grips with the rucks - nor are they consistent with offsides etc.etc.

Refs don't let players cheat because they think "Why not" or "Ohh, go on, it will make them happy", it's because they can't see what's going on all the time at real speed from one position.

On the contrary - they did systematically ignore the laws that they have now re-affirmed, in order to allow for the hit which teams wanted to employ.
Collapsing happens, but the extent to which it has been happening in the past few years is a direct result of the hit.
As far as I am aware there has never been any attempt to relax the application of laws concerning the other issues you raised (officially or otherwise).

Brian Moore asking whether they'll abstain from this potentially dangerous practice is ridiculous.

How? You can't complain about the safety of something when your actions directly contribute to the likelihood of injury.


Out of curiosity, Peat... have you seen any of the matches that have played with the new scrum?
On the whole there has been a clear incremental improvement week on week from what I have seen of the ITM/Championship/T14.
Apart from one or two matches (tonight's Racing/Toulouse game for example) which have been poor in terms of scrums.

I understand what you are saying regarding league scrums being a simple restart of play, and why we wouldn't want that.
But the trouble with the scrums as they have been, is that it's almost a game that is run simultaneously with the rugby, not within it.
There is no real connection to open play, and it very often stifles the flow of games.
- Ideally you want the scrum to be competitive enough for it to be more than just a reset.
But with enough inerrant advantage given to the side with the put in that the result is more than arbitrary.
Much in the same way as lineouts are.
- More than that it should be "de-powered" as a tool for 3 pointers. This is probably the most challenging aspect.
Removing the hit by policing early drives will significantly reduce the number of collapses in time IMO.
It is much easier (not easy) for the ref to detect who is responsible for a collapse if the drive starts from being stationary.
- Enforcing the straight feed should incentivise keeping the scrum up. As we all know, coaches often espouse the virtues of turnover ball as the most potent attacking platform in the game.
This is also made much easier to police if you make sure the scrum is stationary, as you effectively divide the scrum into stages, rather than condensing it into the hit.
I don't accept that this is difficult for SH's to do, it is very low down on the pantheon of difficult rugby skills.
It is also one of the most binary decisions a ref can make IMO - "Do both hookers have an approximately equal chance of striking the ball?" - YES or NO?

I'm not naive enough to think that coaches will all of a sudden abandon the search for scrum penalties, but I am hopeful that if we make it more difficult to cheat then there will be less aggressive tactics employed to reach such an end.
I do accept your point that it's not quite as easy as some people are suggesting it is to revert back to the existing Laws. But it needs to be done.
I am currently unsure about the claims Cockerill is making that no Premiership coaches were consulted about this, as it has been claimed by Brian Moore that they were, through the RFU.
It's also disingenuous of him (or anyone else) to suggest that this is being pushed solely by the "SH", the major intellectual study behind it was carried out at the University of Bath.
And:

The Scrum Steering Group comprises: David Barnes (IRPA), Mike Cron (NZRU), Didier Retière (FFR), Brian O'Shea (ARU), Norm Mottram (USA Rugby), Richie Dixon (GRU), Ken Quarrie (NZRU), Graham Mourie (Chairman of IRB Rugby Committee), John Jeffrey (IRB Council Member & SRU), Gavin Williams (RFU), Dr Martin Raftery (IRB Chief Medical Officer), Paddy O'Brien (IRB Referee Manager).
Scrum Forces Project Group consists of the Scrum Steering Group plus the following: Keith Stokes (University of Bath), Dr Mike England (RFU), Colin Fuller (IRB Risk Management Consultant), Grant Trewartha (University of Bath), Ezio Preatoni (University of Bath).

The only slight issue I have with the current system is that the "yes 9" call from the ref is a command to put the ball in rather than an invitation.
Although as long as they are given a reasonable amount of time to put the ball in without the opposition being able to use the ref's call as a cue it should be fine.

 

[j'nuh]

If you take up a very harsh, deterrent-based approach to "playing the rules" you will probably wreck the game. There is simply too many things happening and too many accidental ways to infringe and you will get results by reffing. If you have the ref concentrate on just one aspect of the rules - lets say crooked feeds - you have an open charter for cheating in areas the ref can't be watching at that moment; the proximity of the backlines, the flankers staying bound, the props staying square for three possibly examples. I am not saying no tolerance reffing has no place in the game, but it needs to be carefully applied. Look at the crackdown on Spear Tackling, which is about as strong a case for non-tolerance exists; we still see spear tackles, we still see confusion at what is and what isn't, we see controversial decisions which have a huge impact on games. That's worth it in this case. For straight feeds? Don't think so.

The referee doesn't have to concentrate on one aspect. For example, a brief glance down at the trajectory of the ball will tell you whether it is being fed into the second row. It takes a fraction of a second to glance. Similar to the set-up of the bind. Since the bind is done pre-engagement, you only need to glance at each side of the scrum to be satisfied with where the players are binding. And penalise appropriately.

FWIW, since there is a lot going on in the scrum upon engagement, I do think that the closest linesman should stand on the opposite side of the scrum from the referee, and take on a few responsibilities. It wouldn't take any longer (scrum takes a while to set up) and conflicts in opinion can be easily handled by giving the referee the final say (as happens in other cases).

As for deliberate crooked feeds, mind reading doesn't exist yet.

When you feed into the second row, straight towards the 8, it's pretty blatantly obvious. Teams should be allowed a slight feed, in the direction of their hooker and down the middle channel (otherwise, what advantage do you get by feeding? may as well let the referee feed it).

I've no real argument with the idea the scrum is over influential and the influence should be lessened. I'd probably agree with it. But I think its legitimate for people to think otherwise, and think its quite interesting there's a solid core of people at the top of the game who are arguing against the change. I would not wish to be over-hasty in dismissing their concerns. And I do think we should consider whether we're doing down our national competitiveness by agreeing to a change that probably reduces the impact of the scrum as a weapon, something we in the North are mostly good at and those in the South mostly not good or not interested in. Would we have won the Lions series under the new rules?

I don't think it matters. The scrum should serve the interests of the game, and the fans, not the self-interests of nations who thrive off it.