Cockerill Ban amended

[Peat]

Not really. Couple of Rugby Championship games. Played with them a couple of times, but that's a very different beast at my level. I'm generally cautiously in favour of them, was in favour before I saw them in play and remain in favour afterwards.

I just think the majority response to the dissenters, here and elsewhere, is just a bit hyperbolic, kneejerk and thoughtless. I think people are jumping into statements because a) Very few fans want to see collapse after collapse and b) Cockerill is his own worse enemy when he opens his mouth. Personally, I'd far prefer to see how things look after six months or so before getting carried away with their effect either way - we might see a very beneficial increase once people get used to them. I think they've told refs to change the cadence of the call too - might be mistaken on that though.

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).

Wait, what?! You're already wanting to move away from the straight feed? What's more, you'll allow a slight feed, but will punish any deviation from this arbitrary line? Dude, that's not cool. That's not reffable.

And the advantage you get is knowing when it comes in and having your foot closer. Don't think that's enough of an advantage? Sounds like you agree a little with the critics after all.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Not really.

CTPE Scrum - massive hit followed by stabilisation before the ball is put in (crooked) and the two teams push - its a pushing/brute strength contest

CBSY9 Scrum - No hit, just engage, followed by stabilisation before the ball is put in (straight) and the hooker hooks the ball - its a hooking/scrummaging contest

Reducing the hit makes it safer in the long term; enforcing the straight throwing makes it a fair contest, which is exactly what the Law says it should be..

Also - either there are less penalties coming from the scrum, in which case it has been depowered, or there is the same amount

This is a non sequitur, unless you can adequately explain why less scrum penalties = depowered scrum. Surely, it is more likely that less penalties = referees are enforcing the Laws = players are complying?

If less penalties = depowered scrum, then the REASON for that power in for the first place was the illegalities being used to create the power;

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.

Rubbish!. You're exaggerating! The Rugby League scrum is a group hug that involves no pushing whatsoever, and the ball is fed squint, between the nearside prop's legs into the second row (and sometime not even that far) No-one is advocating this for Rugby Union, least of all Brian Moore!!




[TEXTAREA]LAW 20 DEFINITIONS
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor
infringement or a stoppage.[/TEXTAREA]






Its not a hooking contest because the ball doesn't even get anywhere near the hooker.

 

[Peat]

Not really.

CTPE Scrum - massive hit followed by stabilisation before the ball is put in (crooked) and the two teams push - its a pushing/brute strength contest

CBSY9 Scrum - No hit, just engage, followed by stabilisation before the ball is put in (straight) and the hooker hooks the ball - its a hooking/scrummaging contest

Reducing the hit makes it safer in the long term; enforcing the straight throwing makes it a fair contest, which is exactly what the Law says it should be..

So were you implying it's not a big change, or not implying it?

This is a non sequitur, unless you can adequately explain why less scrum penalties = depowered scrum. Surely, it is more likely that less penalties = referees are enforcing the Laws = players are complying?

If less penalties = depowered scrum, then the REASON for that power in for the first place was the illegalities being used to create the power;

By depowered scrum they clearly means it has less of an impact on the game. If there are less scoring opportunities straight from the scrum, it is depowered. Does this help? The old set of rules made it fairly easy to win penalties at scrumtime. Loads of people have been saying that will no longer the case with the new rules. If this is the case, it's been depowered. It no longer has the same power to influence a game.

Rubbish!. You're exaggerating! The Rugby League scrum is a group hug that involves no pushing whatsoever, and the ball is fed squint, between the nearside prop's legs into the second row (and sometime not even that far) No-one is advocating this for Rugby Union, least of all Brian Moore!!

I'm not exaggerating. I'm explaining what someone else said.

Its not a hooking contest because the ball doesn't even get anywhere near the hooker.

Talking about where it's going next, not where it was a few months ago.

 

[ratsapprentice]

means it has less of an impact on the game. If there are less scoring opportunities straight from the scrum, it is depowered. Does this help? The old set of rules made it fairly easy to win penalties at scrumtime. Loads of people have been saying that will no longer the case with the new rules. If this is the case, it's been depowered. It no longer has the same power to influence a game.

That would be the case if regaining (or turning over) possession and driving the opposition pack backwards wasn't a strong attacking platform.
But it is, so you are just re-balancing the number of try/penalty scoring opportunities a team gets.

Edit: I did edit my post on the last page significantly btw, I took a while to do so though. Just thought I'd mention it because the thread was already on a new page by the time I finished the edit.

 

[smartcooky]

So were you implying it's not a big change, or not implying it?

Its a big change (for the better) to the long-term safety and well-being of the players
Its a moderate change to the way players will have to scrummage.
Its not change in the Laws at all, apart from the engage sequence.

By depowered scrum they clearly means it has less of an impact on the game.

No it doesn't. You are the first person I have encountered who thinks "de-powering the scrum" only means reducing its effect on the game. Most people regard it as meaning reducing the power and strength and effectiveness of the players in the scrum. Depowering the scrum and reducing its impact on the game are not the same thing. These changes do not change the power of the players; they are still the same 8 players they were before, and they still are not allowed to push until the ball is thrown in. Where is the reduction of power?

If there are less scoring opportunities straight from the scrum, it is depowered. Does this help? The old set of rules made it fairly easy to win penalties at scrumtime. Loads of people have been saying that will no longer the case with the new rules. If this is the case, it's been depowered. It no longer has the same power to influence a game.

If you think that there is a de-powering happening here, watch the second All Blacks v Wallabies test.

It may well be that the changes do have an impact on the game, if they....

reduce the chances of serious injury to front row players, then I applaud them
lengthen the playing careers of front row players, then I applaud them
reduce the amount of time in the game taken up by players collapsing, twisting, boring-in in the scrum, then I applaud them
reduce the incidence of reset, after reset, after reset, after reset, after reset, after reset, after reset, then I applaud them
decrease the ability of teams to scrummage for the sole purpose of winning penalty kicks at goal, because they are forced to comply with the Laws, then I applaud them
return the scrum to what it was always meant to be, fair hooking contest for the ball, then I applaud them.

 

[j'nuh]

Wait, what?! You're already wanting to move away from the straight feed? What's more, you'll allow a slight feed, but will punish any deviation from this arbitrary line? Dude, that's not cool. That's not reffable.

Of course it is. It's reffable by interpretation and common sense, as a lot of decisions are, eg where the ball goes out for a lineout, whether a pass is forward or not under momentum rules, whether a knock-on is deliberate, how high a tackle needs to be to be too high, how long a penalty advantage is, and when the advantage has been played etc.

It's not nearly the most complex interpretation. When the ball is fed down the middle channel so that it's possible for the hooker to hook, then it's straight, even if skewed slightly towards your own team. When it's fed through the nearest prop's legs, then it's not straight.

eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmanooohh7k#t=1m02s

In this video, the scrum at 1m02s has a good feed, somewhere down the middle channel, whereas the ball in the scrum afterwards is fed straight to the 8 and should be forbidden.

And the advantage you get is knowing when it comes in and having your foot closer. Don't think that's enough of an advantage? Sounds like you agree a little with the critics after all.

I'm not convinced that this is enough of an advantage. Maybe... I'd like to see it in action though.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not convinced that this is enough of an advantage. Maybe... I'd like to see it in action though.

The scrum is supposed to be a fair contest, but that does not necessarily mean it has to be an equal one. Its fair enough for the team that didn't infringe to get some advantage at the scrum. They get this in two ways

Firstly, there is the one you have mentioned; their hooker is closer to the tunnel entrance, so he gets a better chance to strike at the ball first.

The second is, because they get the feed, they can set up a system that allows the Hooker and the scrumhalf to communicate so that their hooker knows when the ball is coming in.

They do have a slight disadvantage though, because while their hooker is hooking, the opposition have an 8 to 7 weight/pushing advantage in the scrum. This is why it is so vital that NO PUSHING BE ALLOWED before the ball goes in. It allows the scrum to be stable and the hooker to be prepared. If the hooker and his scrum buddies are well skilled and trained, they can easily overcome that disadvantage. Hooking the ball takes a fraction of a second, after which the hooker can put his feet back and add his weight to the scrum.

Have a look at this video about the role of the hooker, and yes, that IS a very young Brian Moore (when he still had hair) both in the game and doing the training exercises.



Especially, watch the bit at 0:50, where he strikes, gets his feet into position to push then pushes... very quick!