Refs. haven't a clue about Scrums?

[Every Time Ref]

I'm not sure I would go so far as to have a second referee, but a second pair of eyes looking at the other side of the scrum from where the referee is would be useful.

I have suggested in the past that the referee should always be on the openside, and that the AR on the blindside should come onto the field as far as he needs to get a clear view. Once the ball is in, he scampers back to the sideline.

The important thing about the specialist scrum referee, though, is that he's specialist. Referees have a lot to think about all the time and a lot to learn. The scrum is very specialist, and let's be honest is very hard to understand - I don't mean that as a dig at referees, I am lost myself half the time watching a scrum. However, it is causing problems, and is an area of the game where it's logistically possible to bring on a specialist each time (due to the break in play). A former front rower, who knows the scrum in depth and can focus exclusively on learning about it and understanding it, will be a lot less easy to fool than a referee.

ALl this, of course, alongside basic rule and/or interpretation changes, such as angles of driving, and where the bind is.

 

[Thingimubob]

I feel like a broken record on this one, remove most penalties from the scrum so a team doesn't gain territorial advantage from it. Also tell the ref he isn't ever allowed to reset it, if can't make a decision team putting in gets a free kick. He should also state this so it's clear he's not stating the defending team were breaking the laws.


The reason why players take the **** is a lot of advantage can be gained from the scrum. Way more than just flinging the ball out to the backs.

Even the no penalty kick for goal rule means that unless it's in the opp 22 (probably closer) the other team has a clear advantage playing for a penalty.

If all scrum penalties change to free kicks then what's there to lose for the weaker scrum infringing to make life harder for the opposition?

For example, Team A knocks the ball on in Team B's 22.

Team B has the advantage in the scrums, so team A doesn't want B's backs to have a platform to run off a strong driving scrum.

Team A intentionally collapses at the engagement, giving away only a "free kick", forcing Team B to essentially choose between a risky tap and go from from their own 22 or to kick possession straight back to Team A.

Would probably help stop teams trying to squeeze penalties out of every scrum yes, but opens the door to cynical play as there's no real danger in conceding at key moments.

 

[ncurd]

If all scrum penalties change to free kicks then what's there to lose for the weaker scrum infringing to make life harder for the opposition?

For example, Team A knocks the ball on in Team B's 22.

Team B has the advantage in the scrums, so team A doesn't want B's backs to have a platform to run off a strong driving scrum.

Team A intentionally collapses at the engagement, giving away only a "free kick", forcing Team B to essentially choose between a risky tap and go from from their own 22 or to kick possession straight back to Team A.

Would probably help stop teams trying to squeeze penalties out of every scrum yes, but opens the door to cynical play as there's no real danger in conceding at key moments.

Actually I think your description works perfectly fine Team A have given up the chance to legitimately compete for the ball in attacking position. Team B get what they wanted and clear the ball from their 22 and potentially get to a compete for possession in a oppositions line out in a better field position for themselves.

 

[johnmac99]

Nice generalisation. Here's another for you

"Players don't have a clue about the Laws"


I'll tell you what. Front Row players could make life a lot easier for the referee (and then we could all end up with a better game) if they would scrummage according to the Laws of the Bloody game, for example, bind correctly
& push straight instead of trying to cheat by dippng, twisting, boring or lifting their opponent....

Your first statement is rubbish, but I agree with your second statement as obviously front-rowers know exactly what they are doing, and they should just try to scrummage properly instead of trying to gain an unfair advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

Team A intentionally collapses at the engagement, giving away only a "free kick", forcing Team B to essentially choose between a risky tap and go from from their own 22 or to kick possession straight back to Team A.

Have stated that I would keep penalties for intentionally collapsing.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Have stated that I would keep penalties for intentionally collapsing.

And so begins the new argument about whether a collapse was intentional or not. Personally I want a coloured part of the jersey for where you should bind for every team, if you are not bound there then it's free kick against you. No room for interpretation make it black and white.

 

[Thingimubob]

Have stated that I would keep penalties for intentionally collapsing.

And so begins the new argument about whether a collapse was intentional or not. Personally I want a coloured part of the jersey for where you should bind for every team, if you are not bound there then it's free kick against you. No room for interpretation make it black and white.

Exactly as ragerancher says, it's just gonna end up with people arguing over what's international and what's not. Hard enough to tell now!

I like the idea of the coloured patch, will definitely make it easier for referee's to keep an eye on correct binding.

 

[johnmac99]

And so begins the new argument about whether a collapse was intentional or not. Personally I want a coloured part of the jersey for where you should bind for every team, if you are not bound there then it's free kick against you. No room for interpretation make it black and white.

Its already a penalty offence to intentionally collapse a scrum so there is no new argument, things would just stay as they are.

You can bind on any part of the shirt except sleeves and collars.

 

[gaston le gaff]

As long as you have front row forwards present in the scrum there will cheating and other devious methods of gaining an advantage, it's in their nature and they enjoy doing it . It's all part of the game for them, how often do you see the gentle pat on the head of the opposing prop when an advantage is obtained.These guys are master crimminals and will always find a way around any new laws that are introduced into the game.Why do you think they have scrum coaches, to find ways of out doing the opposition With all the new laws that have been passed in the last 20 yrs or so they are still finding ways around them. Its a little like if you want to be a crim go to jail, the best place to learn and not get caught!!!!!!

 

[johnmac99]

As long as you have front row forwards present in the scrum there will cheating and other devious methods of gaining an advantage, it's in their nature and they enjoy doing it . It's all part of the game for them, how often do you see the gentle pat on the head of the opposing prop when an advantage is obtained.These guys are master crimminals and will always find a way around any new laws that are introduced into the game.Why do you think they have scrum coaches, to find ways of out doing the opposition With all the new laws that have been passed in the last 20 yrs or so they are still finding ways around them. Its a little like if you want to be a crim go to jail, the best place to learn and not get caught!!!!!!

Agree with this, so surely the thing to do is to reduce the gain to a free kick, which Refs. would rather give, as it keeps the game flowing.
Scrums would eventually be over quicker as there would not be such an advantage to be gained as there is now with a potential kick for 3pts.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Its already a penalty offence to intentionally collapse a scrum so there is no new argument, things would just stay as they are.

You can bind on any part of the shirt except sleeves and collars.

Except you will have people moaning about getting free kicks rather than penalties. Also I want a coloured area to make the law less open ended, you MUST bind onto this part of the shirt of free kick to the opposition. It's more to make it even more obvious when someone isn't correctly bound. I think either we need 2 refs OR a specialist who is with the TMO and can simultaneously see both sides and top down to rule who is at fault, given free reign to inform the ref in the same way an assistant ref would but not to be referred to in the same way a TMO is.