ComeAllWithin
Rugby => ComeAllWithin Board => Topic started by: DOK on Sunday 08-May-2022, 20:45*
-
But you know that ain't gonna happen. The laws aren't simple enough for them to be refereed accurately at the pinnacle of the game, much less understood by casual observers.
I don't buy into the attitudes which held football back for so long that you shouldn't bring in improvements unless they can be implemented at grassroots level. At this level people's livelihoods and careers can depend on a poor decision.
We're talking about some ridiculously complex solution to the difficulty of refereeing the scrum, which is you say is something so difficult the majority of fans wouldn't have the first idea about it. It's more than a little bit harder than "is this guy in front of that guy" and "did the ball cross the line"!
The offside law and equivalents are fine to have technology for because they're simple, it's not difficult to eyeball it without the technology, and it's largely just about increasing accuracy to the point where there's no argument about it. The idea of technology doing the same for scrums is an absolute fantasy.
-
I'm very much against complicated technological solutions when the laws should be simple enough that it can be refereed accurately at all levels of the game.
But you know that ain't gonna happen. The laws aren't simple enough for them to be refereed accurately at the pinnacle of the game, much less understood by casual observers.
I don't buy into the attitudes which held football back for so long that you shouldn't bring in improvements unless they can be implemented at grassroots level. At this level people's livelihoods and careers can depend on a poor decision.
-
Because No laws are broken
So you don't mean fairly, you mean legally. Which is fine!
But we're at a point where you can be forced into scrummaging illegally by your opponent. There's no point telling Paul Doran Jones or whoever to "not cheat" if he's getting pretzel'd by Joe Marler, because he is physically incapable of staying upright and square under that much pressure.
-
Maybe I'm a purist, but I've always really enjoyed seeing a series of scrums where a dominant scrummaging team is camped out on the opponents' 5-metre line putting them under the cosh for 5 mins with scrum after scrum forcing the defending team to infringe and give up a series of penalties and the inevitable yellow card or sometimes even two.
Or the drama of the above (expected) situation being foiled by the defending team pulling a miraculous scrum out of nowhere that unexpectedly wins them the penalty and the chance to clear their lines.
Often these moments are momentum givers or takers - game-changing moments in many cases - and are, ultimately, what sets the game apart from Rugby League (for me, anyway). I really don't want to see the Rugby Union institution that is The Scrum diluted - but I do agree that somewhere in amongst the Rassie/Joe/Carling suggestions is the key to making it more appealing to a wider audience. Also, mic'ing the ref NFL-style feels like such an easy win - so fans in the stadium know what's going on.
I think you still get the dominant scrums with the "2 scrum" rule.
What would probably tend to happen in this case though is that the dominant team would end up pushing the other team over the try line and getting a try rather than the weaker team giving away a penalty try and a yellow card.
But, as you say, you can lose the "drama".
A few years ago, we beat Exeter with a penalty try after 80 minutes had gone. I was sitting in the South Stand and it all unfolded in front of me and it was great drama.
But, recently, there was a game (Montpelier???) where there was an extended period in front of the North Stand. To be truthful, it wasn't the most exciting thing that I have ever watched. TBH, we had no clue what was actually going on as we could berely see it.
-
Why is that not unfair? They've begun the game with an advantage that you don't have, and in some cases can never have. Seems like the definition of unfair to me, it's not a level playing field and we shouldn't pretend it is. We should concentrate on what's legal vs what's not, instead of the nebulous concept of "fair".
But one of the important points here is that players "cheat" because there's leeway in the laws (there's no definitions regarding how straight you must scrummage, for example) and also because they can be forced to scrummage illegally by an opponent without them being able to do anything about it even if they wanted to.
Because No laws are broken
-
I like the MLR approach in the USA.
The ref allows one collapse. After that, he has to make a decision - either a penalty or a free kick.
So, you don't get the pointless resets due to spacing or players not putting their heads in the gaps. etc.
Also, the 2nd scrum tends to be more stable as players are more concerned that the penalty may incorrectly go against them.
So, you get more scrums where the scrum is actually used as a tool to launch the back line.
In other words, powerful scrums use their dominance to create space for the backs rather than using their dominance to eek out a penalty.
Maybe I'm a purist, but I've always really enjoyed seeing a series of scrums where a dominant scrummaging team is camped out on the opponents' 5-metre line putting them under the cosh for 5 mins with scrum after scrum forcing the defending team to infringe and give up a series of penalties and the inevitable yellow card or sometimes even two.
Or the drama of the above (expected) situation being foiled by the defending team pulling a miraculous scrum out of nowhere that unexpectedly wins them the penalty and the chance to clear their lines.
Often these moments are momentum givers or takers - game-changing moments in many cases - and are, ultimately, what sets the game apart from Rugby League (for me, anyway). I really don't want to see the Rugby Union institution that is The Scrum diluted - but I do agree that somewhere in amongst the Rassie/Joe/Carling suggestions is the key to making it more appealing to a wider audience. Also, mic'ing the ref NFL-style feels like such an easy win - so fans in the stadium know what's going on.
As Quins fans, we must surely all recognise that our scrum over the past couple of seasons has been the basis for all our success - without the dominance we've had there, there's just no way we would be where we find ourselves. If you really want to eat away at the significance of the scrum then at least wait until Marler and Collier retire. Don't do that to them just when they're starting to reeeally enjoy themselves!
-
I remember during the 6N game against Ireland when surprise, surprise, the Irish forwards were complaining about Genge's angles and they did some analysis in game of what he was doing wrong.
Then, I was watching Porter on the other side doing exactly the same but Sinckler was resisting but no analysis of that, Fuhrlong just got done on the day.
Let's be honest, scrums are a mess. Too many moving parts to police properly but I do like the idea of a decision on the 2nd failure/collapse. Pick a side and give the FK/Pen. Some may go against you but a dominant pack will still shine through.
Slightly OT, but there were also all the Welsh complaints about England narrowing the gap in the lineout... with no-one making the very obvious point that Wales were also closing the gap.
-
Why is that not unfair? They've begun the game with an advantage that you don't have, and in some cases can never have. Seems like the definition of unfair to me, it's not a level playing field and we shouldn't pretend it is. We should concentrate on what's legal vs what's not, instead of the nebulous concept of "fair".
But one of the important points here is that players "cheat" because there's leeway in the laws (there's no definitions regarding how straight you must scrummage, for example) and also because they can be forced to scrummage illegally by an opponent without them being able to do anything about it even if they wanted to.
-
No its not, if you are physically bigger, stronger have better technique, thats not unfair
-
I remember during the 6N game against Ireland when surprise, surprise, the Irish forwards were complaining about Genge's angles and they did some analysis in game of what he was doing wrong.
Then, I was watching Porter on the other side doing exactly the same but Sinckler was resisting but no analysis of that, Fuhrlong just got done on the day.
Let's be honest, scrums are a mess. Too many moving parts to police properly but I do like the idea of a decision on the 2nd failure/collapse. Pick a side and give the FK/Pen. Some may go against you but a dominant pack will still shine through.
-
I said unfair advantage
Every advantage in the scrum is unfair, pretty much by definition.
Players are going to seek to exploit weaknesses in the opposition - legally or otherwise - and it's up to the laws and the officials that enforce those laws to make the distinction between legal and illegal. In many cases, legal scrummaging can turn into illegal scrummaging through no fault of any individual player.
The problem we have at the moment is a decade+ of "tweaks" to the scrum have created a generation of props with dreadful technique, players are absolutely massive, and we have refs who are being forced to make decisions based on an absolute mess of a situation. Also, it's near-impossible for one team to be on top in the scrum without being able to force a penalty every single time if the opposition actually attempts to deal with it legally.
-
I like the MLR approach in the USA.
The ref allows one collapse. After that, he has to make a decision - either a penalty or a free kick.
So, you don't get the pointless resets due to spacing or players not putting their heads in the gaps. etc.
Also, the 2nd scrum tends to be more stable as players are more concerned that the penalty may incorrectly go against them.
So, you get more scrums where the scrum is actually used as a tool to launch the back line.
In other words, powerful scrums use their dominance to create space for the backs rather than using their dominance to eek out a penalty.
-
Scrummaging is all about trying to get an advantage.
I said unfair advantage
-
Scrummaging is all about trying to get an advantage.
-
Surely the easiest solution is players stopping themselves from seeking to gain an unfair advantage (ie front rows to stop cheating(
-
To get the second pair of eyes, the AR on the far side should take a position in line, so they can see offences the referee cannot. The one of the referees side marks offside for the side not putting in. If it goes against the head, then you worry about the side putting in.
The TMO if there is one can use spider cam if it is there to look for props boring in.
Ensure all referees and ARs take a scrum training course before each season.
Make sure they all are looking for the same things.
I would have a meeting now and tell all the coaches that from next season you will do the following:
Actually penalize props not taking the bind, even before the ball is put in.
Penalize pushing before the ball is in, hookers not ready to hook and scrum halves feeding.
Remind them that deliberate offences can be yellow cards on the first offence, and the threshold for repeated offences can be two.
And my current bugbear, do the pre match brief before the match, not after the scrum goes down.
If you have given them the brief, there is no need to repeat it, if they did not listen, you have the whistle.
-
I'm very much against complicated technological solutions when the laws should be simple enough that it can be refereed accurately at all levels of the game.
-
Whereas Will Carling is calling for electronic help....
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/willcarling_rugbys-solutions-i-read-with-interest-rassie-activity-6928981558167023616-bgHm?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Rugby’s Solutions
I read with interest Rassie Erasmus’s view that rugby needs two referee’s and a specialist scrum expert to advise on decisions. There is no doubt that the scrum has become an issue for the game and those trying to grow it’s appeal. Safety is hugely important, but the current rules do not lead to fast, dynamic encounter.
What really surprises me about Erasmus’s solution however is the reliance, yet again, on human opinion. This will always provoke debate and be open to allegations of poor decision making.
Rugby really needs to look ahead, take on board the best learnings from other sports and stop believing that it is marketing itself to the old West Car Park attendees!
There are some brilliant tech companies out there who could and would offer definite solutions. One I know, Sportable, have the technology to put sensors in the shoulders of the forwards - this gives data on the angles and power coming through from every player at scrum time. At each scrum, the TMO could view the data and in seconds give a ruling on the reason the scrum went down. No debate, no time wasting - perfect!
They can also put a tracker in the ball - and suddenly no need for numerous replays to see if it was a forward pass, no need for numerous replays to try to ascertain whether there was downward pressure at try time. Almost instant answers and the game can move on safe in the knowledge of a correct decision.
I know some people love the old amateur concept of taking the referees decision and moving on - character building. It certainly was! But let’s move on and utilise the best technology we can to keep the game fast, compelling and of interest to the next generations of fans.
Some sports have used technology brilliantly, some less so! Rugby has a real need to improve some areas of it’s game, and I believe technology could and should be part of the answer………
-
'It can be such a minefield for the referees these days,' said Marler (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-10793461/England-prop-Joe-Marler-backs-call-set-piece-experts-help-reduce-confusion-scrum.html)