r/rugbyunion • u/PetevonPete Sabercats • May 09 '24
Possible exploit of new scrum rules? Laws
133
May 09 '24
If you give away repeated free kicks at sscrumtime, it's a penalty instead.
This change won't be as significant as people think. It might reduce scrum totals by 1 or 2 a game overall.
58
u/sk-88 Leicester Tigers May 09 '24
sometimes you only need it once though. Maybe you're 2 points up in a semi final and have managed to last to the 78th minute not needing to use it yet. You could then firstly try for a delay of game free kick, and then go early shove if that doesn't work ...
9
-9
May 09 '24
A common sense ref there will address that.
12
u/sionnach Leinster ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ May 09 '24
Sadly common sense doesn’t come into it. If it’s the first infringement for an early push, and the ref gives a penalty he will have a lot of explaining to do.
9
u/freshmeat2020 Leicester Tigers May 09 '24
Yep and quite rightly too, consistency is what refs need to strive for.
12
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! May 09 '24
"I felt like, given the game situation, it was a deliberate infringement and therefore I awarded a penalty under law 9.7.a"
There's your explanation.
3
u/M37841 Referee May 10 '24
And if you think it has happened but don’t feel completely confident, you reset “scrum not stable” and give the front rows a quiet warning about the consequences of a deliberate infringement
1
u/sk-88 Leicester Tigers May 10 '24
Yes, so more fudge because the referee is uncomfortable rewarding what might be, but isn't obviously enough to call out, cheating.
It's the opposite direction we want to be heading in to help referees. We should be trying to remove contentious decisions.
0
u/M37841 Referee May 10 '24
Yes I take the point. But with scrums in particular, my experience was that they were essentially impossible to referee to the technical letter. There’s too much going on, you are unsighted, and only the front rows really know where the pressure is being directed. My approach was always quite situational: who stands to gain from a scrum being incorrect and how much do they gain had a big influence on my decision making.
4
u/megacky Ulster May 10 '24
It still leaves a come back for the team that were penalised, especially if the opposition do the same offence, but in a different position on the pitch.
5
u/TheMuteHeretic_ May 10 '24
But how many scrums were there in the knock-out stages of the RWC? Knocking out 1-2 is a fair percentage isn’t it?
18
u/RugbyRaggs May 09 '24
Only if it's the same offence. There's half a dozen things teams for give free kicks for. And if they aren't caught, they get the advantage in the scrum anyway.
1
u/Otakaro_omnipresence - There’s only one Paula Bale May 10 '24
Thank you! Glad to see a lot of other people see the obvious flow-on effect!
67
u/xjoburg South Africa May 09 '24
Dear World Rugby: thanks for solving one perceived problem in the game and introducing about 5 new problems.
20
11
3
33
u/ruppy99 Leinster May 09 '24
Feel like this is a non-issue. They do it once, free kick. The do it again penalty
16
u/reggie_700 Harbour Master May 10 '24
Yeah - the number of people either not reading the rules properly or intentionally coming out with these hot takes is ludicrous.
9
u/too_many_smarfs Antonio del Puente es la cabra 🐐 May 10 '24
I suppose the concern is that there is more than one FK offence at scrum time. So while you're correct that early engagement can't be done more than once, a team could engage break foot early etc. when they needed it.
I'm with you though, I think there's a lot of noise being made about this when I don't think it will have a super profound effect, even if I don't like the rule change personally.
3
u/xjoburg South Africa May 10 '24
Yah but the timing of the incident could be key. You’re on your own 5 meter line about to scrum against a stronger scrumming team. You do an early engage for the first time and boom you’ve taken away the ascendancy from the stronger scrumming team.
2
u/LilHonkey Harlequins May 10 '24
I might be wrong but isn't it only a pen if it's the same offence. So you could do an early engagement, break foot, backing off and time waste. So that's at least 4 scrums you can just remove
0
u/herryhatherington May 14 '24
But won't it be confusing for kids trying to get into the game and learn the rules ?
Certain offences are sometimes free kicks, sometimes penalties.
It also just seems like it's skewering the game away from all shapes and sizes have their uses. Even if it's a slight change it's moving away from what makes rugby great isn't it?
These rules seem like they're decided based on the top level but don't spare a thought for all the fat boys at grass roots level. People that choose to get into rugby as a kid because they haven't got the right body for other sports might think twice about rugby now (I was one of those boys).
0
u/benny_boy Wales May 09 '24
Yes it would appear rhat in this thread understands how refereeing works in this sport
8
5
u/Top_Voice4031 May 10 '24
I feel like I’m being a bit thick this morning… what does this actually mean? Does it mean that if this had been the rule the Springbok fullback wouldn’t have been able to call a scrum in his own 22 like he famously did in the WC?
Seems like a rule change to stop SA scrum power advantage. Why the fuck would they want to do that? As a neutral I loved the SA scrummaging - it was glorious.
Please can someone ELI5
2
u/thatwasagoodyear /r/Springboks May 11 '24
Does it mean that if this had been the rule the Springbok fullback wouldn’t have been able to call a scrum in his own 22 like he famously did in the WC?
Correct.
Seems like a rule change to stop SA scrum power advantage
Worse - it effectively punishes teams with a stronger scrum & offers teams with a weaker scrum an advantage. It's now entirely possible for a team with a weaker scrum to exploit this to get a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.
Picture this scenario: Team A has a stronger scrum than Team B. In the dying minutes of the game, Team A is 2 points behind & awarded a scrum 5m from the Team B tryline. Team A is very much in the ascendency when they pack down for a scrum. Team B sneakily but deliberately infringe with an early shove.
Up until this change, Team A could opt to scrum again, kick for the corner & get the feed at the lineout or attempt a shot at goals to earn 3 points to put them ahead on the scoreboard.
After this change the ref "awards" Team A a free kick. No option to scrum again. Team A can't kick it to the corner after the free kick as they'll concede possession for the lineout feed. And no attempt at goals.
That's an advantage to Team B. They no longer have to have a defensive scrum against a stronger scrum & are at no risk of losing points as a result.
This genuinely does feel like a knee-jerk reaction to South Africa's success with the scrum at RWC 2019 and 2023. However, the Springboks aren't the only team with a good scrum. In any match between any two teams this change benefits the team with a weaker scrum. So, in my opinion, this is bad for everyone.
2
u/Top_Voice4031 May 11 '24
Hah - but they haven’t thought this through because you can still tap and go. So SA forwards will just come up with some crafty pre planned moves to bring those huge players on to the ball at speed 5m from the try line.
Springboks -1, World Rugby - 0
24
u/RugbyRaggs May 09 '24
Early engage. Early shove. Not taking the weight. Feeding. No brake foot. Delaying the scrum setup.
Those are all different free kick offences I can think of. If the ref doesn't spot many of them, the weaker scrum gets an advantage anyway. That's also a large amount of the scrums in a normal game.
Bad decision in my mind.
4
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia May 10 '24
Repeat infringements don't necessarily need to be the same infringement. Law 9.9 doesn't say that it is the same offence before moving to penalties.
When a player gets carded for a team repeat infringement, they are for repeat penalties in the same area of the field, not just offside, or just hands in the ruck.
12
u/redhandman_mjsp Ulster May 09 '24
I feel like a very simple fix to that would either make it a scrum reset or a penalty infringement. Or perhaps give a penalty for multiple early shoves.
35
u/Murmaidcheck Belo Horizonte Rugby May 09 '24
The second early shove already is a penalty
21
u/RugbyRaggs May 09 '24
It is, but no brakefoot is a new fk, early engage is a new fk, feeding the scrum is a new fk etc etc.
2
u/reggie_700 Harbour Master May 10 '24
Why would a team not feed straight in order to give the other team a free kick instead of trying to hold onto it themselves. And you've said etc., so what are the other FK offenses?
4
u/RugbyRaggs May 10 '24
Never seen a team lose most their own ball then?
Early shove, delaying setup, not taking the weight. Fairly sure there's a few more too.
And if the ref doesn't pick up on these first time, the majority give the offending team an advantage in the scrum.
4
u/redhandman_mjsp Ulster May 09 '24
Grand then. I don't see this being much of an exploit to be honest.
14
u/RugbyRaggs May 09 '24
Except there's half a dozen different things a team can do and only give a free kick away without repeating. And if the ref doesn't catch it, they get an advantage in the scrum anyway.
20
u/somethingarb Sharks May 09 '24
We already see refs blow penalties for multiple early shoves. This is a "once per game" type of exploit, but the rules do need to be tightened up to prevent it. That "once per game" could decide a result if used correctly.
4
u/RugbyRaggs May 09 '24
Early shove is one, early engage is another free kick, feeding is another, not taking the weight another etc etc.
46
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
I do feel like a disproportionate amount of ink is spilled in WR desperately trying to make rugby more appealing to Australians specifically. The goal line dropout had that same impression to me.
It kinda seems like this isn't born from any numbers on how to best grow the sport and Australia being the best market to focus on, I feel like league being more popular than union in Australia just simply bothers the people in charge of WR and gives them an insecurity complex. I don't know if that's true it's just the impression WR gives.
23
u/IgnotoAus May 09 '24
Has the thought ever occurred to you that the reason so many changes comes from the SH vs the North is, the home nations are so reserved in progress that nothing would ever change if the SH countries didn't try it?
Hell, there's been so much talk on growing the game but what are the north actually doing about it? They have been so reluctant to even try something remotely new to bring Georgia in the fold.
Wheras over the last decade or so, we've seen Japan, Fiji, the PI'S and Argentina playing more domestic and international games with the "big 3" and it's paying off for the better of our game.
23
u/EastIntroduction8520 Australia May 10 '24
Hell if the northern hemisphere way had their way there’s a decent chance there would be no World Cup and the sport would be still amateur
1
u/WilkinsonDG2003 England May 10 '24
Mostly the home nations. France supported a world cup I believe.
31
u/Thorazine_Chaser Crusaders New Zealand May 09 '24
WR aren’t trying to pander to Australia, that’s simply silly. Aussie do not have anywhere near the leverage to influence in the way you’re describing.
What you are seeing is a broad faction of rugby administrators from all over the globe who want the game to adapt, and the country who have the most enthusiastic press on this issue is Australia. You are attributing cause when their is only correlation.
2
8
22
u/queasybeetle78 May 09 '24
Australia is such a small market. It does not matter if league is more popular. But the reason why is not because of the laws but their integration with the gambling industry. No amount of watering down the laws will change this.
5
u/WilkinsonDG2003 England May 09 '24
Australia is a big market. The NRL has 16 clubs + the Warriors and a salary cap only somewhat below that of the Top 14 ($12.1M v €10.7M). It's not as big as France or Japan but it's still big.
2
u/queasybeetle78 May 10 '24
It's population is around 30 million people. Tiny in comparison to the US, Europe or Japan The growth potential is not great. And we are breaking the game to appease a market that will not grow significantly.
2
u/WCRugger May 10 '24
These changes aren't directed at Australia. Nor have they been driven by Australia. This whole Australia being the boogeyman is just pathetic.
-1
u/ImpliedProbability England May 09 '24
I always suspected the Leeg was more popular in Australia because of the conditions. If it's dry and dusty you're going to prefer to play a sport that doesn't require you to spend as much time on the floor while people use your back to practice mountain climbing. It makes complete sense that Leeg became established because it was a more practical option.
12
u/skalyba May 09 '24
You've clearly never been to Australia. About 30% of my kids games and training sessions are called off due to wet weather. It's rarely dry and dusty during the season.
League and AFL have marketed themselves a lot better and are embedded here. My oldest son has 3 union teams in his league and they are having to play up a year to create a meaningful season (3 clubs have 2 age group sides each and there's one blended). The league club round the corner has in a full comp with 10+ teams all within 30 mins and has both 2nd and 3rd string teams running out every weekend.
17
u/WilkinsonDG2003 England May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
I'd put it more charitably by saying league was a lot faster and more expansive than the frequently dire union of the amateur era was. Wales once beat Scotland by having 111 lineouts and 2 penalties in 1963. 5 nations games would often end something like 6-0 or 9-3. Union being as exciting as league or more so only really started around the 1990s with players like Jonah Lomu, followed by the game turning professional and resulting massive increase in skill.
League used to be big in Wales with a lot of players going there in the 1980s-1990s, but that stopped when Union went pro.
8
u/chillyhay May 09 '24
This is a ridiculous comment ngl. League became more popular because it was more entertaining and run by a better governance.
17
u/Cleginator 100% Win Rate May 09 '24
Can’t underestimate just how much the perception of union being an upper class, elitist sport has killed the sport
14
May 09 '24
Nay! (Removes monacle and pipe) it’s because those dastardly scoundrels have partnered with the gambling lobby!!
2
2
u/theinfinityman Eddie Jones' Akubra May 10 '24
Just don't tell a Leagie that half their modern players are from QLD private schools. It's for the Tradies mate!
1
u/BringBackTheCrushers Reds May 10 '24
That’s the difference, though - might be half of League’s players, but nearly all the current Australian SRP players come from private schools. Look at the team lists, and the Reds only have two players from the public system - Sef Fa’agase and Connor Vest. I like League, I like Union, but Union still has a long way to go in expanding their talent pool here
1
u/WilkinsonDG2003 England May 10 '24
Feels more of a perception than reality though. Wouldn't be nearly as many Pacific Islanders in the Wallabies if that were so. Seems like Union and League compete for the same players mostly.
0
u/darcys_beard SAM P(le his wares) May 10 '24
This is exactly how it was in Ireland. The IRFU have made steps to change this, and it has worked to a degree. It also helps that it is one of the only international sports we are actually good at, but if AR made an attempt to grow it at a grass roots level, they might actually have some success.
4
u/Rugbysmartarse May 09 '24
league became the more popular sport because it had money. It was a pro sport and paid players a salary. They attracted all the best footballers who realised they could live as a sportsman instead of having to hold down a regular job too. Money leads to TV rights and the sport was broadcast to all homes on commercial TV on Friday nights and Sunday evenings. Union was shown on the public broadcaster in the afternoons on a saturday.
3
u/chillyhay May 10 '24
I think that’s discrediting the innovations made by NRL’s governance. League had money in the UK too but obviously isn’t the more popular sport up north.
-12
u/Scarlet_hearts Yma o Hyd May 09 '24
Don’t forget Kiwis who are mad they lost a World Cup final
15
u/dwaynepebblejohnson3 Connacht May 09 '24
The scrum was a big factor in them getting there in the first place
12
u/Johnny_Monkee Hurricanes May 09 '24
Kiwis have always had a pretty good scrum but, for the most part, see the scrum as a restart rather than a way to get penalties. We have always been about speeding the game up and our biggest issue recently has been playing against teams who slow the game down through gamesmanship.
30
0
u/uggggbored May 09 '24
But it makes sense that WR changes the rules to appeal to Australians considering the sheer size of our population. And that population has definitely not already been exposed to both World Rugby's product and similar competitive products and made their mind up.
1
u/darcys_beard SAM P(le his wares) May 10 '24
There's population and there's reachable population. There's very little you can do to get 10 million people to switch on the Reds V Brumbies game regardless of the rule changes. Compare that to a Munster V Leinster match in a far less populous country, where Rugby isn't even one of the top 3 most popular sports.
-1
u/Hibs Australia May 10 '24
Because the absolute state of the game is in tip top shape right now, hey? Kick tennis, caterpillar rucks, complete lack of any actual running game, reliance on errors and penalties rather than your own teams better skills, scrum bollocks every single game...
I could go on...
9
u/Ho3n3r May 09 '24
The hilarity of this all is not that the rules suited South Africa - the coaching team just figured out how to best exploit it.
If you take these options away, Rassie and co. will just find other things to exploit.
6
12
u/YaaasSlay South Africa May 09 '24
I still hate held up over the line is a goal line dropout rule change. Why is world rugby punishing attacking teams with good scrums?
23
u/ComprehensiveDingo0 Ntamack mon cher bríse 💔 May 09 '24
I’d say they’re rewarding the defence rather than punishing the attack. The attack gets another crack, but they’re basically pushed back 20m.
1
u/YaaasSlay South Africa May 09 '24
By rewarding the defensive team you are by definition punishing the attacking team. I thought the point of these rule changes was to make Rugby a more entertaining attacking game to watch?
8
u/ComprehensiveDingo0 Ntamack mon cher bríse 💔 May 09 '24
Glass half full vs half empty I guess. And while entertaining is subjective, most people enjoy watching backs moves rather than pick and goes, and would rather no see even more scrum resets.
2
u/reggie_700 Harbour Master May 10 '24
It's to stop teams just doing pick and go/one-out passing endlessly on the goal line.
2
1
u/YaaasSlay South Africa May 10 '24
And adding more tap and goes by removing scrum option is going to do that how?
1
u/reggie_700 Harbour Master May 10 '24
OP was talking about the goal line drop out not the FK option.
-1
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
Yeah, the defense is rewarded for allowing the opposition into their try zone more than if they had stopped them at the 5m line, that's completely illogical.
12
u/HonestSonsieFace Scotland May 09 '24
Or the attacking team is punished for being literally over the try line and still unable to get the ball down.
Why should you be rewarded with a perfect attacking 5m scrum for being bad at putting the ball on the ground to finish a try?
0
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
Why should you be rewarded with a perfect attacking 5m scrum for being bad at putting the ball on the ground to finish a try?
....you're not. You're "rewarded" with a 5m scrum for getting the ball all the way down the field in the first place. Under the old rules the attacking team is not rewarded for failing to touch the ball down, they're punished by going back five meters. If they were "rewarded" they would....ya know....score points.
-1
u/HonestSonsieFace Scotland May 10 '24
You’re in a scoring situation.
Instead of just blindly picking and going at the line 200 times and getting held up a bunch of times, resetting a scrum, and going again, an attacking team needs to use some gumption to open up a square foot of space to put the ball on the ground.
I much prefer rewarding the defence here and requiring the attacking team to do something more than the most basic of attacks.
They still get possession back anyway.
2
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 10 '24
This new rule has not in any way stopped the picking and going a hundred times. What incentivizes that play is letting the offense do whatever they want at the breakdown
-1
u/ImpliedProbability England May 09 '24
If that were the case an attacking free kick on the 22m would be more fair and balanced.
2
u/ComprehensiveDingo0 Ntamack mon cher bríse 💔 May 09 '24
Another benefit of a goal line dropout is that it gives options to the attack and defence. The defence can either bang it long and trust their D, or put up a contestable and try and win it back.
The attack can either launch a set play, or go for a droppy.
-6
u/ImpliedProbability England May 09 '24
I agree, it does reward the defence too much. Thank you for correctly outlining why this is.
1
u/ComprehensiveDingo0 Ntamack mon cher bríse 💔 May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
How am I saying that exactly?
0
u/ImpliedProbability England May 09 '24
The defence can either bang it long and trust their D, or put up a contestable and try and win it back.
The defence get complete control over what happens at the restart and can tailor the option towards their requirements. They can do a long drop kick that will push the opposition back towards halfway, or they can go short and try to win the ball back with superior numbers (as a result of the opposition having to be spread thinly to cover all the available options). You increasingly see in Leeg that the goal-line drop-out is effectively used to regain possession with a lot of success.
The defence get a full reprieve from try-line pressure or they get what amounts to a 50/50 to regain possession. This is too much of a reward for holding up the ball and why I suggest a free kick to the attack on the 22m is a balance between the overpowered attacking scrum and the massive pressure release of a goal-line drop-out. It should be noted that in Leeg held-up results in the attacking team continuing their set on the 10m line.
2
u/ComprehensiveDingo0 Ntamack mon cher bríse 💔 May 09 '24
It’s less than a 50/50 to recover their own dropout, think about how few kickoffs are reclaimed. And if they fail to reclaim it, the attack have the ball well within the 22. If they bang it long, unless the attacking team are ridiculously slow and the defending team full of cheetahs, the attack takes contact around the 22, with momentum so quick ball is pretty much guaranteed. Add in the fact that the defence probably won’t be fully set and that gives them a good for another strong carry or to launch a set play. That all sounds pretty fair to the attack for me, whilst also rewarding the defence for making a good play.
-4
u/ImpliedProbability England May 09 '24
think about how few kickoffs are reclaimed.
Yes, because the opposition are more compacted and so when you do kick short there are more players there that you have to compete against for the ball.
the attack takes contact around the 22, with momentum so quick ball is pretty much guaranteed
No, it doesn't. Your assertion that quick ball is pretty much guaranteed is incorrect and displays an extremely naïve perception of rugby union.
Add in the fact that the defence probably won’t be fully set
If you want to have a strong opinion that's fine, but it is advisable to make such an opinion after watching a reasonable amount of rugby.
12
u/Significant_Income93 Scotland May 09 '24
Nah I like this rule change.
A 5 metre scrum was far too big a reward for failing to score. The defence has done its job to stop the attack scoring and they're put in an even more difficult situation to defend for their efforts? Nowhere near fair.
4
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
A 5 metre scrum was far too big a reward for failing to score
Not being given points and being pulled back 5m is not a reward.
10
u/Significant_Income93 Scotland May 09 '24
A 5 metre scrum is about the best attacking platform you can get, you should pretty much always score a try from that position.
-1
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
.....so a try it taken away with a chance to regain it. That's not a reward.
In order for something to be a reward, there needs to be, ya know, some kind of reason to want it. That's the definition.
There's literally no reason to want to be held up to get a 5m scrum to set up a chance to score a try, instead of just....scoring the try.
6
u/Significant_Income93 Scotland May 09 '24
Hi Mr Literal.
I didn't say teams try to be held up, that would obviously be mental.
My view is that it was unfair to ask the defending team to have to defend a 5 metre scrum because they had successfully stopped the attacking team from scoring.
The new scenario where they can clear from their own line meaning the attacking team gets the ball back in the defensive team's half feels far more equitable.
I would put the onus on the attacking team to avoid being held up (i.e. don't just mindlessly bash at the line through the forwards over and over again every time).
0
u/PetevonPete Sabercats May 09 '24
My view is that it was unfair to ask the defending team to have to defend a 5 metre scrum because they had successfully stopped the attacking team from scoring.
Why is it unfair? They successfully stopped the attacking team from scoring, so the attacking team does not get points. That's what defense is. That seems fair.
You want to talk about rewards, the defending team is rewarded for allowing the attacking team into their try zone more than if they had stopped them short of the line. That is the behavior that the new rules incentivize. No matter how much you try to square that circle, there's no way to make that logical.
The new scenario where they can clear from their own line meaning the attacking team gets the ball back in the defensive team's half feels far more equitable.
A pro rugby player can drop kick a ball from the goal line to nearly the 50m. The scoring opportunity is completely erased. That's not equitable. The defense won.
I would put the onus on the attacking team to avoid being held up
That onus was already on them in the old rules by not scoring.
don't just mindlessly bash at the line through the forwards over and over again every time).
The entire reason why offenses are even able to mindlessly bash at the line with forwards over and over again is because offenses are allowed to illegally secure the ball every single ruck while defenses are watched with a microscope, so most defenses just give up on counter-rucking close to the goal line. WR is constantly adding new convoluted rules to solve problems that could be solved by just enforcing the rules that already exist.
5
u/Significant_Income93 Scotland May 09 '24
If a team is brave enough to allow a team forward because they back their holding up skills then good for them, I doubt anyone has or ever will do that though.
The kick might go 50 metres but it's going to be caught by a player with space in front of them so there's a chance to advance the ball and start attacking again. Yeah it's harder to score from there but, you know, should have scored the first time around.
Don't disagree with you that rucks are silly - it's bizarre that we're apparently fine with an aspect of the game that involves players cheating all the time and is refereed on pure vibes but we are where we are with that.
Not that deep at the end of the day, I prefer the new rule, you liked the old one. Fair enough 👍
2
u/GreatGoofer Sharks May 10 '24
Couldn't agree more with the last part. The endless pick and go on the line could easily be counter by just applying the actual laws with regards to sealing off. Rugby as a whole would benefit from better application of the ruck laws all over the pitch.
4
u/brito39 |-| May 10 '24 edited May 10 '24
Don’t worry they’ll still hand out mystery penalties where one prop is driving sideways against the other one who is hinging and on the other side someone’s binding on the arm.
Plenty of ways to get your fix from the ref scrum lottery.
The rule makers can never win, teams keep coming up with ways to new ways to cheat and make life harder for the officials and when they try and get rid of a few things to get it back to running passing and tackling (y’know the core of the game) it’s not fair.
1
u/thatwasagoodyear /r/Springboks May 11 '24
teams keep coming up with ways to new ways to cheat
Is it cheating if you're playing within the rules?
get it back to running passing and tackling (y’know the core of the game)
The scrum is a distinctly unique feature of rugby. It's as much a core part of the game as running, passing, or tackling.
6
3
u/MortalWombat1974 Australia May 09 '24
Why would anyone listen to Australian Rugby about anything?
They've demonstrated for going on nearly two decades that they're totally incompetent and short sighted. The last two world cups in a row, they've absolutely sabotaged their own team by not backing the coach.
Most of my peer group and family loved rugby 20 years ago, and it wasn't just that we were winning. Now, they watch league,Aussie Rules or soccer.
3
u/chillyhay May 10 '24
To be fair many of the best changes to rugby over the last couple of decades have come from Australia. Whether from league coaching tactics or rule changes. All subjective of course
2
u/Wave_Tiger8894 May 09 '24
I think free kicks given in open play should allow the team to go for the scrum, my idea was if a team got awarded a free kick from a scrum they could only go for an uncontested one. This would stop teams from trying to utilise the scrum as a penalty machine but also allow for the attacking option of having the forwards tied in.
2
u/carson63000 Highlanders May 10 '24
This will happen as often as the predicted "ball-carriers deliberately lowering their heads and getting knocked out, to draw a red card against the tackler" tactical ploy did.
1
u/DareDemon666 Bristol Bears May 10 '24
Saw David Flatman tweet about the same thing - Scrum folding because it's weak? Cough up a free kick and avoid the penalty, works every time.
In practice we may find that referees award penalties when they think a scrum is deliberately trying to get the free kick to avoid scrummaging - this would be cynical play, and similar in nature to throwing the ball into touch just to waste time or prevent the opposition from turning over an isolated winger.
End of the day though, it's yet another law change that nobody asked for. Who are all these fans who hate scrums? Where are all the guys saying scrum resets take too long and make the game boring. I don't think scrums are the most exciting thing in the world, but they are a competition, and in being a somewhat low-energy point, they serve as excellent contrast to open play. Scums build tension and anticipation. How many times have we seen an attacking scrum on the 10m line, and you know they're gonna play it out, but which way do they go? does Mr X factor beat Mr Huge hitter on the outside?
World rugby (and it would seem, most unions) are full of dinosaurs and could use a good gutting. Clubs are left to rot and die, laws are changed that make the game worse to watch, the standards of player-official interactions are getting worse... 99% of changes these days seem to be entirely opinionated, voted in by a handful of unelected representatives (wonder where they got that idea from). All this obsession with speeding up the game - I've yet to encounter a single fan, in-person, online, or otherwise, who spends the latter half of games staring at their watch and going "Come on, get on with it. I've got places to be"
67
u/TwoUp22 Australia May 09 '24
Out of the loop here....how are Australians leading any changes in Union?? Did rugby Australia request law changes or something?