The UAFC

If there is anyone who actually reads my posts, it will be obvious that I am totally ignorant of what goes on in the scrum, nor, to be honest, do I really care.

I of course have heard the mantra ( undoubtedly pedalled by front row forwards!) that forwards win games, and the backs just determine by how many. In loose play, rucks and mauls , I can just about accept that.

But if you can forgive me my ignorance, and in an honest attempt to understand.........

On a pure time management basis ( ie far too much playing time is being lost getting scrums "set"), what is the point of taking 3-4 minutes getting it "right" , for the scrum half to then blatantly throw the ball into the second row feet.......without penalty..........thus making the previous 3 or 4 minutes a total irrelevance and complete waste of time.

So, do we need to return to "non crooked feeds" or introduce some sort of law to quicken up the time allowed between the whistle for the offence and the setting of the scrum.

Or horror, horror................abandon set scrums?

Bobbievee wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:08 pm Or horror, horror................abandon set scrums?

The man's a witch!

Burn him!!!

Away to "6-tackles and kick" wi ye! Gwan I tell ye!

Or repent, renounce your heretical ways and in 300 years perhaps, just perhaps, we will overlook this moment of weakness.

He's gone North! Never darken the door of a rugby club again!

Ok, I'll bite.

And I'm taliking about pro rugby here.

Agree about feedIng. However even within the latest version of 'baĺl in the middle', there would be exceptionally little ball taken against the head. Going back to the 70s, an international pack losing their own scrum wouuld be counted on the fingers of one hand over a season,

Also scrums don't take 3 or 4 minutes. Lineouts take longer. (Something which is now being addressed by IRB afaik)

I will not try to explain the skill avd beauty involved in a well executed scrum, because i will accept it is not apparent to the external observer. But i will concede the advantage it offers creating phases of the game where there are no fat boys littering the backline. Evidence: Humph on cocomms last night suggesting the 5m scrum is the preferred penalty option in normal circumstances. Also the criticism of Ireland last week for spurning attacking scrums which would have created automatic overlaps.

Scrummaging laws could do with a tinker (I'd go with less penalty offences, as scrums are now relatively safe) and like every other aspect of the game, refs actually applying the laws, as written, would be an improvement.

Now fùck off!

Yeah fùck off boobie.

Rugby is for those of the fatty, lanky, burly, large bellied, stumpy, neckless, booby, flabby, and diabetic etc - persuasion.

Forward positions would disappear.

Dave wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:39 pm Yeah fùck off boobie.

Rugby is for those of the fatty, lanky, burly, large bellied, stumpy, neckless, booby, flabby, and diabetic etc - persuasion.

Forward positions would disappear.

Aye. The Marty Moores of this world would be threatened with extinction.

I am surprised that Bobbie's point has not garnered more support but also surprised that the illogicalities of the scrum tradition didn't occur to me before he pointed them out. Almost every scrumhalf in TV games feeds the ball directly into the second row and almost all referees and TMOs ignore this. The time taken to set scrums with all the petty quibbling detracts from the game and is utterly pointless given the fait accompli outcome when the ball is fed in. The solution appears simple- referees need to be instructed across the board to consistently and conscientiously apply the scrum feed rules/laws.

for dog and ulcer wrote:I am surprised that Bobbie's point has not garnered more support but also surprised that the illogicalities of the scrum tradition didn't occur to me before he pointed them out. Almost every scrumhalf in TV games feeds the ball directly into the second row and almost all referees and TMOs ignore this. The time taken to set scrums with all the petty quibbling detracts from the game and is utterly pointless given the fait accompli outcome when the ball is fed in. The solution appears simple- referees need to be instructed across the board to consistently and conscientiously apply the scrum feed rules/laws.

Boobies logic: why not abandon referees?

Sometimes I think that might make sense. I also find it absurd how ranks are closed when referees have their competence questioned by coaches as in the recent Dean Richards suspension where the questioning coach is charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Frequently it seems to me that it is the rugby authorities or referees or both who should be so charged. The worst example I remember was when Pat Lam was fined for criticism of Leighton Hodges when Lam was coach at Connacht. And I also find absurd the spectacle of referees "explaining" the scrum and/or binding rules to professional players. This is just timewasting nonsense.

And finally, requiring coaches to give talks to youth and other groups in support of the authority of rugby officials and blazers is extremely authoritarian and a pathetic rubbing of salt in the wound which smacks of pettiness and absurd school rules designed to suppress any dissent. The message being communicated is that referees are always right and that no criticism or questioning is to be tolerated.

for dog and ulcer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:04 pm I am surprised that Bobbie's point has not garnered more support but also surprised that the illogicalities of the scrum tradition didn't occur to me before he pointed them out. Almost every scrumhalf in TV games feeds the ball directly into the second row and almost all referees and TMOs ignore this. The time taken to set scrums with all the petty quibbling detracts from the game and is utterly pointless given the fait accompli outcome when the ball is fed in. The solution appears simple- referees need to be instructed across the board to consistently and conscientiously apply the scrum feed rules/laws.

Which makes last week's plalaver at the Aviva and the subsequent discussions about "specialist hookers" paricularly daft. Any fatboy should be able to play at 2 and keep the scrum stable. The chances of him seeing the ball are remote to say the least.

big mervyn wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:01 pm
Which makes last week's plalaver at the Aviva and the subsequent discussions about "specialist hookers" paricularly daft. Any fatboy should be able to play at 2 and keep the scrum stable. The chances of him seeing the ball are remote to say the least.

Exactly.. Pure nonsense. We have been fed this disinformation for long enough.

I took a friend to his first rugby match last night. It wasn't a bad match but he was bored and I could see why. So many stoppages and so slow to get things going both at scrums and line-outs. If you don't understand what's going on, rugby can be pretty dull. Can players cope with 80 minutes of much more continuous intense action? Maybe there are bigger issues here.

Boobie's solution: abandon rugby.

Alternatively: abandon friends (not the school).

In my defence, I think only dog and ulcer picked up my point. If scrums are so hard to get set and officiate THEN they deserve to become a contest. Throwing the ball Into the second row negates the whole process.
Something has to change
Only old school die-hard front 5s would deny that??!!

They tightened the application of the feeding laws 3 or 4 years ago (Remember? Rory was one of the few hookers who actually knew how to hook). It made almost no difference to the number of balls taken against the head, and arguably made the scrum less stable and caused more resets. But technically they are still the rules we are working under, including that hookers must hook.

I fear the IRB have fallen into the trap that criticism of how long a scrum takes to complete properly has prompted them to ignore the laws as long as the ball comes out and nobody gets hurt.

For me lineouts need to be addressed first. The ball should not be dead for this length of time. I'd actually like to see what would happen of they rebanned lifting. (Gut feeling it would be safer and more of a contest)

I'm convinced that scrums and lineouts, especially lineouts, take so long to get going because forwards want, and maybe need, a breather. What happens if we take this away? Tiredness increases - big deal. Does it make the game more dangerous? If not, anything to speed things up would be welcome.