RugbyRebels

Commentators saying that the clock should be stopped for scrums until the ball is in. Thinking about it I'd be in favour but for a slightly different reason. A longer game means more tired players and more gaps to be exploited.

With that in mind is 80 minutes the right amount of time for a game? Are there any other ways that we can put that emphasis on cardio and less on brute power in defence or does the premium on cardio fitness mean that there isn't enough power to break through?

Was it jonnie beatie who suggested that u can have 8 guys on the bench but only sub 3

I dont want the game to be longer but would definitely be in favour of limiting subs. Only danger is injuries and the danger that if you allow for them then you will get players faking

Cameo wrote:I dont want the game to be longer but would definitely be in favour of limiting subs. Only danger is injuries and the danger that if you allow for them then you will get players faking

Exactly it will never work. Look at the backs crisis Wales had at the RWC. They were dropping like flies. It happens.

The main problem is that players (and coaches) now have the mindset that a scrum is a chance to earn a penalty rather than just a way to restart the game with a moderate contest for the ball.

The best solution is to make the sanction for any technical infringement a free kick only, with penalties reserved for foul play. Enforcing straight feeds would help, too.

Lizard wrote:The main problem is that players (and coaches) now have the mindset that a scrum is a chance to earn a penalty rather than just a way to restart the game with a moderate contest for the ball.

The best solution is to make the sanction for any technical infringement a free kick only, with penalties reserved for foul play. Enforcing straight feeds would help, too.

Enforcing straight feeds - and introducing a new law that states that BOTH hookers must strike for the ball.

Its a total mindset change where the players and coaches know they will win because the refs wont keep enforcing the laws


As a simple solution why not make the ref put the ball into the scrum

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:The main problem is that players (and coaches) now have the mindset that a scrum is a chance to earn a penalty rather than just a way to restart the game with a moderate contest for the ball.

The best solution is to make the sanction for any technical infringement a free kick only, with penalties reserved for foul play. Enforcing straight feeds would help, too.

Enforcing straight feeds - and introducing a new law that states that BOTH hookers must strike for the ball.

If the rules at scrum time were actually enforced then things might change. Straight feed and no early strike (foot up). Not that the last one matters for us, we don't hook anyway.

Croft_No.5 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:The main problem is that players (and coaches) now have the mindset that a scrum is a chance to earn a penalty rather than just a way to restart the game with a moderate contest for the ball.

The best solution is to make the sanction for any technical infringement a free kick only, with penalties reserved for foul play. Enforcing straight feeds would help, too.

Enforcing straight feeds - and introducing a new law that states that BOTH hookers must strike for the ball.

If the rules at scrum time were actually enforced then things might change. Straight feed and no early strike (foot up). Not that the last one matters for us, we don't hook anyway.

I think not hooking lies at the heart of the problem. Many teams don't hook on their own put-In for the simple reason that they would be overpowered by an 8-man push against their 7. This is why I suggest making it obligatory for both hookers to compete. It would de-power and stabilise the scrum. Of course, the big question is how you get the refs to enforce it when they won't enforce something as straightforward as a squint feed.

I thought one of the reasons refs turn a blind eye to crooked feeds is just to get the scrum over and done with because there might be an unending stream of resets. I've heard talk about making the props keep the knees of their outside legs level with their hips up to when the ball goes in. This would make the scrum more stable by making them actually prop it up. Once the ball is in they can push away.

Another issue is that props seem to now find it more shameful to go backwards than to collapse, whereas the opposite used to be true. Pushover tries were far more common whereas now a likely pushover try usually ends in a collapse and a penalty try.

Perhaps props that go down instead of backwards should get a new, pink card which means that for the next 10 minutes they have to swap shorts for frilly knickers?