Stopping the clock for scrums

Rigor Mortis

There is an article in the Irish Times about whether we should stop the clock for scrums. The article rules it out because it would add an extra 21 minutes to a game. I think that that number is high, because there is a tendancy in games to use the scrum as a time wasting device. I think there is merit to consider the measure in conjunction with a reduction in overall match clock time to 70 minutes.

kuang1

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

There is an article in the Irish Times about whether we should stop the clock for scrums. The article rules it out because it would add an extra 21 minutes to a game. I think that that number is high, because there is a tendancy in games to use the scrum as a time wasting device. I think there is merit to consider the measure in conjunction with a reduction in overall match clock time to 70 minutes.

An average reset takes 30 seconds.
Might be some merit in stopping the clock for resets only and not for the original effort to set one?

LeBash

Weve seen plenty of teams use the scrum to eat the clock away when they are in the lead or have a player in the bin.

Time limit on the scrum and line out or a yellow to the on field captain of the team delaying would be better imho.

sydthebeat

kuang1 wrote: »

An average reset takes 30 seconds.
Might be some merit in stopping the clock for resets only and not for the original effort to set one?

There are many occasions where a scrum thats called with 90 seconds left does not end up being completed until the clock is red.

it boils my blood and i absolutely agree that the clock should be stopped for scrums as its a very easy time wasting measure for a leading team

errlloyd

I am against it. At the moment the only incentive to get the scrum done quickly is time. If the match clock was stopped I could see scrums ending up taking much longer. Nevermind the fact that the actual game would get 20 minutes longer (and move out of my 2 hour sweetspot).

My alternative is that once the scrum has been called the fouth official starts a 1-minute timer. If the scrum isn't underway by the minute being up the ref has to give a freekick against whoever he thinks is mostly to blame.

Sabre0001

There are times I can see the value in this (not when Munster/Ireland are leading of course!). But God, if the Munster v Saracens game had to go on for another 20 minutes (and likely more scrums within that time)...

Matches take long enough at the best of times some times. And surely if we're going to stop the clock for scrums, we need to do similar for when the ball goes out for a lineout and a team forms their little huddle before sauntering over (sometimes stopped after a team has been at it throughout the game, but frequently let go).

I have been complaining for a while at how long scrums take to complete, I think the refs need to manage them better rather than stopping the clock.

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

My alternative is that once the scrum has been called the fouth official starts a 1-minute timer. If the scrum isn't underway by the minute being up the ref has to give a freekick against whoever he thinks is mostly to blame.

1 minute allows for at most one reset
2 props slip, whos to blame?

The scrum is patently used as a time wasting measure.
if you remove the primary reward (time wasted!) then i can see muchmore scrums being set quicker and much less resets.

where is the reward for teams slowing down the setting of scrums if the clock is off?

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

1 minute allows for at most one reset
2 props slip, whos to blame?

The scrum is patently used as a time wasting measure.
if you remove the primary reward (time wasted!) then i can see muchmore scrums being set quicker and much less resets.

where is the reward for teams slowing down the setting of scrums if the clock is off?

Reduce the attacking team momentum, give someone a break, give themselves a break, allow for a nefarious CVC broadcast deal to run a commercial break, just generally not rush?

Just look at the NFL...

kingofthekong

Im all for scrums taking up time....many a time ive watched Ireland with slender leads drain clock time with scrums to eak out wins againt the southern hemisphere ball playing teams lol

If anything MORE SCRUMS!!! lol

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

1 Reduce the attacking team momentum,
2. give someone a break,
3. give themselves a break,
4. allow for a nefarious CVC broadcast deal to run a commercial break,
5. just generally not rush?

Just look at the NFL...

1. they already do this
2. they already do this
3. they already do this
4. this could already happen if they wanted it to
5. they already do this.

the point being that they already time waste.

so reasons for slowing down the setting up of scrums when the clock is off... already happens when the clock is on.

You see the situation getting worse if clocks are stopped, whereas i see it getting better.

the laws already deal with a team slowing forming a scrum, only 30 seconds are allowed.

Perhaps its something they should trial in south africa to see how it goes.

interesting though that in Super rugby the time spent on scrums is much less than in the NH and at international level, as the scrum is used as a platform to attack from the back line. NH tend to use scrums in the first instance to win penalties.

Maybe we could look at the reward for having a dominant scrum.
Should we aim more to use the scrum as a restart ....

ive often thought that the defending team should be 10 meters behind the back foot at scrum time, while leaving the attacking team 5 meters behind. This would offer an attacking team more time and space, thus offering more reward to get the ball out of the scrum quicker.

The Lost Sheep

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

There is an article in the Irish Times about whether we should stop the clock for scrums. The article rules it out because it would add an extra 21 minutes to a game. I think that that number is high, because there is a tendancy in games to use the scrum as a time wasting device. I think there is merit to consider the measure in conjunction with a reduction in overall match clock time to 70 minutes.

I dont agree with either. What would be benefit of reducing game to 70 minutes? Adds nothing and why do something that would see more bigger players involved and all that.

LeBash wrote: »

Weve seen plenty of teams use the scrum to eat the clock away when they are in the lead or have a player in the bin.

Time limit on the scrum and line out or a yellow to the on field captain of the team delaying would be better imho.

and what about genuine reasons for scrum taking long time or anything else and it would be ridiculous to give yellow to captain for something like this.

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. they already do this
2. they already do this
3. they already do this
4. this could already happen if they wanted it to
5. they already do this.

the point being that they already time waste.

so reasons for slowing down the setting up of scrums when the clock is off... already happens when the clock is on.

You see the situation getting worse if clocks are stopped, whereas i see it getting better.

The fact they already do it is not really relevant to the point. The issue is that if they still have an incentive to do it beyond wearing down the clock then all we will end up with is significantly longer games.

Anyway, I'm conflicted on the matter, though would take the clock being stopped on the first reset as a good compromise.

Squidgy Black

I think it could work, but more leave it to the refs. Initial scrum doesn't stop the clock, but if it goes down and the ref resets because either side is acting the bollox with their bind etc then he can stop the clock.

I think a hard-fast rule of stop the clock for all scrums would just drag the game out that bit too long. Refs can penalise for timewasting already, and it isn't really a common thing of seeing a team milk more than a minute or two out of scrums.

osarusan

Here's my suggestion as a casual rugby fan.

The clock initially doesn't stop at all at scrum time, but when the ref says 'set' the timekeeper makes a note of the time. Say for example it's 21.25. If the scrum doesn't need to be reset, the clock never stops. But if the scrum does need to be reset, the clock is stopped, reset to 21.25, and activates again when the ref says 'set' for the second (or third, fourth) time.

FellasFellas

Nigel Owens calls the time off after a penalty or an injury break and if there's a scrum, he then tells them to restart the clock as soon as he says crouch. It's something at least.

connachta

Added match lenght is not valid a point.
We can stop the clock for both scrums and lineouts, and have halfs of 30 minutes (of effective play) instead of 40
There's no reason either it slows down the game, the ref can still give free-kicks when the clock is off, if a team deliberately tries to brake the momentum/rythm

Tim Robbins

A ref can call time off if he wants to and explain problems etc. at scrum time.
I just think it's a part of the game some ref's struggle at for a number of reasons including that they're can be multiple infringements at the same time - whereas in the post tackle, most refs will do TAB - Tackle release and roll away, Arriving players don't come in from the side and Ball carrier releases in that order. We don't have anything like that for Scrum.

One thing I'd like to see is Ref's mic'd up for stadiums especially for TMO decisions. You are sitting there for 2 - 3 minutes not knowing what is going on when at match. It would add to the drama in stadium if the ref's mic was connected to PA during downtime chats with captains and discussions with TMO instead of that stupid music :-)