Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

The Lost Sheep · 28-09-2015 12:55pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I've no issue with refs playing advantage, like you said it helps the game to flow. I've issue with the calls that the ref doesn't see because there are too many things happening at once for him to track fully.

If you are looking for a game where the officials see everything illegal/against the spirit of the game you will never be happy as that will never ever occur. Even with the 3 officials as well as the TMO things will go unsighted and I have absolutely no problem with that

Muahahaha · 28-09-2015 4:00pm

Can I ask the definition of a knock on? Does the ball have to hit the ground to be a knock on? i.e. if a player knocks it forward but then catches it before it hits the ground is that considered a knock on or not?

MJohnston · 28-09-2015 4:05pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Can I ask the definition of a knock on? Does the ball have to hit the ground to be a knock on? i.e. if a player knocks it forward but then catches it before it hits the ground is that considered a knock on or not?

From my guide:

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball forwards, or it strikes their hand or arm and goes forward and touches the ground or another player. The original player can re-collect the ball [before it touches the ground or the other player] and it will not be a knock-on, nor will any contact made when charging down an opposition kick be counted as a knock-on.

Muahahaha · 28-09-2015 4:31pm

Thanks, thats what I was thinking myself. So then in theory would it be possible for a player to palm/fist a ball that has been passed to him high into the air and in a forward direction and then run forward to catch his 'pass'. I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but is it technically within the laws of rugby?

sydthebeat · 28-09-2015 4:42pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thanks, thats what I was thinking myself. So then in theory would it be possible for a player to palm/fist a ball that has been passed to him high into the air and in a forward direction and then run forward to catch his 'pass'. I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but is it technically within the laws of rugby?

often happens that a "palmed" forward pass is caught.... see BODs famous intercept from ROGs pass

it wouldnt be common to try to fist it as
(1) the ball is not round therefore it could bounce anywhere off a fist
(2) much more likely to be considered a deliberate knock on and you run the risk then of being yellow carded

The Lost Sheep · 28-09-2015 4:50pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Can I ask the definition of a knock on? Does the ball have to hit the ground to be a knock on? i.e. if a player knocks it forward but then catches it before it hits the ground is that considered a knock on or not?

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

philstar · 28-09-2015 6:13pm

why don't most players take a quick line out to themselves

isn't it better than having the opposition lined out and organised ready for attack??

The Lost Sheep · 28-09-2015 7:10pm

philstar wrote: »

why don't most players take a quick line out to themselves

isn't it better than having the opposition lined out and organised ready for attack??

Because it can be quite risky and you risk a turnover and more chance of losing possession.

AbusesToilets · 28-09-2015 11:38pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

If you are looking for a game where the officials see everything illegal/against the spirit of the game you will never be happy as that will never ever occur. Even with the 3 officials as well as the TMO things will go unsighted and I have absolutely no problem with that

Fair enough if you are content with that. Personally, I think there a lot of areas that could improved upon with respect to refereeing, which would serve to improve the game.

MJohnston · 29-09-2015 10:58am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fair enough if you are content with that. Personally, I think there a lot of areas that could improved upon with respect to refereeing, which would serve to improve the game.

I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with that - just the notion that adding more refs is the solution.

sydthebeat · 29-09-2015 11:13am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fair enough if you are content with that. Personally, I think there a lot of areas that could improved upon with respect to refereeing, which would serve to improve the game.

at the elite level the game is referred to an extermely high standard

if you dont want to see a raft of broken laws go unpunished, dont ever go to an amateur game

a referee can only ref it from what they see

The Lost Sheep · 29-09-2015 11:23am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fair enough if you are content with that. Personally, I think there a lot of areas that could improved upon with respect to refereeing, which would serve to improve the game.

Im just speaking from experience of refereeing/coaching/playing. Of course there is areas for improvement. There always will be. But this post of yours is what I have issue with

I've issue with the calls that the ref doesn't see because there are too many things happening at once for him to track fully.

The referee just will not see everything. His team of officials will not see everything. The referee and his other officials, at top level of the game the assistants can call all play to the referees attention and what isn't called in general is deemed fine or just ignored

odyboody · 29-09-2015 2:25pm

Lads I know the ref can tell the scrum half to "use it" when a maul has stopped going forward for the 2nd time.
Its only recently I have noticed the ref saying use it at the back of a scrum. What is the rule around this, I thought the 8 could hold the ball between is feet and advance the scrum. As this is starting from a stationary position it cant be deemed to have come to a stop.

MJohnston · 29-09-2015 2:32pm

odyboody wrote: »

Lads I know the ref can tell the scrum half to "use it" when a maul has stopped going forward for the 2nd time.
Its only recently I have noticed the ref saying use it at the back of a scrum. What is the rule around this, I thought the 8 could hold the ball between is feet and advance the scrum. As this is starting from a stationary position it cant be deemed to have come to a stop.

Could be that the referee is using the ruck laws for this? http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16.7&language=EN

sydthebeat · 29-09-2015 3:19pm

odyboody wrote: »

Lads I know the ref can tell the scrum half to "use it" when a maul has stopped going forward for the 2nd time.
Its only recently I have noticed the ref saying use it at the back of a scrum. What is the rule around this, I thought the 8 could hold the ball between is feet and advance the scrum. As this is starting from a stationary position it cant be deemed to have come to a stop.

rugby law 20.4 (f)

When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

so the "use it" call is a warning to the team in possession.

The Lost Sheep · 29-09-2015 4:05pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fair enough if you are content with that. Personally, I think there a lot of areas that could improved upon with respect to refereeing, which would serve to improve the game.

I am quite content with it based on my involvement in the game
Of course there is areas of improvement. That is why you will see World Rugby constantly updating the laws of the game. There will be notifications/clarifications on specific areas throughout the world cup and there is going to be big law trials coming into operation at different levels and world wide over the next season or two

odyboody wrote: »

Lads I know the ref can tell the scrum half to "use it" when a maul has stopped going forward for the 2nd time.
Its only recently I have noticed the ref saying use it at the back of a scrum. What is the rule around this, I thought the 8 could hold the ball between is feet and advance the scrum. As this is starting from a stationary position it cant be deemed to have come to a stop.

This has been allowed if the scrum has come to a stop and to speed the game. If the scrum is stationary and ball does not emerge immediately the laws state another scrum must take place and the
When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. The referee saying use it is to stop this from occurring. Preventative refereeing which is a good sign....

AbusesToilets · 29-09-2015 9:54pm

I think having additional tasks for the Assistant Refs or even additional refs on the field would be an opportunity to improve the game significantly. Take the scrum for example. Having dedicated assistance to the ref, with clear guideline on what to look for and able to give feedback to head ref, would be very helpful. How many times a game to you see a ref give a scrum penalty for dubious or incorrect reasons? Certain elite refs have made careers out of that. What downside do you see in having such an option?

Assistant refs already alert the ref to illegal play on the field if they see, usually relating to foul play or interference with players fielding kicks. WR could stand to give more direct tasking to them to police the defensive offside line, blindside of scrums etc (and maybe they have and I'm ignorant of that).

WR seems eager to fiddle with the laws to try and engender a more pleasing spectacle, rather than work having refs enforce existing rules more effectively.

The Lost Sheep · 29-09-2015 10:04pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think having additional tasks for the Assistant Refs or even additional refs on the field would be an opportunity to improve the game significantly. Take the scrum for example. Having dedicated assistance to the ref, with clear guideline on what to look for and able to give feedback to head ref, would be very helpful. How many times a game to you see a ref give a scrum penalty for dubious or incorrect reasons? Certain elite refs have made careers out of that. What downside do you see in having such an option?

Assistant refs already alert the ref to illegal play on the field if they see, usually relating to foul play or interference with players fielding kicks. WR could stand to give more direct tasking to them to police the defensive offside line, blindside of scrums etc (and maybe they have and I'm ignorant of that).

WR seems eager to fiddle with the laws to try and engender a more pleasing spectacle, rather than work having refs enforce existing rules more effectively.

You don't need a dedicated assistant referee for the scrum. At scrum time the referee will be on the putting in side and one assistant will be on centre line of scrum at other side watching feed etc while the other AR is watching the opposition backline for offside. We already have 6 officials plus a citing commissioner at games we don't need any more.
You are just opening things up for more confusion and frustration amongst players with different referees coming in
Assistant referees at pro level already police defensive offside line/blindside of scrum. World Rugby are and always have been working on referees(at all levels elite or otherwise) improving at the existing laws and implementing them more effectively.

Losty Dublin · 29-09-2015 10:17pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

if you dont want to see a raft of broken laws go unpunished, dont ever go to an amateur game

Not when I'm in charge :pac:

Losty Dublin · 29-09-2015 10:19pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

rugby law 20.4 (f)

When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

so the "use it" call is a warning to the team in possession.

This came up at the ARLB annual seminar as something to be the done thing for the new season. It's not really an issue in the junior game as quick ball is expected so it's only at the senior level that it will be noticed.

AbusesToilets · 29-09-2015 10:30pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You don't need a dedicated assistant referee for the scrum. At scrum time the referee will be on the putting in side and one assistant will be on centre line of scrum at other side watching feed etc while the other AR is watching the opposition backline for offside. We already have 6 officials plus a citing commissioner at games we don't need any more.
You are just opening things up for more confusion and frustration amongst players with different referees coming in
Assistant referees at pro level already police defensive offside line/blindside of scrum. World Rugby are and always have been working on referees(at all levels elite or otherwise) improving at the existing laws and implementing them more effectively.

Your argument would hold more weight if it weren't for the repeated spectacle of cheating at scrums, scrum collapses and all the rest, that occurs in every game. Most refs do not do a good job reffing the scrum, the constant failure to ensure a straight feed being the most glaring example of that. A raft of articles out after this weekends games highlighting the refs failure to recognise teams cheating at the scrum and to take the appropraite action.

The current system is clearly not sufficient, why you are so resistant to the idea of trying something new in place of a set that is not working is a strange one.

The Lost Sheep · 30-09-2015 10:46am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your argument would hold more weight if it weren't for the repeated spectacle of cheating at scrums, scrum collapses and all the rest, that occurs in every game. Most refs do not do a good job reffing the scrum, the constant failure to ensure a straight feed being the most glaring example of that. A raft of articles out after this weekends games highlighting the refs failure to recognise teams cheating at the scrum and to take the appropraite action.

The current system is clearly not sufficient, why you are so resistant to the idea of trying something new in place of a set that is not working is a strange one.

There will be "cheating" at the scrum regardless of if there is 3 officials as is currently the case or any more than that looking at aspects of the game. Where do you propose these officials to go in the game?
You say extra assistant referees on the pitch? Where do they go - stand during game? What will be each ARs role? Does 1 guy do touch and the other ....
Your proposal is not feasible and the system is working. There will always be complaints. The referees see an incident once in real time and judge based on that. They can go to the video for some incidents but we already have games that are going on for ridiculously long time frames due to TMO stops etc. Do we really need to be extending the number of stoppages???

sydthebeat · 30-09-2015 10:56am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your argument would hold more weight if it weren't for the repeated spectacle of cheating at scrums, scrum collapses and all the rest, that occurs in every game. .

the work done around the scrum has been great in the last few years.

the current scrum sequence of ‘crouch, bind, set’ has reduced front row injuries by 50% by ‘reducing forces on engagement by 25 per cent’,

and more changes to be trialed

In the crouch position ‘front rows will be shoulder to shoulder with their opponents, stable and supporting their own weight without pushing’. Upon the bind call being made by the referee, ‘props will position their arms in the correct ‘bind’ position. The front rows (+ back 5 players) will tighten binds and set themselves for the throw-in’.

Defending teams will also be discouraged from wheeling the scrum by awarding the attacking team with a new scrum if wheeling does occur. In a situation where a team is unable to supply front row cover due to in game injuries or suffer a sending off, each team will have to commit to involving eight players in uncontested scrums. This differs from the current law, where it is possible to have uncontested scrums involving less than the sixteen players required.

from here
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/world-rugby-to-trial-new-laws/

rrpc · 30-09-2015 12:51pm

Neil Treacy has an article in the 42 on problems with the scrum; specifically boring in by the loose head.

Joe Marler is singled out, but there are others as well.

?width=630&version=2357728

AbusesToilets · 30-09-2015 1:03pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There will be "cheating" at the scrum regardless of if there is 3 officials as is currently the case or any more than that looking at aspects of the game. Where do you propose these officials to go in the game?
You say extra assistant referees on the pitch? Where do they go - stand during game? What will be each ARs role? Does 1 guy do touch and the other ....
Your proposal is not feasible and the system is working. There will always be complaints. The referees see an incident once in real time and judge based on that. They can go to the video for some incidents but we already have games that are going on for ridiculously long time frames due to TMO stops etc. Do we really need to be extending the number of stoppages???

An assistant ref could police the blindside, watching the binds, angle of the scrum etc.

Your argument against trying to improve reffing in the game is that it is too much work to figure out where an extra ref might stand on the field?

AbusesToilets · 30-09-2015 1:05pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

the work done around the scrum has been great in the last few years.

and more changes to be trialed

from here
http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/adrumm/world-rugby-to-trial-new-laws/

There has been an improvement certainly, but it is far from ideal. The scrum is still a mess, teams get away a rake of messing at scrum time and refs aren't even following the dictates put out by WR with respect to things like early pushing and feeding.

The Lost Sheep · 30-09-2015 1:20pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

An assistant ref could police the blindside, watching the binds, angle of the scrum etc.

Your argument against trying to improve reffing in the game is that it is too much work to figure out where an extra ref might stand on the field?

Assistant referees already do all the above. They make calls and as they are mic'd up they inform referee and the infringing side are penalised in games. You are looking for things that already occur

sydthebeat · 30-09-2015 1:37pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There has been an improvement certainly, but it is far from ideal. The scrum is still a mess, teams get away a rake of messing at scrum time and refs aren't even following the dictates put out by WR with respect to things like early pushing and feeding.

of course they are... that hyperbole rubbish

Carawaystick · 30-09-2015 2:15pm

To the OP its well done diagram.
My 2 cents would be to add something about advantage (scrum vs penalty) and maybe mention the 5m lines for scrums

AbusesToilets · 30-09-2015 11:16pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course they are... that hyperbole rubbish

Really? Go pull up one of the recent world cup games and count how many times they pinged a team for a crooked feed.

Assistant refs are not effective at helping refs deal with the scrum. If they were, you would see team getting pinged correctly for boring in etc. You are living in denial if you are claiming that the scrum and offside are being policed effectively at the moment on a consistent basis.

phog · 01-10-2015 12:10am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Really? Go pull up one of the recent world cup games and count how many times they pinged a team for a crooked feed.

Assistant refs are not effective at helping refs deal with the scrum. If they were, you would see team getting pinged correctly for boring in etc. You are living in denial if you are claiming that the scrum and offside are being policed effectively at the moment on a consistent basis.

There's a fair amount of truth in this.

It's seldom enough you see the AR get involved in calling a foul at scrum time. It's an absolute rarity for the ref or AR to call a crooked feed at scrum time.

Losty Dublin · 01-10-2015 12:27am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Really? Go pull up one of the recent world cup games and count how many times they pinged a team for a crooked feed.

Assistant refs are not effective at helping refs deal with the scrum. If they were, you would see team getting pinged correctly for boring in etc. You are living in denial if you are claiming that the scrum and offside are being policed effectively at the moment on a consistent basis.

Given that the referee is closer to the scrum than other officials, they are in by far the best position to make the call on a feed than any other match official.

phog · 01-10-2015 12:38am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You don't need a dedicated assistant referee for the scrum. At scrum time the referee will be on the putting in side and one assistant will be on centre line of scrum at other side watching feed etc while the other AR is watching the opposition backline for offside. We already have 6 officials plus a citing commissioner at games we don't need any more.
You are just opening things up for more confusion and frustration amongst players with different referees coming in
Assistant referees at pro level already police defensive offside line/blindside of scrum. World Rugby are and always have been working on referees(at all levels elite or otherwise) improving at the existing laws and implementing them more effectively.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Given that the referee is closer to the scrum than other officials, they are in by far the best position to make the call on a feed than any other match official.

I think AT was going on what TLS said about what one of the ARs do at scrum time

degsie · 01-10-2015 7:48am

phog wrote: »

I think AT was going on what TLS said about what one of the ARs do at scrum time

Acronym much?

The Lost Sheep · 01-10-2015 11:20am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Really? Go pull up one of the recent world cup games and count how many times they pinged a team for a crooked feed.

Assistant refs are not effective at helping refs deal with the scrum. If they were, you would see team getting pinged correctly for boring in etc. You are living in denial if you are claiming that the scrum and offside are being policed effectively at the moment on a consistent basis.

How do you know assistants are not effective? They are micced to the referee and make calls a lot but you just wont see that they'll have made the caslls.
Offside is certainly policed effectively and scrum is doing ok but varies amongst some referees.

phog wrote: »

There's a fair amount of truth in this.

It's seldom enough you see the AR get involved in calling a foul at scrum time. It's an absolute rarity for the ref or AR to call a crooked feed at scrum time.

How do you know its "seldom enough" the AR gets involved? They are regularly calling on the ref mic about infringements that are clear and obvious

phog · 01-10-2015 11:53am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you know assistants are not effective? They are micced to the referee and make calls a lot but you just wont see that they'll have made the caslls.
Offside is certainly policed effectively and scrum is doing ok but varies amongst some referees.

It's not really, all teams are guilty of being offside especially at rucks but some of the backs creep up at scrum & lineout time too.

How do you know its "seldom enough" the AR gets involved? They are regularly calling on the ref mic about infringements that are clear and obvious

I can see with my own two eyes on ineffective they are.

sydthebeat · 01-10-2015 12:00pm

phog wrote: »

There's a fair amount of truth in this.

It's seldom enough you see the AR get involved in calling a foul at scrum time. It's an absolute rarity for the ref or AR to call a crooked feed at scrum time.

i dont agree at all.

i pretty much say ALL the penalties given for laws broken on the opposite side of a scrum to where the ref is, are called by the AR

The Lost Sheep · 01-10-2015 12:01pm

phog wrote: »

It's not really, all teams are guilty of being offside especially at rucks but some of the backs creep up at scrum & lineout time too.

It is. It is all about how material the infringement is. If teams are creeping especially outwide and it is of no real effect then why pull it? You don't pull everything you see to award a penalty/advantage or the teams become frustrated etc that's basic game management.

I can see with my own two eyes on ineffective they are.

The AR's are constantly on the mic making calls. You mightn't see it but they are....

phog · 01-10-2015 12:17pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

i dont agree at all.

i pretty much say ALL the penalties given for laws broken on the opposite side of a scrum to where the ref is, are called by the AR

and what about the ones that are not called or the crooked feeds? How many scrums are penalised for a crooked feed?

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It is. It is all about how material the infringement is. If teams are creeping especially outwide and it is of no real effect then why pull it? You don't pull everything you see to award a penalty/advantage or the teams become frustrated etc that's basic game management.

The AR's are constantly on the mic making calls. You mightn't see it but they are....

I'm well aware that the ARs have mics and make some call but if the offside isn't being penalised then it's safe to assume that the AR hasn't done their job or are you implying that the AR tells the ref and the ref ignores him?

The Lost Sheep · 01-10-2015 3:00pm

phog wrote: »

and what about the ones that are not called or the crooked feeds? How many scrums are penalised for a crooked feed?

Should every thing that breaks the law be called up and penalised? IMO NO. Only those that are clearly crooked will be penalised..

I'm well aware that the ARs have mics and make some call but if the offside isn't being penalised then it's safe to assume that the AR hasn't done their job or are you implying that the AR tells the ref and the ref ignores him?

Not all should be penalised. Im saying sometimes the ref will decide not to use the info an AR gives. Soemtimes they may be off but it may not be material so therefore nothing is done by the referee.

phog · 01-10-2015 3:36pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Should every thing that breaks the law be called up and penalised? IMO NO. Only those that are clearly crooked will be penalised..

Well obviously, I'm referring to those that are clearly crooked, how else are they picked up by the fans or TV audiences.

Not all should be penalised. Im saying sometimes the ref will decide not to use the info an AR gives. Soemtimes they may be off but it may not be material so therefore nothing is done by the referee

TBH, that's a cop out. There are loads of examples where the offside law isn't being reffed and I'm not talking about the guy at the other side of the field away from the ball.

sydthebeat · 01-10-2015 3:42pm

phog wrote: »

Well obviously, I'm referring to those that are clearly crooked, how else are they picked up by the fans or TV audiences.
.

wow, is that peer reviewed data?

phog wrote: »

TBH, that's a cop out. There are loads of examples where the offside law isn't being reffed and I'm not talking about the guy at the other side of the field away from the ball.

again.... quantify "loads" in comparison to the ones which are actually called please.

Billy Joe in the pub will scream offside at anything

MJohnston · 01-10-2015 3:45pm

^^ Rugby newbies - this last page is what it looks like when you become Level 50 Advanced Spectators and have too much time on your hands...

The Lost Sheep · 01-10-2015 3:55pm

phog wrote: »

Well obviously, I'm referring to those that are clearly crooked, how else are they picked up by the fans or TV audiences.

What is clearly crooked though? Unless its thrown to second rows feet and is someway down the channel the put ins are let go.

TBH, that's a cop out. There are loads of examples where the offside law isn't being reffed and I'm not talking about the guy at the other side of the field away from the ball.

It isn't a cop out at all. If the infringement is material call it otherwise don't unless you want to prevent the sides always doing it. If referees are to blow the whistle for every offence they see then people get frustrated and more serious sanctions can come on the radar.

sydthebeat · 01-10-2015 4:12pm

MJohnston wrote: »

^^ Rugby newbies - this last page is what it looks like when you become Level 50 Advanced Spectators and have too much time on your hands...

or level 1 game player ......

El Weirdo · 01-10-2015 4:19pm

MJohnston wrote: »

^^ Rugby newbies - this last page is what it looks like when you become Level 50 Advanced Spectators and have too much time on your hands...

I'd say any newbies are long gone at this stage.

phog · 01-10-2015 4:40pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

wow, is that peer reviewed data?

again.... quantify "loads" in comparison to the ones which are actually called please.

Billy Joe in the pub will scream offside at anything

Perhaps the guys you attend games with don't understand the laws but most of the people I'd be watching games with are fairly knowledgeable on the laws particularly the offside and certainly can spot a crooked feed.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What is clearly crooked though? Unless its thrown to second rows feet and is someway down the channel the put ins are let go.

It isn't a cop out at all. If the infringement is material call it otherwise don't unless you want to prevent the sides always doing it. If referees are to blow the whistle for every offence they see then people get frustrated and more serious sanctions can come on the radar.

Obviously.

The Lost Sheep · 01-10-2015 5:20pm

phog wrote: »

Obviously.

Ah come on phog surely you can come up with better than that? What is clearly crooked? Obviously crooked?

The laws state "A scrum is formed in the field of play when eight players from each team, bound together in three rows for each team, close up with their opponents so that the heads of the front rows are interlocked. This creates a tunnel into which a scrum half throws the ball so that front row players can compete for possession by hooking the ball with either of their feet." and "The tunnel is the space between the two front rows."
Under the laws as they are currently written a ball that is anywhere in front of the feet of both front rows is straight

phog · 01-10-2015 6:07pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Ah come on phog surely you can come up with better than that? What is clearly crooked? Obviously crooked?

The laws state "A scrum is formed in the field of play when eight players from each team, bound together in three rows for each team, close up with their opponents so that the heads of the front rows are interlocked. This creates a tunnel into which a scrum half throws the ball so that front row players can compete for possession by hooking the ball with either of their feet." and "The tunnel is the space between the two front rows."
Under the laws as they are currently written a ball that is anywhere in front of the feet of both front rows is straight

Yes, I aware of that but watch some of the feeds and see how often they're penalised if fed in crooked.

.ak · 01-10-2015 6:26pm

Okay guys, there's a rugby laws thread for this sort of discussion. Can we keep this thread for the simple rugby questions and new poster queries.

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Comments