Comments on: Rugby Championship 2013 Awards

By: Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:07:51 +0000

I think that the crouch, bind, set, will eventually come good. The problem I have, is with the referees telling the scrum half when to put the ball into the scrum. This gives the other team the signal to put the eight man shove on whilst the hooker is striking for the ball. The scrum half putting ball into scrum should decide when the ball is put into scrum, which is the way it used to be. The argument against that would be that the referee is waiting, for safety reasons to ensure that scrum is steady. However for me, the refs are waiting to long and that is also causing the scrums to collapse. The players themselves have got to their act together as there is still to much ” nod and wink” tactics on engagement.

By: SY

SY — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:50:17 +0000

I thought the IRB got rid of the hit and it’s now a “soft” engage. The sequence is now “crouch, bind, set.” The hit has been eliminated. I think what you are seeing is teams trying to get comfortable with the new engagement and are still hitting on “set.” It will be sorted out eventually.

By: SJB

SJB — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:26:16 +0000

Yes, I’m not against the new scrum laws per se, but my point is that given neither team are allowed to push until the ball comes in then why not get rid of the hit entirely and have a “soft” engage resulting in even fewer collapsed scrums….

We seem to be in some sort of compromise situation under the current engagement sequence with teams still trying to hit but then supposedly not being able to do much once engaged until the ball comes in?

By: SY

SY — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:51:19 +0000

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the hit was a major reason why the scrum collapsed so much before. The hit should be eliminated because the team that hit first was likely to win, which in turn, increased the likelihood that teams would collapse it if they lost the hit or cheat to get that hit first. The hit was everything.

The benefit of the new scrum law is that now it now the scrum can be used as an weapon again (instead of the likely chance of a reset) because it allows the packs to push after the ball is fed straight, which puts pressure on either the defense or attacking team. The better scrummaging teams will be rewarded because technique and skill matter. Thus, the scrum is relevant again.

I’m a big fan of the new scrums.

By: SY

SY — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 14:34:04 +0000

Justin Marshall was a lot worse. He complained every time there was a scrum as if the new scrum laws were a catastrophic disaster to the game. He was already calling for them to be changed.

By: SJB

SJB — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:43:39 +0000

I know we’re going over old ground here but I still can’t get my head around these new scrum laws.

Supporters of the new laws are keen to point out that the hit has not been irradicated but simply depowered slightly by making the props bind up first. Thus reducing chances of immediate collapse on impact and also making the whole procedure safer…

However, given that neither team are allowed to push until the ball comes in (and the 9 has to wait for direction from the ref) then what is the point of the hit at all?

Traditionally “beating the opposing pack to the hit” enabled you to drive in the ascendancy but if post-hit both sides have to stop pushing and wait then why not just bind up like an uncontested scrum and then shove after the ball comes in…

What have I missed?

Cheers

By: brighty

brighty — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:47:36 +0000

For me try of the tournament has to go to SAs score just before half time on Saturday. A magic team try.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:28:30 +0000

Exactly. Of course it’s not perfect but to hear the Aussie commentators moaning you would think the changes had just broken something that was working flawlessly.

I’m enjoying watching the Aussies struggle as they had become masters at the non-scrum under the old rules.

By: Pablito

Pablito — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:21:38 +0000

From what I’ve seen so far, the new scrum regs work very well if they are actually applied by the ref.

Too many of the refs in the Premiership (and Garces in the Aus v SA match) are still allowing the hit and teams to push before the ball is put in. Some are also still allowing the ball to be fed straight to the second row,

It was obvious from the NZ v SA game that if the laws are applied correctly then they are manifestly a step forward, with less collapses and some contest for the ball

I cannot understand why it appears to be so difficult for referees to follow the rules as they are set out!

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:16:10 +0000

The new scrum laws have made a vast improvement I think. Would anyone seriously want to return to the 50/50 days of ‘the hit’…. I didn’t think so.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:15:50 +0000

Must admit I thoroughly enjoyed that you have called it “The Barney Stinson Award for Prolific Scoring”.

Some incredible matches played throughout this tournament, but for me a really interesting one was the Argentina vs Australia match in the last round of games. I really thought that was Argentinas chance to get their first win on the board. I was a bit gutted that they didn’t manage to. Obviously they are playing against some great teams, but how long can they be “unlucky”, and not chokers?