It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
New Law Trials - EoYTs 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:41 am
Posts: 10003
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Blindside wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.



I'm not trying to be pedantic but you have contradicted yourself, you can't have an even contest if one side has the advantage.

I agree that the side that didnt commit the error should have an advantage but it should also be a contest. The reason for the need for a contest is the diversity of the game, in that slow plodding forwards are needed to secure the possession and maintain the advantage (props) or regain the advantage in set piece. If not we will go the rugby league route.

From what i can see its a clever move to change the feed straight but off centre as the hooker of the side in possession can adopt a far more powerful position. With the old legal feed the position of the hooker in effect led to a 7 against 8 scrum which was exaggerated further by the fact the front row contest was virtually a 2 on 3, so the advantage from the scrum was lost and in the advantage went to the team not in possession. To negate this the crooked feed and no strike became widespread.


Please point out my two comments that are contradictory. Quote them if you can, I can't see a contradiction.


Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:37 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11523
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Four More Years wrote:
Blindside wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
LLanrumneyOik wrote:
Four More Years wrote:
Quote:
1. Law 20.5 and 20.5 (d) Throwing the ball into the scrum
No signal from referee. The scrumhalf must throw the ball in straight, but is allowed to align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, therefore allowing them to stand a shoulder width towards their own side of the middle line.
Rationale: To promote scrum stability, a fair contest for possession while also giving the advantage to the team throwing in (non-offending team).


So the ball is to be put in straight, but not in the middle of the scrum. That's going to confuse some fans screaming about crooked put ins.


Legalising not straight put in's is comparable with the mood of contemporary society and ends a nonsense.


It's still a straight put in, it's not a centre put in.

I agree with it anyway. A scrum occurs after an error from one team. It shouldn't then become an even contest for possession, the team that didn't commit the error should have an advantage.



I'm not trying to be pedantic but you have contradicted yourself, you can't have an even contest if one side has the advantage.

I agree that the side that didnt commit the error should have an advantage but it should also be a contest. The reason for the need for a contest is the diversity of the game, in that slow plodding forwards are needed to secure the possession and maintain the advantage (props) or regain the advantage in set piece. If not we will go the rugby league route.

From what i can see its a clever move to change the feed straight but off centre as the hooker of the side in possession can adopt a far more powerful position. With the old legal feed the position of the hooker in effect led to a 7 against 8 scrum which was exaggerated further by the fact the front row contest was virtually a 2 on 3, so the advantage from the scrum was lost and in the advantage went to the team not in possession. To negate this the crooked feed and no strike became widespread.


Please point out my two comments that are contradictory. Quote them if you can, I can't see a contradiction.



:wtf: My apologies I read it repeatedly but still read shouldn't in your post as should :scratch:

So I agree with your post.... my only point being we must ensure that we keep diversity of player type and the need for props

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:59 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm
Posts: 5954
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Blindside wrote:
So I agree with your post.... my only point being we must ensure that we keep diversity of player type and the need for props


Tee Hee :-) :D :kermit:


I do it all the time ...

this alzheimer's is a buggar!

:drunken:


Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 pm
Profile E-mail
British & Irish Lions Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2259
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Blindside wrote:
So I agree with your post.... my only point being we must ensure that we keep diversity of player type and the need for props


Although I think the old school props are long gone. Like all forwards, props and hookers are expected to actually be fit enough to keep up with the other and actually handle the ball rather than being the big blobs whose sole role was the scrum and attempt to flop over the gain line in the tight. Rugby is moving towards more of a "standard" player with the specialisation being more in experience than skillset and body type. Scrumhalves will likely remain small as it's easier for a small person to run all over the place and reach the ground but most other players are fitting a mould. Look at plenty of centres now and, with different training, they could easily have been back rows and vice versa.

_________________
Image


Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:49 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 am
Posts: 11523
Location: Neath Valley
Post Re: New Law Trials - EoYTs
Troron wrote:
Blindside wrote:
So I agree with your post.... my only point being we must ensure that we keep diversity of player type and the need for props


Although I think the old school props are long gone. Like all forwards, props and hookers are expected to actually be fit enough to keep up with the other and actually handle the ball rather than being the big blobs whose sole role was the scrum and attempt to flop over the gain line in the tight. Rugby is moving towards more of a "standard" player with the specialisation being more in experience than skillset and body type. Scrumhalves will likely remain small as it's easier for a small person to run all over the place and reach the ground but most other players are fitting a mould. Look at plenty of centres now and, with different training, they could easily have been back rows and vice versa.



Yes of course ..... however i dont think Dan Cole or Joe Marler or even Billy Vunipola would b e playing professional rugby as backrow forwards? However if the scrum changes sufficiently we may be seeing the likes of Marko Vunipola or James Askel playing in the front row?

Players like Samson Lee still have a massive role within the game and the scrum is a big issue. If it becomes merely a means of restarting the game then it will change things dramatically and exclude many players. As for hookers, in my opinion, they used to be far more of an extra backrow rather than the present trend for an "extra prop". The likes of Kevin Phillips, Barrie Williams are not so prominent in the modern game, where power in the set piece is all important.

_________________
"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for


Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: