Waz4before says...

The scrum is an essential part of the game and is a thing of beauty when it works, I don't think this change will make a significant difference other than to eliminate an unnecessary step "pause". So I dont know what the fix is but i foresee further scrum law tweaks in the next 2 seasons. One thing that might help would be to reduce their frequency e.g. After a "not straight" line out throw why not reverse the throw in to the opposition instead of a scrum, for a KO that goes out on the full instead of a scrum restart why not reverse the kick off and give it to the opposition? Even with the suggested 5s rule here, instead of a srum restart why not award a free kick to the opposition? Non of this fixes the scrum issues themselves but no one complains about the scrum when it's working or it's not dominating a game (unless they're Australian)

Posted 22:49 14th August 2012

kybone says...

quietbrit- Absolutely and completey agree. Ive been saying for ages that to get back to stable scrums we need to remove the hit. Its the hit that destablises the thing due to the ever increasing size and power of forward packs. Removing the 'Pause' will help, but the hit still leaves the likely chance of shoulders becomming dislogded and the front row going down. The crooked feed is just plain cheating and i can't believe refs have let teams get away with it for so long. They're so precise often to the point of being pedantic. Im sure we've all seen refs call a quick tap pen back because the player took it about 6 inches from the mark, and yet they allow the scrum half to feed the ball straight to the No.8's feet every time.

Posted 17:23 14th August 2012

startledwombat says...

...on the need for a 5-second rule:

this all arises from the mess that is rucks and the tackle ball situation. We've had flopping, gates, and all sorts of shenanigans. In some ways it was easier when you rucked the scoundrels off your ball using plain old pedal power - it's amazing the speed with which people can be removed from a ruck if there's some sprigwork involved. Those days fortunately are gone.

How about having play quickly stop when the ball carrier is tackled and halted, then the ball carrier and the tackler get to their feet and the ball carrier rolls the ball behind him to a receiver, say the half-back.

That way the time the ball is in play would surely be a lot longer and the game would be faster.

No more floppy heaps and no more spectators accusing the refs of bias because the spectators have become bamboozled and befuddled by the myriad of rules.

Just a suggestion.

Posted 13:09 14th August 2012

fattysock says...

@JRHartley

It also implies that the defender has perfect timing to disrupt things.

If you think about it, by the time the Ref has called "Use it", the ball will be nicely presented and available for the halfback. That's what the call is for - to stop halfbacks just waiting around when the ball is there for them. The ref calls "use it" and the hanging defender then has to react to the call, hit the ruck AND disrupt the ruck to the point where the halfback can no longer even get at the ball... while all the hb has to do is pick it up.

I can see a lot of occasions (if anyone tries this tactic) where The Disrupter doesn't get to the ruck in time... and is completely wasted (and as you say, out of position/leaving gaps etc).

Posted 10:33 14th August 2012

JRHartley says...

On the five second rule... the suggestion of a player or two behind the ruck to try and mess things up when they hear the 'use it' call is a big risk as it means the team defending will be one or two short out in the backline. Can you imagine being the player instructed to hang around behind rucks waiting for this call and it never comes. In the mean time the attacking team are scoring out wide with over laps everytime. Even suggesting that the nearest defender can just pile into the ruck is when they hear 'use it' questionable as they would have to join from the back foot (not the side) and they'd still be leaving a gap somewhere in the defence which could be picked out in that five second window - overall I like the idea of the rule as I don't enjoying watching the closing minutes of matches where teams give up playing a spectator sport.

Posted 06:37 14th August 2012

payve says...

Oh we also were only told to use it by the ref once. So we did picking and driving, 5 seconds is actually longer than it sounds. And any person in the no9 position shouldn't be playing there if they can't deliver the ball to someone when the ball is at their feet with that amount of time.

Posted 20:49 13th August 2012

HAVEAREF says...

As a ref i will be talking both captains before the game about the 5 sec rule. As i would ask them to control this area of the game, being best for both team to move the ball away so i would not have to use this law. I would use it if the team attacking were slowing the game down.If when the call came USE IT the other team hit and drove the ruck so be it they had there time to get it away.

Posted 20:26 13th August 2012

fattysock says...

I'm not so concerned about the 5 second rule... I think it'll work fine. It's clearly there to stop teams winding down the clock easily (think about England in the 6 Nations... some of those rucks must have lasted 30 seconds I reckon). If there is a new contest then the ref should have the discretion to stop the countdown.

The Scrum rule, however, seems to be a bit pointless, other than saving us about 3-4 seconds every scrum by missing one word out.

I also think that Sharpe isn't quite in the category of "one of the greatest locks to play the game". Granted, he is very very very good... but just doesn't, for me, tip into that top echelon of players.

Obviously there is no way that SBW is a better player, or leaves a greater legacy despite winning most things in his career already - winning titles doesn't mean much (otherwise you'd consider John O'Shea one of the greatest footballs of recent times) but the fact that the Wallabies/his Super 15 teams have failed to win (almost) anything during Sharpe's career suggests that maybe he has earned so many caps, in part, because the competition is not there?

I don't mean this to be a d!ck, I have the utmost respect for Sharpe, and anyone who earns 100 caps for their country (especially one such as Australia) is a fine player indeed... but think about recent greats such as John Eales, Martin Johnson, Victor Matfield (maybe Brad Thorn?)... they'd have walked into any team, any day of the week. Would Sharpe have had that luxury?

I feel Sharpe is a bit more like Keven Mealamu... who is likely to bring up 100 caps at some stage for the ABs. He'll also have a bunch of titles to his name.. but I don't think he'll go down as one of the greatest ever. When in top form, he was/is one of the best hookers in the world.. but that's only when he's in TOP form, and even then he's only ONE of the best.Still amazing player... but...

Posted 16:46 13th August 2012

fozza says...

Markpat, Bones7, Sprogrugby... all agreed!

The 5 second rule, to be fair i don't think it's that much to be excited about. 5 seconds is quite a lot if it's presented at the back of a ruck. And the coach is right, if the ref has called "use it" then it's been presented, if the defending team then do enough to disrupt, is it not the same as a defending team holding a player up off the ground?

Nathan Sharpe is a very, very good player, but I would not go so far as to call him great and that has nothing to do with his trophy cabinet. It's to do with the comparisons you can have over the years, your John Eales, Victor Matfield's, Martin Johnson's, Paul O'Connell's... sorry but I rate this guys some distance over Nathan. That's not to belittle what he has achieved over the years. He's a great player, he's just not someone I look at on an opponent's team sheet and immediately think "oh no, not him".

Posted 15:15 13th August 2012

markpat says...

To me, it sounds like people are making way too much out of the 5 second rule. Yes, there may be some occasions where the side gets away with it or another where a team gets a decision against them where they don't think they should have, but the intention is to get the teams being less negative. Once teams move away from the constant negativity at rucks (defensive ones in particular), chances are you will rarely hear the call.

Posted 13:20 13th August 2012