Re: Stupid new rule changes fo...

FROM A TO B · Post by **FROM A TO B** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:24 pm

So that means once the ball has gone past the 2nd row you can break from the scrum and try to dive on the ball before it's come out from behind the loose forward.
Scummins, you are the weakest link goodbye

chnwh · Post by **chnwh** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:24 pm

[quote]God posted:
Cummings has yet again changed the rules.

The ball will be deemed in play when the ball has gone through the second row.[quote]

There won't be chance for anybody to have a set move at the scrum because the defence will be in their face straight away.

The two feet rule is a good one imo because when defending yor line you just touch the line with your back foot and have your front foot as far forward as possible. Thus you're technically not as far back as your line.

Post by **Mike** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:06 am

chnwh posted:
God posted:
Cummings has yet again changed the rules.

The ball will be deemed in play when the ball has gone through the second row.

There won't be chance for anybody to have a set move at the scrum because the defence will be in their face straight away.

The two feet rule is a good one imo because when defending yor line you just touch the line with your back foot and have your front foot as far forward as possible. Thus you're technically not as far back as your line.
If this is true, I have a feeling this new interpretation of offside rule will be dropped imediately someone realises it is now impossible to defend your line from a dummy half diving low. They just need to pick it up and put it down where your feet are. No chance of getting under the man before he's got the ball down. Previously players crouched low with their back foot over the line. Their body was there to stop the dive. We may end up with a string of penalty tries. :conf:

highland convert · Post by **highland convert** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:35 am

Speaking as a pack player(from the other code) where it was common to hold the ball in the scrum who defines when the ball is behind second rows feet. Normal practice is the to hold the ball between the two second row players. The second row are angled low in the push creating the holding space. The ball is picked up from this position and played. By the time it is clear of the feet it had better be gone.
Again there could be serious injuries. You are bent over arms down picking up the ball, twisting your back to pass when a seventeen stone winger hits you at full tilt. Your head is not quite clear of the second row. Worse still the winger mistimes his run and you are still locked in. All because of a refs decission of when the ball clears four legs in a moving mass. Of course each ref will have a different interp.
Are they trying to remove all the skills of the game? The object is to unsettle and confuse the defence so you can score. Scrum plays are one way. We seen some corker trys last year from the scrum. We seen some howlers too. It is part of the game why remove it. You might as well do away with scrums and just have a "play the ball" sixth tackle handover situation.
Dangerous and OTT.
hc

shawcross da warrior · Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:12 am

cummings just hasnt got a clue at all he is pathetic.....

pieaddict · Post by **pieaddict** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:19 am

I think the offside rule is a good one as long as its stuck to 100%. I know it used to be one foot but often the ref would use the lines men as markers and not himself which leads to a lot of confusion especially in the fans who will see players in front of the ref when he uses them.

DaveO · Post by **DaveO** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:44 am

God posted:

The ball will be deemed in play when the ball has gone through the second row.

That means it is in play as soon as it is put into the scrum as the scrum half feeds the ball to the second row.

Holding the ball between the 2nd row and loose forward is an accepted practice. It isn't just about catching players offside but holdong play up and setting yourself for the attack.

Would it have been possible for that set move in the GB v NZ test match at the JJB where Lockers kicked it long for McQuire to score be possible with this new rule?

I simply do not see what is wrong with it so what the problem this rule change is trying to fix?

Is this some bizarre way to try and get the ball fed "properly" and have the hookers strike for it?

Dave

right cross · Post by **right cross** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:11 pm

cummings .... why change the rules now ......most if the refs could,nt do it properly last year [look at the farse first 2 or 3 games] without trying to police some other blimin rule change

its easy keep it as simple as you can for them pee brain persons.

cpwigan · Post by **cpwigan** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:22 pm

I would say the number of times teams try to earn a penalty is negligible. As already mentioned the new rule creates more problems than it solves.

More importantly the real blight as far as scrums are concerned is when forwards break far too early and thus kill attacking opportunities. We need scrums. They add variety to the game and they should present opportunities for backs to run at backs with more space.