View From The 22

Bright start, lost the plot in the middle, strong ending not enough to rescue it overall. My report:


https://anoldgreydog.wordpress.com/2019 ... exeter-22/

Small point in a good appraisal- Cameron Neild did not knock on at the end, it was Curtis Langdon.

DavenportSharky wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:09 pm

Small point in a good appraisal- Cameron Neild did not knock on at the end, it was Curtis Langdon.

Corrected.

Interesting point re the 7 man scrum but the flip side is having a back advantage can make a difference.

Clutch wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:59 pm

Interesting point re the 7 man scrum but the flip side is having a back advantage can make a difference.

I think—and I don’t honestly have any data to back it up, it’s just my impression—that that advantage in the backs is, to some extent, theoretical. In that, yes, there’s an advantage there, but it rarely gets realised, at least, not as often as an advantage in the forwards. E.g. they take a back off to complete the front row. They now have a full-strength scrum, so we have to first win that before we can use a numerical advantage in the backs. If they have to take off, say, a flanker, then we have an immediate advantage, rather than a potential one. Does that make sense?

Lovely report. Enjoyed reading it

I'm not 100% certain, but I thought that following a law amendment, their had to be a 8 v 8 scrum (particularly after a card had been issued.

You could be right. It wasn't mentioned on commentary and I thought I saw a 7 v 8 scrum in one of the other games, but I'm not sure now.

Even so, you could still insist that a forward has to come off to restore the front row, so the full eight has to be made up by bringing in a back. This would at least still give a slight scrum advantage to the non-offending team.

The main point remains, though, that eternal scrum resets are damaging the game for the casual viewer (and for the committed fan, if we're honest).

While not directly applicable, Rugby League have a "shot clock" system to speed up the game and have greater ball in play stats.

In 2019, for example, restarts from scrums had to be completed in 35 seconds, drop outs in 30. For 2020 these are further reduced to 30 and 25.

Scrum resets, constant conflabs, ridiculous high fiving breaks, "caterpillars" and ambling line outs are making the game slower and slower. For the first time I'm considering getting Salford Reds match tickets (Toronto Wolfpack/Sonny Bill) as an experiment.

I’ve noticed the Shot Clocks behind the posts this season and wondered what they were for.

Perhaps we should start them counting upwards from the moment a scrum is awarded to the moment the ball is released to try and embarrass the lawmakers into doing something.

Deliberate wasting time is the worst of the lot and the game needs to maintain the interest in the last 10 minutes when scores are close. Perhaps uncontested scrums for the last 10 minutes would stop the leading side going to ground 3 or 4 times. The 5 second rule needs to be ruthlessly enforced to stop scrum halves like Mr Irritating Unsporting White from frustrating the opposition and the crowd.
The time taken to take shots at goal is ridiculous and RDP is culpable. Reduce the points by one if not completed in 20 seconds.

Major Bloodnok wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:49 am

You could be right. It wasn't mentioned on commentary and I thought I saw a 7 v 8 scrum in one of the other games, but I'm not sure now.

I agree. I thought versus La Rochelle, when the hooker went off with a red card, the sub hooker came back on, but I am pretty sure the ref made them take off a 6,7 or 8 and scrum with 7. Maybe I imagined it too, but I agree, they should be forced to replace a back row, not a back.

I think the very simple answer would be to stop the clock on award of a scrum and restart the clock when the ball is played out of the scrum.

This would stop the time wasting on binding and collapses, and I think you’d see a much higher scrum completion rate. Can anyone think why they couldn’t easily implement this?

I wish they would. I do think it would reduce time-wasting and we would get a bit more actual game time played. It may make the game longer, but If I remember correctly, when I went to see some NFL, the whole experience lasted about 4 hours. No-one was complaining.

At the end of last seaso the premiership referees were stopping the clock for reset scrums in the last 5 minutes or so in close matches. Witness Ian Tempest when he ended up with about 12 players in a Bath game I think. I've not noticed this season.

1 big reason, of course, is the risk that TV scheduling could be impacted, and we all know that is more important than the integrity of the sport.

It won't be affected, as Van Cannonball states once refs start to do it, the timewasting will stop.

• 5i

Van Cannonball wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:21 pm

I think the very simple answer would be to stop the clock on award of a scrum and restart the clock when the ball is played out of the scrum.

This would stop the time wasting on binding and collapses, and I think you’d see a much higher scrum completion rate. Can anyone think why they couldn’t easily implement this?

Maybe allow one scrum with the clock running, but stop it when the first reset is called?

I may be mistaken but aren't NFL games 60 minutes of actual playing time? Maybe to cater for the repeated stoppages!

Can anyone locate accurate and up to date "ball in play" data ? All I've found (so far) is unattributed figures of an average 35 minutes per 80 minute game.

As for issues with tv scheduling I'd consider anything that eats into pre and post match punditry a blessing :-)

Best so far :-

https://atroxrugby.com/how-long-is-a-rugby-game/

You get one reset. If it goes down a second time, it turns into a free kick or penalty depending on the level of culpability. Wasting time forming the scrum also punished by a penalty kick.

Major Bloodnok wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:08 pm

You get one reset. If it goes down a second time, it turns into a free kick or penalty depending on the level of culpability. Wasting time forming the scrum also punished by a penalty kick.

and if the free kick is the result of a dodgy scrum, you can't then re-start with another scum (I think young Austin Healey came up with this in commentary at the weekend)

That would be great Major but didn’t we opt for more scrums once the initial ones had been collapsed and Moon had been yellowed??? Might be wrong In that case but going for another scrum is often the penalty option of choice in those scenarios.

Major Bloodnok wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:08 pm

You get one reset. If it goes down a second time, it turns into a free kick or penalty depending on the level of culpability. Wasting time forming the scrum also punished by a penalty kick.

Unintended consequences but I can see many refs bottling the decision and just saying that the scrum just collapsed without apportioning blame.

Major Bloodnok wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:08 pm

You get one reset. If it goes down a second time, it turns into a free kick or penalty depending on the level of culpability. Wasting time forming the scrum also punished by a penalty kick.

I may well be all at sea here, having no idea of what goes on in the scrum, but I thought that a reset was only called when no culpability could be identified on either side... or maybe when both sides are regarded as equally culpable.

ale shark wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:27 pm

That would be great Major but didn’t we opt for more scrums once the initial ones had been collapsed and Moon had been yellowed??? Might be wrong In that case but going for another scrum is often the penalty option of choice in those scenarios.

Yeah, but that's opting for a scrum after a penalty/free kick has been awarded – a team decision. I'm talking about limiting the number of times you can reset the same scrum.

ageinghoody wrote: I may well be all at sea here, having no idea of what goes on in the scrum, but I thought that a reset was only called when no culpability could be identified on either side... or maybe when both sides are regarded as equally culpable.

Well, yes, technically, if you're going be all picky about it.

So t believe there’s a law re 8v8 in the scrum? Which game was it in the WC when France went bananas and defended a 5m scrum with only 7 in there. Must have been v Wakes to have had Vaahaamina sent off.

PappjeShark wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:08 pm

So t believe there’s a law re 8v8 in the scrum? Which game was it in the WC when France went bananas and defended a 5m scrum with only 7 in there. Must have been v Wakes to have had Vaahaamina sent off.

I've dug out this, which seems to show what should have happened (unless the Law as been amended) "Number of Players – The Team
Uncontested scrums as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury must be played with eight players per side.
Reasoning: To discourage teams from going to uncontested scrums."

So my post further up was incorrect