Yellow Cards At The Scrum

[kpj tiger]

I thought it would be better to have this discussion outside of the Bristol match as its not just relevant to that game in isolation. I have been thinking about the principle of yellow carding players at the scrum for a while and I think it might be time for World Rugby to take a look at this as it can lead to so much gamesmanship.

So why should we look at changing this law, if we take what happened on Saturday as an example it would firstly prevent the gamesmanship/cheating issues that occurred, secondly it would also remove any potential for a stronger scrummager to replace the yellowed player (Like Afoa for Chaparro) which is hardly punishment. The principle of going to uncontested scrums outside of injury also doesn't sit well for me, its the only area of the game that a team with a strength can have said strength completely nullified by using said strength (and that's outside of teams deliberately causing this to happen, yes I'm looking at you Wasps & Bristol).

So what would the potential solutions be? For me I would like to see the yellow card removed for scrums and replaced with a system where if you commit X number of penalties at the scrum on your own 5m line then a penalty try is awarded with no yellow card, that way it rewards the stronger scrummaging team properly and removes any avenues for teams with poor scrums to game their way out situations. What does the forum think about this, I'm not saying my solution is perfect but I do think it is something that really needs looking at.

[TigerFeetSteve]

I thought it would be better to have this discussion outside of the Bristol match as its not just relevant to that game in isolation. I have been thinking about the principle of yellow carding players at the scrum for a while and I think it might be time for World Rugby to take a look at this as it can lead to so much gamesmanship.

So why should we look at changing this law, if we take what happened on Saturday as an example it would firstly prevent the gamesmanship/cheating issues that occurred, secondly it would also remove any potential for a stronger scrummager to replace the yellowed player (Like Afoa for Chaparro) which is hardly punishment. The principle of going to uncontested scrums outside of injury also doesn't sit well for me, its the only area of the game that a team with a strength can have said strength completely nullified by using said strength (and that's outside of teams deliberately causing this to happen, yes I'm looking at you Wasps & Bristol).

So what would the potential solutions be? For me I would like to see the yellow card removed for scrums and replaced with a system where if you commit X number of penalties at the scrum on your own 5m line then a penalty try is awarded with no yellow card, that way it rewards the stronger scrummaging team properly and removes any avenues for teams with poor scrums to game their way out situations. What does the forum think about this, I'm not saying my solution is perfect but I do think it is something that really needs looking at.

Like the concept, but if you're say on the 22 what then, you're not on the 5m how many scrums do you get then.

How about if you give away a scrum penalty you are allowed to kick to touch and then decide to have a lineout or scrum from where it goes into touch. Then once 5m is reached 3 scrums before a penalty try is given?

[Leicestertinytiger]

I see where you are coming from. But the rules in place do allow the ref some discretion when it comes to yellow cards, penalties tries etc.

Therefore, it’s down to the refs to grow a pair and instead of endless scrum resets, award a penalty try and a yellow. Technically if the scrum is going forwards and brought down, you could award a penalty try and yellow card at the first scrum on the 5m line.

[kpj tiger]

I thought it would be better to have this discussion outside of the Bristol match as its not just relevant to that game in isolation. I have been thinking about the principle of yellow carding players at the scrum for a while and I think it might be time for World Rugby to take a look at this as it can lead to so much gamesmanship.

So why should we look at changing this law, if we take what happened on Saturday as an example it would firstly prevent the gamesmanship/cheating issues that occurred, secondly it would also remove any potential for a stronger scrummager to replace the yellowed player (Like Afoa for Chaparro) which is hardly punishment. The principle of going to uncontested scrums outside of injury also doesn't sit well for me, its the only area of the game that a team with a strength can have said strength completely nullified by using said strength (and that's outside of teams deliberately causing this to happen, yes I'm looking at you Wasps & Bristol).

So what would the potential solutions be? For me I would like to see the yellow card removed for scrums and replaced with a system where if you commit X number of penalties at the scrum on your own 5m line then a penalty try is awarded with no yellow card, that way it rewards the stronger scrummaging team properly and removes any avenues for teams with poor scrums to game their way out situations. What does the forum think about this, I'm not saying my solution is perfect but I do think it is something that really needs looking at.

Like the concept, but if you're say on the 22 what then, you're not on the 5m how many scrums do you get then.

How about if you give away a scrum penalty you are allowed to kick to touch and then decide to have a lineout or scrum from where it goes into touch. Then once 5m is reached 3 scrums before a penalty try is given?

That's the only thing I've not worked out fully in my head but your idea of scrum or lineout would work, the only other thing I'd come up for outside of the 5m mark is a strike system where after 1 scrum penalty it would carry on as normal, 2nd scrum penalty in a row you get marched back lets say 5m and 3rd scrum penalty in a row you get marched back a further 5m, from the 3rd penalty the team in attack would then only be able to tap or kick for touch.

[OakhamTiger32]

I see where you are coming from. But the rules in place do allow the ref some discretion when it comes to yellow cards, penalties tries etc.

Therefore, it’s down to the refs to grow a pair and instead of endless scrum resets, award a penalty try and a yellow. Technically if the scrum is going forwards and brought down, you could award a penalty try and yellow card at the first scrum on the 5m line.

Agreed. I think many of the higher calibre refs would have interpreted/acted differently on Sat. I can't imagine the farce that unfolded happening with Barnes or Pearce on the whistle.

The gamesmanship with the Afoa sub was just a joke and I'm not sure how this could have been avoided under the current rules. To me it seemed like Bristol kept infringing before we really managed to get any forward momentum to try and deny the 'a try would have been scored' outcome. Bristol being allowed to bring on a nicely rested better scrummager for the one final play with the clock in the red was hardly a punishment for Bristol. What Uren did is another matter and it's irrelevant what scrum penalty rules you have if the 9 is allowed to pick the ball up from in the scrum and hoof it out.. might as well not bother having the scrum in the first place. Sat was a classic case of 'I just want the match to be over so I can go home before anything really really bad happens' from the officials. I think the blame is shared between Tempest, Dickson, the official on the Uren side of the pitch and Lam for his blatant lying. If Dickson had chipped in as TMO on the Uren incident it would have been a different result. If Tempest had some bottle it would have been a different result. I think the current rules, are not perfect but they are fine.. we just need officials to have some bottle and if a side is clearly infringing repeatedly then go under the posts! How many times have we seen yellow after yellow until it's uncontested scrums and the dominant side loses it's advantage!

[fentiger]

Sound ideas. However knowing how fickle refs can be if he felt under pressure to award the PT due to number of penalties, he would be highly likely to bottle it and give a penalty the other way!

[GETHIN EXILE]

I have suggested before that when a front row forward is yellow carded and a replacement is required to enable a scrum to take place then the non offending side should be allowed to dictate which player has to be removed for the replacement to come on.
Picture the situation on Saturday , Bristol prop is yellow carded replacement is sent on , Tigers can choose to have Bristol number 8 removed to enable the replacement to come on thus creating a dilemma for Bristol as to whether they scrummaged with 7 or brought a back into the scrum thus making a gap in the defensive line.
In the case of the yellow card leading to uncontested scrums the non offending side should have this choice and then have the choice of the scrum, or a tap penalty or kicking to touch for a lineout, even if they had asked to scrum again before they were told the scrum would be uncontested.
Imagine the case where a prop is carded in general play, the non offending side could choose to send the offending side's kicker off for any time left on the sin bin period if a scrum occurs.

[OakhamTiger32]

I have suggested before that when a front row forward is yellow carded and a replacement is required to enable a scrum to take place then the non offending side should be allowed to dictate which player has to be removed for the replacement to come on.
Picture the situation on Saturday , Bristol prop is yellow carded replacement is sent on , Tigers can choose to have Bristol number 8 removed to enable the replacement to come on thus creating a dilemma for Bristol as to whether they scrummaged with 7 or brought a back into the scrum thus making a gap in the defensive line.
In the case of the yellow card leading to uncontested scrums the non offending side should have this choice and then have the choice of the scrum, or a tap penalty or kicking to touch for a lineout, even if they had asked to scrum again before they were told the scrum would be uncontested.
Imagine the case where a prop is carded in general play, the non offending side could choose to send the offending side's kicker off for any time left on the sin bin period if a scrum occurs.

Could we have picked Tempest to go off? Oh no wait then we would have Dickson in charge! Damn it..

[BengalTiger]

As other posters have said, not much wrong with the laws, weak officials not applying the laws is always the problem, the endless warnings and resets are when tempers get frayed, the only change I would like to see is to stop the clock and only start the clock when a clean scrum is completed and or rewind it so there is no advantage for the infringing team at scrum time especially in the last 10 minutes.
Tempest always looks to be on the edge of losing control, once PL declared Afoa was not fit to play, tempest should have told them OK play on with 13 then, no debate no arguments.

[kpj tiger]

I'll add that I think the current rules aren't terrible on paper but there is just too much interpretation required as well as the potential gamesmanship, you can't trust a sports team to not game systems so you have to make it impossible for them to do it, I'm not sure my idea is the right replacement but I feel like its a simpler and more watertight system than the current system.

[Welford56]

I agree with the above. I don't think the laws need adapting or adding to which in my opinion could be susceptible to further tactical strategies developing, as somebody will always find a loophole or a workaround. For me it is just the officiating of the existing laws, which sadly we were let down with at the weekend.

It doesn't sit well that you can be so consistently dominant in a particular area of the game, be awarded penalty after penalty and come away with nothing from it in terms of either immediate points on the board (penalty try/play progresses enough to actually score without opposition infringement) or an advantage going forward (i.e. next 10 minutes against 14 men). Given that it was the last play of the game, the yellow card was largely pointless if the opposition are going to carry on infringing at the scrum. Or, as is suggested, it allowed them to bring on a fresher, stronger scrummager.

Leicester got absolutely no reward for their scrum dominance, regardless of whether 80 minutes was up or not. I think the officials got it very wrong and I have to wonder if they would have handled it differently had it happened at any other point throughout the match when there would still be time left on the clock. If the answer is yes, then the officials bottled it.

On Uren and whether the ball was out, for me it was 50:50. I think Liebenberg should have covered it with his foot rather than stepping over and Wiese was slightly slow to react to the left wheel. Happy to admit had it been the other way around I would be applauding the sharpness of our scrum-half. However that's all irrelevant as in my opinion Wigglesworth should not have put in as Bristol were pushing early and Afoa was angling in on Montoya. Genge did well to soak up the initial early hit and get a drive back on, after 88 minutes of play!

[OakhamTiger32]

I would like to see is to stop the clock and only start the clock when a clean scrum is completed

I like this

[Roadsweeper]

When scrums go forwards from the 5m line, it seems to me it is more than likely that a try will normally be scored by the No8 dotting the ball down.

Therefore if there is any forward momentum and the scrum goes down, then the ref should award a penalty try.
No need for repeated penalties, and a yellow card. Only need a yellow card if there have been earlier infringements.
Why does it take repeated infringements on the 5m line?

This is catered for in the existing laws, it just needs a directive from on high that this is how it is to be reffed.

For a penalty try from say a deliberate knock on its black and white, why not so from a scrum?

[kpj tiger]

When scrums go forwards from the 5m line, it seems to me it is more than likely that a try will normally be scored by the No8 dotting the ball down.

Therefore if there is any forward momentum and the scrum goes down, then the ref should award a penalty try.
No need for repeated penalties, and a yellow card. Only need a yellow card if there have been earlier infringements.
Why does it take repeated infringements on the 5m line?

This is catered for in the existing laws, it just needs a directive from on high that this is how it is to be reffed.

For a penalty try from say a deliberate knock on its black and white, why not so from a scrum?

I think this is the issue, the rules are black and white but they aren't enforced in that way because of interpretation. I also think if ref's start enforcing it more ruthlessly that more teams will look to game the system to get uncontested scrums and lets face it due to the increased focus on player welfare (rightly) its easier than ever to claim a player is unfit to return to the field of play.

[Noggs]

I see where you are coming from. But the rules in place do allow the ref some discretion when it comes to yellow cards, penalties tries etc.

Therefore, it’s down to the refs to grow a pair and instead of endless scrum resets, award a penalty try and a yellow. Technically if the scrum is going forwards and brought down, you could award a penalty try and yellow card at the first scrum on the 5m line.

Agreed. I think many of the higher calibre refs would have interpreted/acted differently on Sat. I can't imagine the farce that unfolded happening with Barnes or Pearce on the whistle.

The gamesmanship with the Afoa sub was just a joke and I'm not sure how this could have been avoided under the current rules. To me it seemed like Bristol kept infringing before we really managed to get any forward momentum to try and deny the 'a try would have been scored' outcome. Bristol being allowed to bring on a nicely rested better scrummager for the one final play with the clock in the red was hardly a punishment for Bristol. What Uren did is another matter and it's irrelevant what scrum penalty rules you have if the 9 is allowed to pick the ball up from in the scrum and hoof it out.. might as well not bother having the scrum in the first place. Sat was a classic case of 'I just want the match to be over so I can go home before anything really really bad happens' from the officials. I think the blame is shared between Tempest, Dickson, the official on the Uren side of the pitch and Lam for his blatant lying. If Dickson had chipped in as TMO on the Uren incident it would have been a different result. If Tempest had some bottle it would have been a different result. I think the current rules, are not perfect but they are fine.. we just need officials to have some bottle and if a side is clearly infringing repeatedly then go under the posts! How many times have we seen yellow after yellow until it's uncontested scrums and the dominant side loses it's advantage!

Agreed. The laws of the game are fine if you have officials who have the courage to enforce them.

The cynics like Lam get away with things because we let them.