I agree with Steve Diamond, wtf?

[sockwithaticket]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... le-diamond

The Sale director of rugby, Steve Diamond, has called on the authorities to get rid of lengthy delays caused by scrums, which he believes are blighting the modern game, saying their entertainment value to rugby is “what King Herod was to babysitting”.

Diamond claimed Premiership clubs’ duty to entertain has been enhanced by the absence of crowds and he hit out at the amount of time wasted by preparing for and resetting scrums. One of the temporary law changes introduced by World Rugby in May was to eliminate reset scrums – a measure designed to reduce the risk of infection from Covid-19 rather than to speed up play – but the Premiership immediately rejected it.
British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa may not take place next year
Read more

The first weekend of the Premiership’s restart included a number of stop-start contests – including Sale’s disappointing defeat by Harlequins – not helped by the increase in penalties as players grappled with the new interpretations of the breakdown laws. Diamond, however, feels that a time limit of 15 seconds to set for a scrum – and an immediate free-kick if it is not clean – would improve the game as a spectacle at a time when supporter engagement has never been more important.

“I’d put a time constraint on it. It beggars belief. It is not the referee’s fault, it is a directive from above,” said Diamond, whose third-place side host the leaders, Exeter, on Friday. “It is the King Herod of entertainment in sport. What King Herod was to babysitting, scrums are to entertainment in rugby – it is absolutely boring.

“For me there are far more important things in the game – get the lineouts quickly, get the scrums quickly, the bits that have no interest, really, to a lot of people. People want to see the ball in play, people want to see the ball in Chris Ashton’s hands or Denny Solomona’s hands or Manu Tuilagi’s hands. They want to see skill at high pace and they want to see collisions, end of story.
English rugby limits game time in order to protect players' welfare

“If you look at a lot of games over the weekend, the scrum timings of the setup are enormous. It’s minutes. It’s crazy. I got some footage from 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 and measured the scrums. They were three times quicker than they are now. That’s ridiculous. Where [the authorities] need to spend their attention is sorting that area out – all the resets, not in the right position. [Award a ] free-kick it and give it to the other team.

“There’s no other sport in the world where you have something like a scrum, so either we take it out the game, which takes all the odd-shaped people out the game, or you’ve got 15 seconds to get your setup sorted and you get on it. How many clean scrums do we see? Not many.”

I'm maybe not entirely with him, but I think most of us have been ill at ease with and even outright dismayed by the amount of time wasted re-setting the scrum. Ali Ekyn at BT also has a bee in his bonnet over this and mentions it a lot in comms.

I think I'd alter Diamond's fix a little bit. 15 seconds to form up from the moment a reset is called seems reasonable, but the punishment for failing to set would be determined by the team responsible. if the team in possession doesn't set quickly enough then they'd cede the ball to the opposition as a free kick, if the team without the ball fails to set then it would be a pen to really dissuade fucking about when on the defensive.

[Margin__Walker]

Amen. Doubt many fans would disagree.

As an example, at the end of the Bath v LI game on Saturday, LI were attacking with a couple of minutes to go before coughing the ball up giving Bath a scrum 5 metres from their line. 90 seconds to go and whilst there was absolutely nothing riding on it, it would have been nice to see a final play of some sort. Instead they dicked around a bit, finally formed up and tamely stood up after the bind call. Dicked around a bit more until the clock was in the red, got it in and out the scrum and kicked it dead.

All teams do it, but boy is it frustrating as a fan when you want to see the ball in play. Just stop the clock

[sockwithaticket]

Amen. Doubt many fans would disagree.

As an example, at the end of the Bath v LI game on Saturday, LI were attacking with a couple of minutes to go before coughing the ball up giving Bath a scrum 5 metres from their line. More than a minute to go and whilst there was absolutely nothing riding on it, it would have been nice to see a final play of some sort. Instead they dicked around a bit, finally formed up and tamely stood up after the bind call. Dicked around a bit more until the clock was in the red, got it in and out the scrum and kicked it dead.

All teams do it, but boy is it frustrating as a fan when you want to see the ball in play. Just stop the clock

With that I feel like they'd end up taking even longer and it doesn't address the momentum suck of scrum resets which really detracts from the spectacle. I feel like we want to be speeding them up to do more in the 80 minutes rather than prolonging the period over which the 80 live minutes take place.

The other thing, which Diamond mentions but doesn't spend time on, is lineout set up. So many teams just amble into position and then have a mothers' meeting before eventually forming up. Say 20 seconds to be in place and ready to throw from assistant ref giving the mark otherwise free kick and possession ceded?

[Margin__Walker]

Amen. Doubt many fans would disagree.

As an example, at the end of the Bath v LI game on Saturday, LI were attacking with a couple of minutes to go before coughing the ball up giving Bath a scrum 5 metres from their line. More than a minute to go and whilst there was absolutely nothing riding on it, it would have been nice to see a final play of some sort. Instead they dicked around a bit, finally formed up and tamely stood up after the bind call. Dicked around a bit more until the clock was in the red, got it in and out the scrum and kicked it dead.

All teams do it, but boy is it frustrating as a fan when you want to see the ball in play. Just stop the clock

With that I feel like they'd end up taking even longer and it doesn't address the momentum suck of scrum resets which really detracts from the spectacle. I feel like we want to be speeding them up to do more in the 80 minutes rather than prolonging the period over which the 80 live minutes take place.

The other thing, which Diamond mentions but doesn't spend time on, is lineout set up. So many teams just amble into position and then have a mothers' meeting before eventually forming up. Say 20 seconds to be in place and ready to throw from assistant ref giving the mark otherwise free kick and possession ceded?

Potentially. Definitely needs refs giving players the hurry up at every opportunity. Problem with the 20 second thing though is that refs just won't penalise it. Can't remember the last time I saw a nine penalised for not using it in 5 seconds. You just get

"Use it"
"9, it's there, use it"
"please use it, I'm begging you..."

They never actually pull the trigger

[sockwithaticket]

That's true. I really don't understand the reluctance either. What will actually happen if you start enforcing use it? Some player or DoR will be a bit unhappy. How is that any different to now anyway when a ref does something they don't like?

[fishfoodie]

I'd like to see something simple; like if the ref isn't happy after one reset; he can just award a free to the side which had the put in; but the catch is, that the Free has to be a tap.

It gets the game going again, & it doesn't excessively reward farting around by either side in the scrum.

[Niegs]

I find this notion of ball in play time interesting. I'm pretty sure this number keeps going up (RWC data I've seen says so anyway).

Yes, scrums take longer now than they used to, but they're safer than during the early pro era and I feel like there aren't nearly as many resets as there were a decade ago, having eliminated the hit that destabilized. I've no issue with pinging players who are dicking around, and think free kick is all that needs to happen. If the team in possession is blocked from having a go, bin the offending player.

If you go back to those 80s games and earlier, the ball was kicked so much or lost in contact or at the bottom of an immovable pile that they lost much more time than now. I tracked quite a few matches from then and it was rare to see three phases without some kind of stoppage or kick away. Now, 10 phases seems to be about average, with rucks upwards of 200. In some of the matches I analysed there were almost as many lineouts as rucks.

With so many phases, I'm not surprised the fatties want to catch a breather heading to a lineout or in setting up a scrum. But they're still doing much more work than a generation or two ago.

[Zig]

Spivs trying to dictate how the game is played now.

Feck off

[JM2K6]

you know the word has lost all meaning when a rugby coach who has 351 appearances for the team he's coaching is called a spiv

[Raggs]

you know the word has lost all meaning when a rugby coach who has 351 appearances for the team he's coaching is called a spiv

And, despite disliking him, has basically kept a team with likely the lowest budget (or close to) consistently mid table for years. OK, they've got cash now, but that's new.

[Slick]

Amen. Doubt many fans would disagree.

As an example, at the end of the Bath v LI game on Saturday, LI were attacking with a couple of minutes to go before coughing the ball up giving Bath a scrum 5 metres from their line. More than a minute to go and whilst there was absolutely nothing riding on it, it would have been nice to see a final play of some sort. Instead they dicked around a bit, finally formed up and tamely stood up after the bind call. Dicked around a bit more until the clock was in the red, got it in and out the scrum and kicked it dead.

All teams do it, but boy is it frustrating as a fan when you want to see the ball in play. Just stop the clock

With that I feel like they'd end up taking even longer and it doesn't address the momentum suck of scrum resets which really detracts from the spectacle. I feel like we want to be speeding them up to do more in the 80 minutes rather than prolonging the period over which the 80 live minutes take place.

The other thing, which Diamond mentions but doesn't spend time on, is lineout set up. So many teams just amble into position and then have a mothers' meeting before eventually forming up. Say 20 seconds to be in place and ready to throw from assistant ref giving the mark otherwise free kick and possession ceded?

Agree with the scrum bit.

Also with the lineout, cracking the other teams code was a big part of the forward battle. Now they huddle up out of earshot and decide what to do. I'd like that to stop as well.

[Slick]

I find this notion of ball in play time interesting. I'm pretty sure this number keeps going up (RWC data I've seen says so anyway).

Yes, scrums take longer now than they used to, but they're safer than during the early pro era and I feel like there aren't nearly as many resets as there were a decade ago, having eliminated the hit that destabilized. I've no issue with pinging players who are dicking around, and think free kick is all that needs to happen. If the team in possession is blocked from having a go, bin the offending player.

If you go back to those 80s games and earlier, the ball was kicked so much or lost in contact or at the bottom of an immovable pile that they lost much more time than now. I tracked quite a few matches from then and it was rare to see three phases without some kind of stoppage or kick away. Now, 10 phases seems to be about average, with rucks upwards of 200. In some of the matches I analysed there were almost as many lineouts as rucks.

With so many phases, I'm not surprised the fatties want to catch a breather heading to a lineout or in setting up a scrum. But they're still doing much more work than a generation or two ago.

Niegs, I think there is quite a bit wrong with this to be honest. The ball might be in play more and more phases, but how many of those phases are 0.2m surges from the bottom of a ruck, or the 9 slowly feeding it back past 3 players standing in a line. Old matches can be quite hard to watch now with all the stoppages for knock ons etc but at least the play was pretty dynamic.

Also, we want the fatties getting tired, that's what opens the game up.

[Kawazaki]

In general I agree, I'd also add that the whole contrived process to set the scrum has actually exacerbated problems rather than eradicated them. However, Diamond's rant reads like a cut and paste whine that you would see written on a rugby league forum. As he points out, the scrum (and lineout) commits a team and a coach to select players with outlier physiques which, in turn, limits other aspects of open play. Remove the set-piece and the pack will quickly revert to something akin to 4 back rowers and 4 big centres.

[Niegs]

I find this notion of ball in play time interesting. I'm pretty sure this number keeps going up (RWC data I've seen says so anyway).

Yes, scrums take longer now than they used to, but they're safer than during the early pro era and I feel like there aren't nearly as many resets as there were a decade ago, having eliminated the hit that destabilized. I've no issue with pinging players who are dicking around, and think free kick is all that needs to happen. If the team in possession is blocked from having a go, bin the offending player.

If you go back to those 80s games and earlier, the ball was kicked so much or lost in contact or at the bottom of an immovable pile that they lost much more time than now. I tracked quite a few matches from then and it was rare to see three phases without some kind of stoppage or kick away. Now, 10 phases seems to be about average, with rucks upwards of 200. In some of the matches I analysed there were almost as many lineouts as rucks.

With so many phases, I'm not surprised the fatties want to catch a breather heading to a lineout or in setting up a scrum. But they're still doing much more work than a generation or two ago.

Niegs, I think there is quite a bit wrong with this to be honest. The ball might be in play more and more phases, but how many of those phases are 0.2m surges from the bottom of a ruck, or the 9 slowly feeding it back past 3 players standing in a line. Old matches can be quite hard to watch now with all the stoppages for knock ons etc but at least the play was pretty dynamic.

Also, we want the fatties getting tired, that's what opens the game up.

Oh, I agree ... there's more phases, but most don't do much. It annoys me to see teams at lower levels adopt the same conservative strategy when the defences aren't even close to pro's with bodies on their feet and in the line, coordination, ability. I fear things could even get worse once a team comes up with a better way of working out the 'out the back/second man' play. (Better recognition of when it's going to happen, blitz the outside attackers and leave the interior players to pick up the unlikely short ball / cut back, I think.)

Speeding up things might do more to tire players out and see things open up than other people's idea of having fewer subs, which I think has too much risk where injuries and scrum integrity are concerned.

Basketball has time limits on inbounding the ball and getting the ball over half. What rugby referees could do, in addition to actually calling the time violation as mentioned above, is visually show us they're counting with a swing of the arm.

[Raggs]

Fatties get tired from scrums, a scrum reset doesn't mean you didn't use any energy in the first one.

[ASMO]

Just take the hit completely out of the scrum, front rows engage and hold, weight only comes on when the ball goes in, you have a much more stable platform, scrums form faster, none of this dicking around before they are ready to engage, and it's safer. (Old school rules basically)

Nigel Owens's idea of reducing substitutions to cover injuries only really appeals to me too, you will end up with smaller players as they will have to play longer, very likely reduce injuries because of that. As players tire, more space opens up, more tries. Get rid of this abomination of both sides making 4 plus substitutions each in the last 15 mins and the game goes to shit.

[sockwithaticket]

Just take the hit completely out of the scrum, front rows engage and hold, weight only comes on when the ball goes in, you have a much more stable platform, scrums form faster, none of this dicking around before they are ready to engage, and it's safer. (Old school rules basically)

Nigel Owens's idea of reducing substitutions to cover injuries only really appeals to me too, you will end up with smaller players as they will have to play longer, very likely reduce injuries because of that. As players tire, more space opens up, more tries. Get rid of this abomination of both sides making 4 plus substitutions each in the last 15 mins and the game goes to shit.

It's potentially quite open to abuse, but decent enough in theory. Mandatory 2 week stand down if removed for an injury?

[Raggs]

I never really understand the smaller players from subs things. I can't think of a single back that can't basically play 80 minutes already, yes some get subbed here and there for a bit of a boost or gameplan change, but it's not because they're knackered. The only back on the field that can truly look like they're legs are gone, is the scrum half, and they're nearly always tiny anyway!

Same for the forwards except the front row, and then they'll never reduce front row subs because it's a safety/welfare issue.

EDIT - And even with front row, we've seen monsters like Mako put in huge 80 minutes shifts anyway.

[JM2K6]

Yup, we're not beset by giant fatties unable to put a shift in. They're all super fit and capable of playing 80. Any benefit you'd get from reducing subs would be countered by the likelihood of forcing players to continue when injured and thus risk exacerbating the injury.

Reduce the number of ingame breaks if you want fitter, smaller players. Timers for lineouts and scrums. Stop physios running onto the pitch with water at every stoppage.

[Slick]

Yup, we're not beset by giant fatties unable to put a shift in. They're all super fit and capable of playing 80. Any benefit you'd get from reducing subs would be countered by the likelihood of forcing players to continue when injured and thus risk exacerbating the injury.

Reduce the number of ingame breaks if you want fitter, smaller players. Timers for lineouts and scrums. Stop physios running onto the pitch with water at every stoppage.

Not sure that is completely correct, plenty of front row train specifically for 60 minutes and would blow up after that. I'm sure it wouldn't take a huge amount to get them fit for the 80 but certainly a bit of a change in training and size

[Ali Cadoo]

I cordially invite anyone proposing that we remove the hit from the scrum and render them static restarts, outside now so I can punch you in the mouth.

[JM2K6]

I cordially invite anyone proposing that we remove the hit from the scrum and render them static restarts, outside now so I can punch you in the mouth.

It's not a suggestion to remove the contest. It just means you only start pushing in any way when the ball is in.

Slick: Yeah, fair enough, though I have seen a fair few props do "almost 80" thanks to early injuries. I don't think it'd be a huge change.

[sockwithaticket]

Yup, we're not beset by giant fatties unable to put a shift in. They're all super fit and capable of playing 80. Any benefit you'd get from reducing subs would be countered by the likelihood of forcing players to continue when injured and thus risk exacerbating the injury.

Reduce the number of ingame breaks if you want fitter, smaller players. Timers for lineouts and scrums. Stop physios running onto the pitch with water at every stoppage.

Not sure that is completely correct, plenty of front row train specifically for 60 minutes and would blow up after that. I'm sure it wouldn't take a huge amount to get them fit for the 80 but certainly a bit of a change in training and size

Thinly veiled won't somebody please think of Ben Tameifuna post.

[CrazyIslander]

The problem is the ref specifically the process. They make all the players break binds for a reset. Some players even walkaway. There's no need for a lecture either. Just get them up and begin the scrum asap. Second and back rows should stay bound to each other after collapse or immediately rebind to each other but obviously not to the frontrow.

[Ali Cadoo]

I cordially invite anyone proposing that we remove the hit from the scrum and render them static restarts, outside now so I can punch you in the mouth.

It's not a suggestion to remove the contest. It just means you only start pushing in any way when the ball is in.

Ah, like in the good old days? Excellent. Invite rescinded.

[Raggs]

I cordially invite anyone proposing that we remove the hit from the scrum and render them static restarts, outside now so I can punch you in the mouth.

It's not a suggestion to remove the contest. It just means you only start pushing in any way when the ball is in.

Ah, like in the good old days? Excellent. Invite rescinded.

It's what it's supposed to be now anyway. You come together with a bit of force, but no real hit, only start the shoving when the ball is in. It doesn't often go down before the ball is in these days that I've noticed, and the refs seem to sort that out pretty quick if it does.

[Monkey Magic]

Committee meetings for scrums/lineouts/minor injuries are a joke and the only ones who van do anything about it are the refs.

Give the teams the message pre game, first lineout a reminder and then ping them for time wasting.

If the player is injured either they go off or play on, unless its serious the game keeps going

[eldanielfire]

The problem is the ref specifically the process. They make all the players break binds for a reset. Some players even walkaway. There's no need for a lecture either. Just get them up and begin the scrum asap. Second and back rows should stay bound to each other after collapse or immediately rebind to each other but obviously not to the frontrow.

It's not that easy. In a badly set-up scrum it could be partly due to the locks even if the props get the blame. If the locks are slightly to far forward their pressure on the front row may destabilize the front rowers position. Locks may need to move back for example for a prop to reposition their legs so they have the right position and flat angle with their opponents front row. Likewise a badly positioned angled lock can "push" their pros upwards with is illegal, so if the scrum is reset and the locks don't get to move like the props then there will be more scrum re-sets to get it right.

[Hong Kong]

The problem is the ref specifically the process. They make all the players break binds for a reset. Some players even walkaway. There's no need for a lecture either. Just get them up and begin the scrum asap. Second and back rows should stay bound to each other after collapse or immediately rebind to each other but obviously not to the frontrow.

Every now and again, someone with a voice of reason, experience and insight into scrum problems speaks wisely....this is not one of them

[Sandstorm]

The problem is the ref specifically the process. They make all the players break binds for a reset. Some players even walkaway. There's no need for a lecture either. Just get them up and begin the scrum asap. Second and back rows should stay bound to each other after collapse or immediately rebind to each other but obviously not to the frontrow.

It's not that easy. In a badly set-up scrum it could be partly due to the locks even if the props get the blame. If the locks are slightly to far forward their pressure on the front row may destabilize the front rowers position. Locks may need to move back for example for a prop to reposition their legs so they have the right position and flat angle with their opponents front row. Likewise a badly positioned angled lock can "push" their pros upwards with is illegal, so if the scrum is reset and the locks don't get to move like the props then there will be more scrum re-sets to get it right.

I always knew those lanky bastards were to blame!

[Kawazaki]

The nuclear option, thinking outside the box, would be to scrap scrums completely and just restart play after a knock-on/accidental offside etc with a lineout instead.

[Niegs]

A couple of tweets this morning that apply to this previous convo...