Bobby's Ratings.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I was watching the scrums live and on TV later. One thing that I think Foley got wrong in the first half was that the first few I didn’t think were penalties against us at all. There’s nothing sinister in it but when a ref turns up and sees Cole and Genge propping against Hislop and JTA I really do believe some of the decisions are not quite pre-determined but are heavily subconsciously influenced.

As I posted in another thread, I really couldn't fathom some of Foley's scrum penalties at all.

When you listen to commentators who’ve played in the front row they are often tactfully quite scathing about the way scrums are refereed. Brian Moore sometimes isn’t tactful.

I don’t know enough to adjudicate Foleys decisions but I’m starting to believe that refs do get it in to their heads that someone is weak and therefore if there are problems they must be to blame. 

[Rossm]

I was watching the scrums live and on TV later. One thing that I think Foley got wrong in the first half was that the first few I didn’t think were penalties against us at all. There’s nothing sinister in it but when a ref turns up and sees Cole and Genge propping against Hislop and JTA I really do believe some of the decisions are not quite pre-determined but are heavily subconsciously influenced.

As I posted in another thread, I really couldn't fathom some of Foley's scrum penalties at all.

When you listen to commentators who’ve played in the front row they are often tactfully quite scathing about the way scrums are refereed. Brian Moore sometimes isn’t tactful.

I don’t know enough to adjudicate Foleys decisions but I’m starting to believe that refs do get it in to their heads that someone is weak and therefore if there are problems they must be to blame.

It is often referred to by commentators as 'painting the wrong/right picture'. Like you, I also believe that referees often go into games with some preconceptions which may cloud their judgement. It's a very difficult job and if you ever see someone with 2 eyes at the front of their head, another eye on each side and 2 eyes at the back then they must be a rugby ref. Even then they may not get it right

[Neils]

I was watching the scrums live and on TV later. One thing that I think Foley got wrong in the first half was that the first few I didn’t think were penalties against us at all. There’s nothing sinister in it but when a ref turns up and sees Cole and Genge propping against Hislop and JTA I really do believe some of the decisions are not quite pre-determined but are heavily subconsciously influenced.

As I posted in another thread, I really couldn't fathom some of Foley's scrum penalties at all.

When you listen to commentators who’ve played in the front row they are often tactfully quite scathing about the way scrums are refereed. Brian Moore sometimes isn’t tactful.

I don’t know enough to adjudicate Foleys decisions but I’m starting to believe that refs do get it in to their heads that someone is weak and therefore if there are problems they must be to blame.

It is often referred to by commentators as 'painting the wrong/right picture'. Like you, I also believe that referees often go into games with some preconceptions which may cloud their judgement. It's a very difficult job and if you ever see someone with 2 eyes at the front of their head, another eye on each side and 2 eyes at the back then they must be a rugby ref. Even then they may not get it right

My main gripe is that the ref is not on his own so his side eyes are actually running the touch. Plus he has an eye in the sky! However these also miss bucket loads of offences. If the authorities wish to tell us certain written offences are now not being judged - eg offside, not straight, use it timescales and etc then I can accept that "they" do bugger all but until then I, and many others, find them sorely wanting.

[Beasties]

I was watching the scrums live and on TV later. One thing that I think Foley got wrong in the first half was that the first few I didn’t think were penalties against us at all. There’s nothing sinister in it but when a ref turns up and sees Cole and Genge propping against Hislop and JTA I really do believe some of the decisions are not quite pre-determined but are heavily subconsciously influenced.

As I posted in another thread, I really couldn't fathom some of Foley's scrum penalties at all.

When you listen to commentators who’ve played in the front row they are often tactfully quite scathing about the way scrums are refereed. Brian Moore sometimes isn’t tactful.

I don’t know enough to adjudicate Foleys decisions but I’m starting to believe that refs do get it in to their heads that someone is weak and therefore if there are problems they must be to blame.

It is often referred to by commentators as 'painting the wrong/right picture'. Like you, I also believe that referees often go into games with some preconceptions which may cloud their judgement. It's a very difficult job and if you ever see someone with 2 eyes at the front of their head, another eye on each side and 2 eyes at the back then they must be a rugby ref. Even then they may not get it right

My main gripe is that the ref is not on his own so his side eyes are actually running the touch. Plus he has an eye in the sky! However these also miss bucket loads of offences. If the authorities wish to tell us certain written offences are now not being judged - eg offside, not straight, use it timescales and etc then I can accept that "they" do bugger all but until then I, and many others, find them sorely wanting.

Yep. I don’t envy refs having to ref an area they have no idea about. They rely on the touchjudges who are equally as clueless. If the TJ shouts black or white the ref has to instantly take their word for it. And each TJ has no idea what’s happening on the other side of the scrum. It is what it is.

Flats, aside from being easily the best pundit anyway, is the ONLY one who has any idea at all. Ben Kay thinks he does, but is clueless.

[mike909]

As an old prop......played at a decent level in amateur days and had my arse handed to me on many an occasion from people who went on to rather greater things

This is my take on scrum reffing. It seems to me to be a deliberately, unequal, contest for possession. It's turned into, too often, a penalty generator and waste of time.

Firstly, it does seem that losing a scrum, can mean being penalised.....though there is no specific Law about losing scrums. Too often, refs are keen to blow, rather than shout "use it". If you've won possession, you probably ought to be forced to use it more often. The Laws are quite complex on what is allowed/not allowed, but even so, it still seems that too many refs are guessing or awarding scrum dominance and not specific infringements.

It's not going to be sorted without a review - much as I am not in favour of them... - including front rowers, present and past. And a long look at what scrums are for and how best to achieve that.

Similar for the breakdown...though that I have seen v well reffed when the officials, coaches and players are on the same page. Most noticeably in what was Mitre 10 games. Again, it's an area needing a look - even WR have accepted that and issued guidance notes

But the bug bear for me is that offside and the breakdown could be sorted fairly easily. The TMO can do offside as easily as we can, watching TV feed....and the breakdown can work....Scrums are probably needing more work.

[Nigel Med]

As an old prop......played at a decent level in amateur days and had my arse handed to me on many an occasion from people who went on to rather greater things

This is my take on scrum reffing. It seems to me to be a deliberately, unequal, contest for possession. It's turned into, too often, a penalty generator and waste of time.

Firstly, it does seem that losing a scrum, can mean being penalised.....though there is no specific Law about losing scrums. Too often, refs are keen to blow, rather than shout "use it". If you've won possession, you probably ought to be forced to use it more often. The Laws are quite complex on what is allowed/not allowed, but even so, it still seems that too many refs are guessing or awarding scrum dominance and not specific infringements.

It's not going to be sorted without a review - much as I am not in favour of them... - including front rowers, present and past. And a long look at what scrums are for and how best to achieve that.

Similar for the breakdown...though that I have seen v well reffed when the officials, coaches and players are on the same page. Most noticeably in what was Mitre 10 games. Again, it's an area needing a look - even WR have accepted that and issued guidance notes

But the bug bear for me is that offside and the breakdown could be sorted fairly easily. The TMO can do offside as easily as we can, watching TV feed....and the breakdown can work....Scrums are probably needing more work.

Excellent post and particularly good to hear from an ex-front row forward.

I have long thought that the game has drifted far too much from its original ethos. Of course coaches will always look at the laws of the game and look at ways to exploit them to gain an advantage but the tail shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog. It's up to the IRB to make sure they don't get away with too much. A scrum is a restart which should be a fair challenge for the ball with the team putting in trying to retain possession and the opposition trying to win it back. It is not, and should not be a way to "win" a penalty. That concept is ridiculous. If you  get control of the ball you have successfully won possession so the referee should call "use it" not wait for the inevitable collapse and award a penalty. Similarly, if your strength and/or technique puts so much pressure on the opposite front row such that they stand up, lose their binding, lose their footing et cetera, well done, successful scrum you should be awarded possession, i.e. a free kick, NOT a penalty unless the referee is 100% certain that it was a deliberate act such as collapsing a scrum if the opposition is going for a push-over try. The focus on "winning" penalties at a scrum is a blight on the game and making technical offences free kicks would change the dynamic and I'm convinced would be a significant improvement and reduce the number of resets and time wasting.

[mike909]

Cheers. My particular bugbears are linked in that scrum, penalty, kick, lineout, drive over from maul.....As a prop, I preferred ball in hand and whilst all of those bits were within my remit, I'd prefer a game based on space and pace with - as you note - the scrum being about possession.

The worst at the weekend was in the Quins game when the ref gave a scrum, for being in the way of a pass. The scrum ended up being a penalty....where in open play, Quins were in possession, making decisions around half way. And were, unless they did something special, defendable. The ref had the chance to call "use it" and went for a penalty instead.

Now, I cheated as much as any prop did.....and I wasn't the most ethical of players, shall we say, but I only looked to get a penalty/penalty try from a 5m scrum and a push over. But the moment a 5m scrum stopped, we had to use the ball....And in "bending" the Laws, I was looking for one against the head...that's what got the plaudits for the front row, not a controversial penalty.

[RogerE]

I have long thought that the game has drifted far too much from its original ethos. Of course coaches will always look at the laws of the game and look at ways to exploit them to gain an advantage but the tail shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog. It's up to the IRB to make sure they don't get away with too much. A scrum is a restart which should be a fair challenge for the ball with the team putting in trying to retain possession and the opposition trying to win it back. It is not, and should not be a way to "win" a penalty. That concept is ridiculous. If you  get control of the ball you have successfully won possession so the referee should call "use it" not wait for the inevitable collapse and award a penalty. Similarly, if your strength and/or technique puts so much pressure on the opposite front row such that they stand up, lose their binding, lose their footing et cetera, well done, successful scrum you should be awarded possession, i.e. a free kick, NOT a penalty unless the referee is 100% certain that it was a deliberate act such as collapsing a scrum if the opposition is going for a push-over try. The focus on "winning" penalties at a scrum is a blight on the game and making technical offences free kicks would change the dynamic and I'm convinced would be a significant improvement and reduce the number of resets and time wasting.

Well said that man.

Add to that feeding the scrum should also be penalised with a free kick, and I agree with everything you say

[Beasties]

3 excellent posts below mine, totally agree with all of that. The scrum pen-lineout-try conveyor belt drives me up the wall. It’s absurd when it often starts from a simple fumble of the ball on the half way line. I speak as a former TH btw,

[hookender]

Most scrums are the equivalent of  football dives/flops ,leave a leg trailing in the penalty area. Agree with making the ‘reward’ a free kick only. If the ref is absolutely sure a 5m scrum has been brought down deliberately , could award penalty try using tmo as they do for most penalty try decisions.

 Does anyone watch lower league matches? Is it as much of a problem in championship ? Certainly can’t recall it being as much an issue in Women’s 15s ,rugby Europe games or MLR ? Perhaps refs are more eager to get ball in play and ignore collapses if ball is available to side that put in.

[Chunky24]

Referees generally look for props to stay in the contest even if they are struggling and will penalise as soon as they feel one of them doesn't.

For example Biyi in the final scrum while under pressure stayed square and although he nearly went to ground recovered and stayed in the contest so Foley played it through.

Hislop (or any LH whose front row is under pressure) being penalised for angling out is when under pressure he swings his hips out and doesn't stay in the contest so depowering the dominant opposition tighthead leaving him nothing to drive against. This penalty is one that often frustrates players / supporters as the angled out LH then has a driving angle across and in often causing the TH to pop up or the scrum to seem to move in the LH team favour so players / supporters assume the other team is at fault when the penalty is given against the LH for the initial adjustment out of the contest with his front row under pressure.

Those are the things I look for across the front row when watching from the perspectives I have mentioned previously.

[Peej]

We got proper lucky with one of those scrums when Biyi was on the deck but Foley was on Zac's side so didn't see, and Youngs then played the ball. It might even have been right before Alfie's turnover

[Rossm]

When I used to play hooker/TH, you could do just about anything you bloody well liked

[Mellie]

I have long thought that the game has drifted far too much from its original ethos. Of course coaches will always look at the laws of the game and look at ways to exploit them to gain an advantage but the tail shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog. It's up to the IRB to make sure they don't get away with too much. A scrum is a restart which should be a fair challenge for the ball with the team putting in trying to retain possession and the opposition trying to win it back. It is not, and should not be a way to "win" a penalty. That concept is ridiculous. If you  get control of the ball you have successfully won possession so the referee should call "use it" not wait for the inevitable collapse and award a penalty. Similarly, if your strength and/or technique puts so much pressure on the opposite front row such that they stand up, lose their binding, lose their footing et cetera, well done, successful scrum you should be awarded possession, i.e. a free kick, NOT a penalty unless the referee is 100% certain that it was a deliberate act such as collapsing a scrum if the opposition is going for a push-over try. The focus on "winning" penalties at a scrum is a blight on the game and making technical offences free kicks would change the dynamic and I'm convinced would be a significant improvement and reduce the number of resets and time wasting.

Absolutely. The purpose of a scrum was always meant to be a contest for possession. So once possession has been won and the ball is usable then no penalty should be allowed, apart from a penalty try if a scrum is dropped to prevent a push over from 5 metres.

In the "old days", when just about anything was possible, I believe scrum penalties were given for doing something dangerous which could have catastrophic consequences. These days we have yellow cards. Standing up is not dangerous. Neither is buckling under pressure or losing a bind.

As said above, just give a free kick to the non offending team so they get possession. I bet if this was done scrums wouldn't take half the time they do now.