Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by the_baron, Aug 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes - What happens to 5m defensive scrums

  2. No - Player safety should come first

  3. The World has gone Health and Safety mad

  4. Might as well play League

  1. The BBC are reporting that the RFU is investigating the possiblity that all scrums be uncontested. So as rucks and mauls acould become more dangerous they want to make scrums safer. Barking IMO.

    BBC Report

    I can understand doing it when you've inexperienced front row playing or U17s etc. I think its more up to the ref to make the call of when a scrum if needs be, become uncontested even if that is during a game.

    Anyone else got a view point?
  2. This is just silly. Scrums are a major part of the game. Yes it can be dangerous, but then that is part of the fun and I can't believe anyone goes and plays without knowing that it could end up in a broken bone somewhere, but we do it anyway and thats our choice.

    This has come out of that episode whent he ref got sued for the inexperienced prop breaking his neck. A bad accident, but the prop should have taken the responsibility for knowing he was out of his depth!

    There are more dangerous sports than rugby, such as Skiiing, the Manx TT, but you don't see them being derisked do you.

    We might as well all go and play Tag rugby, or will it be a problem in case someone hurts temselves trying to pull the tag off!

    If the RFU go through witht his, they need a good smack and replaced with a new committee who has a pair of balls between them!

  3. As a prop, and an old one at that, I think it's a load of b0ll0x. As OS stated we all know the risks and it's also the one place most players, especially the girly backs wouldn't even think about going and playing. It's that black art that is the fun bit. Sod the game as long as the front row battle as been won. :lol:
  4. We would end up having scrums like they do in Rugby League, what's the point of them?
  5. Utter bollocks, especially for us props that shine at the coal face! Didn't they also *recently* change the contact rules for rucks aswell to make it overall less physical :roll: ? Been a few years since I played though seems to be a game that's becoming less "fun" for those that develop their physiques for the physical aspect of the game.
  6. I think this is lunacy. To do this would completely change the game and would turn it in to rugby league (I'm sure the northern contingent wouldn't object!).

    The RFU is going H&S mad due to fear of being sued by a player that is injured.

    As a front row forward, I have been involved in my fair share of collapses and do admit that it is somewhat worrying when it happens, so I can understand where they're coming from. But I don't think this is still justification to completely change the game.
  7. I do remember reading that thread and thought it was just one doctor but now with one of the major Unions being involved...

    ...or are the English scared that they've finally lost their forward power of old? :wink:

    Hopefully the IRB take a sensible approach and then bring all the Unions in line as should be the case anyway.
  8. I seem to recall that the Aussie RU were investigating this due to the number of injuries experienced. The issue became quite emotive (as it has done here). I think the Aussies are largely in favour of uncontested scrums as it would play to their strengths in the backs and stop them being bulldozed by nations with powerful forwards alla England in the last Workd Cup.

    Could be a case of the RFU jumping into bed with the ARU? If it is, it makes the possibility of uncontested scrums all the more stupid.
  9. It shouldn't be a blanket ruling, but in a game perhaps where one (or BOTH) sides are not as experieneced as they should be it is the refs call (or decided before the game by the two Captains/training staff).
  10. Anything to save the ears of forwards !
  11. From a refs point of view the players' safety is paramount hence, as part of the pre-match briefing the ref MUST ask that both teams have a "suitably trained and experienced front row, with replacement(s), that can contest the scrum" and go through the sequence of engagement irrespective of whatever level, incl Premiership & Internationals.

    What is being mooted by the RFU is a scheme that is in place with the FFR that should a team be unable to contest the scrum at any stage of the match, the scrum goes to uncontested and that team also forfeits another player from the team i.e. drop a winger.
  12. Hasn't this all stemmed from the Northhampton Saints timeless statement......

    "We havn't got any front rows left......but Steve Thompson is fine at flanker"

    I didn't think they were saying that they were going to make all scrums uncontested. You may as well have a tap penalty for knock ons if that happens.
  13. Oddly, given that it worked very well for the French last season, the IRB have now told the RFU that it amounts to a rule change, and so can't be done until their next review. I find it a bit weird that the French can just 'do it', but we've not done so.

    This is not the point of the original post however, which is the issue of depowering all scrums for safety reasons. I dunno: easy to scoff, but seeing Matt Hampson et al, and having serious playing sons, I am ambivalent: I'd hate to see no scrums, and I'd hate the glee with which southern hemisphere sides would seize upon it to reduce the game still further toward non-contact basketball - but I'd hate to push my son's wheelchair for the rest of my life, too...
  14. Uncontested scrums? Big dog's c**k.

    Pansy arrsed, blazer-wearing, liability fixated, biscuit tin husbanding, mismanaging, Clive Woodward's backside licking, Andy Robinson's scrotum tweaking knobbers. IMHO.