IRB SCRUM LAWS - WAYNE BARNES SPEAKS............

From the BEEB:
Tree note: The 6n scrum stats make gruesome reading for true rugby fans. Will the revsised laws lead to a more satisfying spectacle ? I hope so.

""Problems with scrums have been well documented over recent seasons, with the 2013 Six Nations Championship a prime example of the issues.
Of the 100 scrums in the tournament there were 49 collapses, 33 resets and 39 penalties or free-kicks.The new directives mean the power of the scrum on engagement will be reduced by about 25% and, in turn, this should reduce the number of collapses, making the scrum safer and more stable.
After the referee has called "crouch, bind, set" the official has to be happy the scrum is balanced before inviting the scrum-half to put the ball in - the call is likely to be "yes nine".
Neither pack will be able to push until the ball is in, while referees are now expected to insist the ball is put in straight.
With the ball going down the middle hookers will then hook the ball, an element of rugby union that has been significantly reduced over the past 10 years.
Barnes added: "We've been asked as a priority from the International Rugby Board to get the ball in straight. We know the media and the fans have been crying out for that.
"The ball won't be coming in until we say 'yes nine', which means the scrum is stable.
"That means we can take our eyes off the top of the scrum - the binding, the angles - and look for the ball.
"Before it was a very rushed and a quick engagement, but now our priority is the scrum feed, so that's one of the things we need to deliver as referees this year."
There has been criticism from many quarters  of referees' knowledge about the "dark arts" of front-row play, and Barnes admitted all referees continue to learn about the subject.
"I've never played in the front row, but we've spoken to the experts, the former front-row players, the current coaches and you listen to that impartial view," he said.
"We've heard from the likes of [former England front rowers] Jeff Probyn and Brian Moore, [former England scrum coach] Phil Keith-Roach and [current England scrum coach] Graham Rowntree] to understand what it's like to be in a scrum.
""

That has to be the joke of the year,before the feed the second shove is in progress nine times out of ten.Often the feed is physically impossible,simple fix set the two Scrums by rows.
Let them bind then ref moves them to the mark and SH feeds as soon as it is set,worked
for about 100 years before the experimental laws in 2007/8 to date imposed on us less
collapses/resets.Bucking and heaving yes ,twisting and lowering,angle packing,moling
yes but the packs sorted it out themselves.A heel against the head occurred on relatively
few occasions and Hookers but in those days it was technique over brute force.Something
the modern players are discovering.

Alan, I agree setting the scrum by rows is a pretty good idea, and might actually be the best way forwards. .

The primary purpose of the changes to the scrum cadence was to reduce serious neck injuries. The second purpose was to reduce the number of re-sets which take time away from the game. Both were caused by unstable scrums and too much impact force.

By the mid 2000s, it was very clear something had to be done to protect our players because the injury rate was becoming alarming. And injuries in the neck are the most dangerous the human body can withstand. As we all know, the props and forward packs were becoming bigger, stronger and more powerful than ever before. The force when the packs were coming together was absolutely huge and the fulcrum, if you will, was the necks of the props.

In my opinion we did not get it right with the first laws change, not the second. I do believe the recent change is a step in the right direction to make Rugby safer, though clearly not perfect. It also makes the game better by reducing the number of re-sets and actually trying to enforce a proper feed of the ball.

The point is that originally the Scrum was formed up then moved to the mark.
There was NO hit. Props deliberately collapsing Scrums was beyond the pale
for the reasons you have stated.
Indeed players like Ian Mclauchlan[Mighty Mouse]held up the opposing prop
so he can scrimmage.
Size and weight has ALWAYS been relavent to the era concerned,previously
the Scrum was much better policed.
Props first job was to SCRUMMAGE technique over brute force and strength
came with age.Richard Loe recalls he thought he knew it all as a coming Prop
then met Gary Knight.
Knight was just about the best on the planet he gave Loe a bath strength and
technique.Strength peaked at about 30 for a prop.

Slightly worried, though not entirely surprised that so many of Barnes opinions are formed by talking with English coaches and ex players! No wonder he seems to select a villain early in the match and relentlessly penalise them.

He clearly doesn't know what the word "impartial" means.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Slightly worried, though not entirely surprised that so many of Barnes opinions are formed by talking with English coaches and ex players! No wonder he seems to select a villain early in the match and relentlessly penalise them.

He clearly doesn't know what the word "impartial" means.

But he is an english referee, and is under the RFU.  Of course he would be getting his training from speaking to english coaches and players as that means he is interacting with those in his union. Should he be going to Georgian or Dutch ex players?

He needs to learn what "impartial" means. In 2007 he was in a position to help out his buddies in the England camp by having NZ knocked out of the World Cup and he took it.

GE,
You really think Barnes was deliberately biased in that 2007 match?  Or simply bad?
To be fair, the penalty numbers in the second half were pretty damning.  

I really can't recall must about that match except for the last 10 minutes or so, as it was going down to the wire.  I suppose the reason the All Blacks lost is they were wearing gray and not black?

GloriousEmpire wrote:He needs to learn what "impartial" means. In 2007 he was in a position to help out his buddies in the England camp by having NZ knocked out of the World Cup and he took it.

because that's obviously the only way NZ could possibly lose, right?  

GloriousEmpire wrote:He needs to learn what "impartial" means. In 2007 he was in a position to help out his buddies in the England camp by having NZ knocked out of the World Cup and he took it.

Are you really 40, it's just that my 5 year makes more incisive comments about rugby than this and he was still in the oven in 07.

Joking aside it is totally inappropriate for a ref to be getting tips of the england coach…..how anyone can regard that is impartial is beyond me. One assumes that after Rowntree threw his toys in the spring Barnes called him up and got a lesson.

Input should come from an IRB Panel of former players and coaches, not the guy who whinged about Barnes performance.

Of course Rowntree would not have told him anything that might influence his judgment in favor of how England scrummage.

Unbeleivable how the administration of our game is yet again shown to be doggedly determined to remain a amateur muppet show stuck in the dark ages of 57 fetid old farts

Agree scratch. Rowntree probably have him half a dozen stories about how the welsh cheat in scrums and then look what happened...all the scrum penalties went to Australia.

Seems to me like most of the problems come from refs not enforcing the laws properly. Still too much emphasis on 'set' as a hit and too many teams pushing before the ball goes in. No need for the ridiculously long pauses between the calls either, save for between 'set' and the ball going in.