Foley wants review of uncontested scrums

[wholetruth]

Nick Taylor - The West Australian on April 4, 2016

Western Force coach Michael Foley has called for a review of game laws after being forced to pack a scrum with an inexperienced second row in Friday night's bruising 32-20 Super Rugby loss to reigning champions Highlanders in Dunedin.

More here

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sp...tested-scrums/

[whodunnit]

Nick Taylor - The West Australian on April 4, 2016

Western Force coach Michael Foley has called for a review of game laws after being forced to pack a scrum with an inexperienced second row in Friday night's bruising 32-20 Super Rugby loss to reigning champions Highlanders in Dunedin.

More here

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sp...tested-scrums/

Mr Foley should be a politician.

[.X.]

Mr Foley should be a politician.

The last thing we want is have a coach that cares about the welfare of his players. SACK HIM!

[Herbasimplex]

I think it is an obtuse way of highlighting the fact that the kiwi ref went to uncontested scrums when the highlanders pulled a sneaky and were telling him that they had no one for LHP.

[GIGS20]

That's exactly the case, for the record, the Highlanders were allowed to go to uncontested scrums when they had a front row consisting of a Tighthead, a hooker and a tighthead who played loose head last year, but they said he was inexperienced and unsafe.

The Force weren't allowed to go to uncontested when they had a hooker packing at lock with no other genuine locks in the team.

I'm not tryin to diminish the importance of the front row in the scrum, but it was a complete wank to force contested scrums on the force when they'd basically ignored the law for the highlanders.

[The InnFORCEr]

I would be interested to hear from our residential refs (yes that's you Ecky et al) about what flexibility if any is allowed within the laws hen it comes to the safety and welfare of players.

Is there a law that states play must stop when streaker enters the ground or is play stopped out of concern for safety and welfare of the players? No doubt this will come into play on Friday and the offender will probably have been wearing a Warriors jumper before disrobing

[jono]

That's exactly the case, for the record, the Highlanders were allowed to go to uncontested scrums when they had a front row consisting of a Tighthead, a hooker and a tighthead who played loose head last year, but they said he was inexperienced and unsafe.

The Force weren't allowed to go to uncontested when they had a hooker packing at lock with no other genuine locks in the team.

I'm not tryin to diminish the importance of the front row in the scrum, but it was a complete wank to force contested scrums on the force when they'd basically ignored the law for the highlanders.

yeah it pissed me off watching it as well.

all anyone wants is consistency from the refs. and he blatantly told the force support staff member to go away when he specifically highlighted it was unsafe to have a hooker in the second row with contested scrums.

whether it was or not is left to others as i'll obviously never be a forward

[jono]

ugh. apologies for the poor grammar above ^ being up since 0200 doesn't allow for proper English

[Scozzie]

That's exactly the case, for the record, the Highlanders were allowed to go to uncontested scrums when they had a front row consisting of a Tighthead, a hooker and a tighthead who played loose head last year, but they said he was inexperienced and unsafe.

The Force weren't allowed to go to uncontested when they had a hooker packing at lock with no other genuine locks in the team.

I'm not tryin to diminish the importance of the front row in the scrum, but it was a complete wank to force contested scrums on the force when they'd basically ignored the law for the highlanders.

Definitely inconsistent from the ref, but I thought as long as the replacement had propping experience (not specifically LH or TH), then scrums could be contested. It was only when no prop replacements were available that uncontested scrums came into play......or am I behind the times with the laws...?

[Kalahard]

The lifting tackle that saw Tet Falkner land on his head is more of a concern for me. After watching guys get suspended for up to 6 weeks for other lifting tackles where players landed on their backs and sides, to see one where a player lands on his head and the punishment was only a penalty is disappointing.
On the scrums, while each propping position has its intricacies, its pretty poor that at a professional level guys who have been professionally trained for months and years all of a sudden cannot switch sides of the scrum. It happened at the world cup with the Springboks and now its creeping into super rugby.
Personally, if i was said prop, i would be embarrassed to call myself a professional if i could not compete at that level in my position.

[GIGS20]

That prop has apparently switched sides AT THIS LEVEL in the last year.... I would think that he probably satisfies any actual safety concern, it was most likely a concern about his competitiveness.

To be fair, apart from a height issue with cheese playing 8 and a lack of competitiveness from Dog and Mafi, wo have played lock before, it probably wasnt all that bad... But the precedent had been set by the landers being listened to when they suggested it was unsafe even though all the requirements had been met (AFAIK according to the law)

In reality we were probably better off going uncontested when we did, our scrum was getting hammered anyway, I just thought it inconsistent.

[whodunnit]

That prop has apparently switched sides AT THIS LEVEL in the last year.... I would think that he probably satisfies any actual safety concern, it was most likely a concern about his competitiveness.

To be fair, apart from a height issue with cheese playing 8 and a lack of competitiveness from Dog and Mafi, wo have played lock before, it probably wasnt all that bad... But the precedent had been set by the landers being listened to when they suggested it was unsafe even though all the requirements had been met (AFAIK according to the law)

In reality we were probably better off going uncontested when we did, our scrum was getting hammered anyway, I just thought it inconsistent.

Correct the scrum was struggling at that point. So lucky for the force!
If the force had won would we all be worrying about this?!! I say not!

[shasta]

That prop has apparently switched sides AT THIS LEVEL in the last year.... I would think that he probably satisfies any actual safety concern, it was most likely a concern about his competitiveness.

According to Nisbo he actually STARTED three matches last season at LHP. So not switching sides at all. Also, if that's the case there should probably be a reprimand for contrary contact or some such.
Someone needs to start an investigation. Dead set.

[brokendown gunfighter]

turn it up!

[GIGS20]

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of anything in law about uncontested scrums for any positn other than the front row....I don't think there's any actual recourse, the ref was just gullible, that's all.