..

This guy is speaking shit - if you knock on a ball you don’t have the choice of a free kick and therefore no scrum

If you knock it on, it’s a scrum

If you commit an infringement at scrum time that results in a free kick, you only have two strikes committing that infringement before it becomes a penalty

The Bomb squad against Ireland had no effect, so again this guy is speaking crap. Ireland kept their best props on the field for most of the game to counter the bomb squad threat

Pity this bloke wasn’t MIA a bit more often. Totally over blown!

My ignore filter for CLICKBAIT titles is DESTROYING my time spent on Youtube.

Every YouTube channel I have watched is of the same opinion that this guy is.

In fact, almost everything I read is in line with the general sentiment expressed by this chap.

I guess we'll see but I'm not confident that this is going to be for the best.

This guy makes valid points and is not speaking shit….these law changes are slowly but surely putting more restrictions on Rugby and changing the game more into Fucking Rugby league….there is no need for this law!!! WR is a bunch of old coots that is bored and not fit for running the show….just like all these old presidents we have around the world that is way past there time….we need younger more in tune people to run WR and the same counts for Presidents. Fucking bunch of idiots!

Ah so Mpower in your fucking wisdom please talk us through this guys valid point that if a side knocks the ball on or throws a forward pass that somehow they are going to avoid a scrum and have the option of a free kick. This guy is speaking utter shit.

A ball knocked on or a forward pass results in a scrum - nothing has changed there. So the number of scrums in a game won’t change.

If sides want to try flout the rules by infringing at scrum time in order to concede a free kick and avoid the scrum they will only be able to do that twice. Third time it becomes a full arm penalty

This is the reality of the situation so hell knows what all these so called experts are on about

The only fuck up occurs if some stupid ref decides not to penalise a side after two repeat infringement at scrum time

Well clearly the short arm will be abused and the in forcing of that on field, can be problematic….they are targeting the scrums in general and that is worrisome…this law is unnecessary and not really helping the game in any way, beside the team that play us can get out of Scrumming the Bok power pack.

No they can’t abuse it - if a ref fails to take control, warn a side after the second scrum infringement and then penalise on the third he will find himself no longer reffing first class games

The spot light will be on him.

So this whole thing is a complete overreaction

There will be just as many scrums as there have always been. They are not targeting the scrum they are trying to stop the Bok call of calling a scrum from a mark as it slows down the game

Saffex, what's the Rugby reasoning around this new proposed law...? Obviously reducing scrum time...why?...less important part of the game? 

IMO it's  a stupid law, designed to reduce the impact of scrum dominance...a Bok strength...

According to Jake it's to protect the kid's game. Total BS. Nothing stops countries, provinces or leagues from introducing specific laws for the game at lower levels while keeping the pro game untouched.

This is simply because WR knows that SA will always dominate at scrum time because we have the most kids playing rugby and a bigger, and growing, talent pool to choose from. Even when our team sucks, we always have a dominant scrum.

France, England, Ireland, and others, have a good scrum from time to time but SA always have either the best or second best scrum in the world. That's been true since forever. Where other teams can choose from a pool of a hundred hookers, we can choose from thousands.

And I know that somebody is gonna ask why we don't always dominate all facets of rugby if this is the case. And that's because over all coaching and strategy come into play here. A side with lesser players can easily beat a better side by having a better plan and executing it well. This isn't to say the ABs are lesser. Rather that the Boks have just as much talent at their disposal but waste it and often have terrible gameplans. Coaching and strategy levels the playing field. But with scrums it's purely down to power and composition. Something much more defined, where the benefit of a bigger talent pool is much easier to extract.

That is why WR want to ruin scrums and give teams and easy out when they have a shyte scrum.

From some of die mense wat wiet watte dit's allabout

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/nigel-owens-warns-the-scrum-will-be-gone-for-good-after-world-rugbys-potentially-damaging-amendment

https://www.planetrugby.com/news/loose-pass-scrum-law-change-is-not-a-death-knell-gloucester-aberration-and-player-flogging

The planet rugby article. - These people that write this crap are so obviously coming in with an agenda.

Notice how that "writer" literally focuses on only the things they nobody disagrees with...like scrums from marks no longer being a thing. Not a single person disagrees with that.

He completely ignores the single pertinent point in all of this. That being, teams intentionally giving away a free kick instead of scrumming. It's literally the only thing people are worried about and it's the single thing he doesn't address?

He's either stupid or he thinks we're stupid. I despise this type of journalism. The world is full of these types of slimy writers and it pisses me off to no end.

"The scrum has only been removed as an option from free-kicks – which are not that many, nor are they often in good attacking positions. So it is pertinent to think: has the advantage of having the scrum been changed? Assume a free-kick from a mark, which by definition is in the team’s 22. Normally the team would exit. Now they can exit kick without 200kg of steam-from-the-nostril flanker bearing down on them. Advantage actually increased there we would say.

Outside the 22 it is harder. The scrum does tie up defenders in a knot of space and create space elsewhere. But teams can still go to the air with the ball which they might do anyway in some field positions, while teams can also take a quick tap at a free-kick awarded at, ironically, scrum-time, which often gives a moment of advantage similar to winning a scrum – perhaps even more, given the likely perturbation moment the defence would be suffering. What is crucial there is how well referees crackdown on the other team ‘accidentally’ preventing such a tap being taken. That is a penalisable offence, from which the team could opt, of course, for a scrum…"

This twat thinks that what is crucial is how opposition prevent the other team taking a quick tap? That's not even nearly a problem. I mean, if you read this article and believe he's making a good case for this law change then you're one those people that are easily befuddled by word salad.

What part of the fact that if a side infringes at scrum time in order for a free kick to be awarded instead of having to scrum that that infringement can only be committed twice before a full penalty is awarded, are people not getting???

So in effect there will be 2 less scrums a game if sides did this, which they won’t as there is no point.

We will see just as many scrums in games as we do now - nothing will change

Perhaps you start by distinguishing between the amount of scrums and the amount of completed scrums.

But we're getting into ratios again and we know you struggle with that.

You are just too fucking stupid to work this out are’nt you

Racist twat

There are plenty of resources on the interwebs that can teach you all about what ratios are.

It's not difficult, promise.

The only ratio I need to worry about is that the ratio of scrums in games is going to stay the same for the obvious reason I stated above and which is beyond your comprehension

Do you know that Chippo is black - let me guess you don’t give a fuck?

You're right, I don't care. Chippo being a particular colour doesn't make Africa a smarter continent. If Chippo was Superman, South Africa's average IQ would still be 69, a score classed as being in the mild mental disability range. And the effects of having that extremely low IQ as our national average remain just as visible and obvious in SA as they are. And virtue signallers would still pretend that stating the obvious is racist.

Why don't you ask Chippo if he thinks SA is an intelligent country.

Check the national average IQs from around the world, no nation with an average IQ below 90 has ever achieved first world status. Take Ecuador, another dumb country with a similar IQ to SA...and guess what, same story... massive corruption, poverty, crime, etc.

These things are correlated and no amount of virtue signalling will change that.

But, IQ scores can be raised. Meaning they're not immutable. And racism, as far as I can tell, is derived from prejudice based around immutable characteristics.

Anyhoos, back to how dumb YOU are...

Nigel Owen's has weighed in on this, and guess what...he agrees with what I'm saying. Teams are going to game the system, the scrum will be less of a weapon and this will cause a whole bunch of new problems.

Did you read about ratios, like I asked? Or is it still a little fuzzy?

Oh screw it, let's school the Fat Lip a little.

Say your side gets 8 scrums awarded to them in a game(that's a high number, I know).

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the weaker scrumming team will always try to scum legitimately when it's their own put-in.

Now, let's assume that Fat Lip is correct and that the ref will only allow two short arms before he awards a long arm.

--> note; There is no specific rule for for this. It's entirely down the referee's discretion as to how many short arms he awards before giving a full penalty. It's conjecture emanating from Fat Lip's mongrel brain. It also doesn't take into account that if a team games two scrums in the first half, the ref may not carry those two over into the second half, nor that once a long arm is conceded that every short arm after that will result in a long arm. Fat Lip has glossed over this because it's inconvenient(note I'm giving him credit for perhaps having considered this when in reality I'm not sure he's actually smart enough to have...I'm too generous really).

So, 8 scrums. 2 of which are gamed by the opposition. That is 25% of scrums ruined...a 1/4.

Now, let's talk about scrum advantage.

Scrums can be awarded anywhere on the field. So it's a 50/50 whether you get a scrum in yours or the opposition's half.

So you can assume that 50% the scums will occur on you side of the field the other 50% on the other side.

Let's be generous and say that all penalties in the opposition half are kickable. Meaning, out the 4 scums in the opposition half, you could potentially get 12 points. Note that this swings in both directions because not all kicks in the oppo half are convertible but it also means that the amount of scums the opposition need to game decreases. But, at base, there will always be at least two scums from lockable positions that could be gamed by a weaker scrumming team.

If 2 of those scrums are gamed by the opposition because they feel it's in kickable range...then they have effectively robbed the team with the scrum advantage of 6 points...by simply pushing early or doing whatever else is needed to cause the ref to award a short arm.

Now let's assume that ref doesn't carry over the "2 short arms until I penalise" to the second half.

If the weaker scrumming team applies the same strategy again...it's another 6 points.

A total of 12 points.

Remind me again, what's the average winning margin in rugby?

Listen here you racist scum - 8 scrums my arse

Try this for fact:

People also ask

How many scrums per rugby game? The scrum has a large role to play in rugby, on average there is around 19 scrum events during an international rugby match. As a performance indicator, scrum success can heavily impact the outcome of the game.29 Jul 2023

The WC final had 13 scrums - so go back to the drawing board you ignorant easy pickings twat

Whahaha the dumbest of the dumb, huh old Fat Lip.

I said..."Say your side gets 8 scrums awarded to them in a game(that's a high number, I know)."

Meaning 8 scrums where YOUR side gets the put in. I then clearly state that..."For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the weaker scrumming team will always try to scum legitimately when it's their own put-in."

So that makes 16 scrums...but we ignore the 8 where the opposition get the put-in.

This is the problem, Fat Lip. You are too slow, and too dumb, to understand plain English.

So I say 8 scrums per team, and you say "no no no...there are was total of 13 scrums"

lol what a mong!

You also ignore the bit where I show you how a team could easily game 12 points in a match. Obviously that's too inconvenient a proposition for you to deal with.

lol easy pickings indeed.

The lip grows, it swells, it throbs...

That lip be the fattest in all the land.

Fuck me you are stupid. So is it only on your scrums that you can press home an advantage

Listen here dumbfuck - if there are 16 scrums in a game and a side decides to infringe in order to concede a free kick instead of scrumming, all of two scrums will be lost in that game, making that 14 scrums

Hardly going to change the shape of the game now is it you fucking stupid moron

Which ref is going to tolerate repeated deliberate infringements at scrum time huh? Wake the fuck up you idiot

Go learn the game of rugby you are fucking clueless

lol ou Fat Lip, that vein is throbbing big time.

I told you to Google ratios.

We're slowly exposing your pure lack of understanding of the game.

How many times, on average, does the team not putting the ball into the scrum win a penalty? It's 10%...or because I know you suck at math...1 in 10 times.

Let's be generous and say that for the Boks it's 20%. So, 1 in 5. Which is extremely generous.

Now, for a team putting the ball into the scrum, they win a penalty 10-15% of the time.

Let's be generous and say that for the Boks it's 50%.

Now, combined with my explanation above, are you able to put 2 and 2 together yourself or do you need me to walk you through the rest?

I'll give you a clue. In my initial explanation, I estimated in your favour in a whole bunch of ways that I didn't even bother to mention.

Fat Lip, it's very obvious why you try to become all insulting and angry...insults and anger in response to counterpoints reveals a lack of emotional control and intellectual maturity, and it demonstrates an inability to engage in logic. It indicates weak mental faculties, as it prioritises emotional outbursts over logically making a point. Basically, your style of debating/discussing is based on tantrums. Like the one you're busy with now.

You're Ruckers very own little spoilt baby...and that Lip, that Lip is just so PHAT!

Bwhaha

Look here racist I know you are trying really hard to get out of this one

Take your ratios and shove them up your arse. This simple equation has sweet fuck all to do with ratios and everything to do with simple mathematic facts

Your squealing is about less scrums per game thanks to the rule change - I’m just simply pointing out that you are too fucking stupid to work out that at most we might see two less scrums a game if a side decides to infringe at scrum time.

That’s it - that has fuck all to do with ratios you idiot. It’s only about less scrums per game dumbfuck

LMFAO

No wonder you're so angry and that lip is so fat. You don't understand half of what you read on here. Are the words on the page fuzzy?

Let me ask a question that you won't answer.

Can you point out where I am complaining about "less scrums"?

I went to great lengths to point out to you that a team might decide to game two scums per half where if they lost the scrum the opposition could kick for 3.

...and that makes a total of 12 gamed points per match. 12 points being larger than the average winning margin.

Was that clear enough for you? The longer we talk the dumber you look boet.

My word, I'm sure you are trolling because a three year-old could understand this.

But not the Fat Lip. No...once that Lip starts wobbling, all voltage to its under developed "brain" is cut...whahaha!!!

Buttplug was this whole issue not about taking away the strength of the Boks - ie scrums huh?

So as I said go shove your ratios up your arse they are of no consequence

At most a game will lose two scrums but I doubt even that will happen

So stop ignorantly squealing about how much this new rule will handicap the Boks

It’s not my fault you are too fucking stupid to look past all the media hype and work out the reality for yourself

Don’t you understand the game - do you need to be schooled all the way?

Fat Lip...

It's interesting that you seem to known exactly how this will play out.

Or is it that perhaps you don't know but you believe it will play out a certain way and your monkey brain is too immature to content with any other possibilities?

All I did above was provide some speculation. Meaning, I admit I don't know how it'll turn out.

But not the Fat Lip...no the Fat Lip twat has a crystal ball.

Tell you what, you abhorrent mong, do please let all the high level coaches and players around the world know that you have seen the future and can guide them. Because as it stands, they're speculations too.

Plonker.

Look here racist the only part of the equation open to decreasing the number of scrums substantially is if the ref decides to ignore the repeated infringements at scrum time in order to milk a free kick instead of a scrum.

Is that going to happen? No fucking way. No ref is that poor and if he was he would find himself relegated to reffing the local pub side

But given how fucking bright you are why don’t you point out to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of the new rule change

Leave the ratios and points out of it, I’m not interested in your meaningless garbage - stick to the number of scrums that will be lost in a game

Take your time

Let's make a simple wager.

I'll bet you £100 that in the Irish series they(Irish) will give away at least 10 short-arm penalties from scrums where if the Boks won the scrum they could kick it over for 3.

That's 30 points over the series...or 10 points per game. 

Deal?

And if I win, I want my money.

You are on - let’s double it to £200

Keep it simple if the Irish infringe 10 or more times at scrum time to concede a short arm instead of the scrum you win

Deal.

And just so it's not a total loss for you, I'll explain to you how to create a crypto wallet so that you can pay me is USD stable coins.

The only winning that will happen will be you paying me in rands

This is possibly the surest bet I’ve ever taken for two reasons

The Irish scrum does not fear ours they will challenge our scrum all the way

No ref is ever going to get away with awarding 5 scrum time free kicks a game and if that does happen in the first test we can count on Rassie raising the roof on the issue

Hope you have some overtime booked in

Just make sure you know what stable coins are.

:)