AB's - Referees are not being fair to them

[Hodgy]

fair enough. I'm not suggesting every pen was on your ball, just that your scrum was categorically not consistently stable on it every time. It was stable at times but then scrummaging is about every time, not sometimes (as the Aussies know only too well). I'm not getting at you specifically, it just seems to have become the accepted wisdom (particularly on other sites...) that its stable on yours but not on others.

I find the scrum a fascinating part of the game, people seem convinced that refs guess and that scrummaging is ununderstandable for the non old grizzled front rower when in reality, on replay at least, most scrum decisions are bloody obvious. Watching the Aussies head to ground on the engage because they're trying not to scrummage with shoulders above hips to avoid going backwards is obvious, watching Sheridan miss a bind and therefore be responsible when it drops is obvious, watching Mealamu stand up when under pressure is obvious, watching Woodcock drop to a knee against Wales was obvious, watching South Africa walk around the scrum whilst the England front row and scrum stayed square was obvious. Watching the England front row buckle a couple of times against SA was obvious.

 

[Top Bloke]

I find the scrum a fascinating part of the game....

Agree to some extent but what you are describing is the result which we can see, what we dont always see is the real cause.

 

[Hodgy]

true to an extent, but usually the cause is completely legal therefore it doesn't matter, its usually a question of losing the hit, mistiming your engage etc and not being able to cope with the pressure. Unless its boring in / not taking the hit / stepping back on one side / wheeling without pushing square etc, in which case that's usually pretty obvious too.

I'm just saying its more simple than some people make out. The other thing of course is even though I understand the reason for the irregular spacing of crouch touch pause engage, holding the front rows in that position for that long and then having two teams try and react instantly to the engage call means you're going to get more collapsed scrums without them being anyone's fault.

 

[Richo]

MR -- belated, but here you go... :fishing

 

[Brumby Jack]

I wonder if they'll wear a special set of coloured shorts if they resort to Golden Oldies play - or make up a new category for black shorts 'won't push until Paddy let's us'.

 

[Bullrush]

I'm not sure Franks has kept straight in a scrum this season, but hey, neither has just about every other THP we played against.

Can someone find it the Laws where you have to keep 'straight'? You're not allowed to twist but I don't find anything about being straight.

fair enough. I'm not suggesting every pen was on your ball, just that your scrum was categorically not consistently stable on it every time. It was stable at times but then scrummaging is about every time, not sometimes (as the Aussies know only too well). I'm not getting at you specifically, it just seems to have become the accepted wisdom (particularly on other sites...) that its stable on yours but not on others.

Here are some scrum stats from the Gland Slam the All Blacks completed:

ENGLAND
NZ had 12 scrum feeds and won 10 and gave away 5 penalty offences at the scrum
England won all 5 of it's own scrum feeds with no scrum penalties.

SCOTLAND
NZ again had 12 scrum feeds and again won 10 with 4 penalty offences.
Scotland had 10 scrum feeds and won 7 with no scrum penalties.

IRELAND
NZ won all 8 of it's own scrum feeds with 1 scrum penalty.
Ireland had 7 scrum feeds and won 6 with 4 scrum penalties.

WALES
NZ won all 4 of it's own scrum feeds with 3 scrum penalties.
Wales had 8 srum feeds and won 7 with 1 scrum penalty conceded.

 

[Top Bloke]

Can someone find it the Laws where you have to keep 'straight'? You're not allowed to twist but I don't find anything about being straight.



Here are some scrum stats from the Gland Slam the All Blacks completed:

ENGLAND
NZ had 12 scrum feeds and won 10 and gave away 5 penalty offences at the scrum
England won all 5 of it's own scrum feeds with no scrum penalties.

SCOTLAND
NZ again had 12 scrum feeds and again won 10 with 4 penalty offences.
Scotland had 10 scrum feeds and won 7 with no scrum penalties.

IRELAND
NZ won all 8 of it's own scrum feeds with 1 scrum penalty.
Ireland had 7 scrum feeds and won 6 with 4 scrum penalties.

WALES
NZ won all 4 of it's own scrum feeds with 3 scrum penalties.
Wales had 8 srum feeds and won 7 with 1 scrum penalty conceded.

Bullrush - do you have the stats on whcih feed to PKs were given?

 

[Bullrush]

Bullrush - do you have the stats on whcih feed to PKs were given?

No...sorry mate.

 

[Hodgy]

i would guess that the scrums they lost on their own ball would have resulted in free kick or penalty, therefore they lost 2 against England - I can remember one where Woodcock was pinged for going to ground, don't remember the other.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Can someone find it the Laws where you have to keep 'straight'? You're not allowed to twist but I don't find anything about being straight.



Here are some scrum stats from the Gland Slam the All Blacks completed:

ENGLAND
NZ had 12 scrum feeds and won 10 and gave away 5 penalty offences at the scrum
England won all 5 of it's own scrum feeds with no scrum penalties.

SCOTLAND
NZ again had 12 scrum feeds and again won 10 with 4 penalty offences.
Scotland had 10 scrum feeds and won 7 with no scrum penalties.

IRELAND
NZ won all 8 of it's own scrum feeds with 1 scrum penalty.
Ireland had 7 scrum feeds and won 6 with 4 scrum penalties.

WALES
NZ won all 4 of it's own scrum feeds with 3 scrum penalties.
Wales had 8 srum feeds and won 7 with 1 scrum penalty conceded.

I am slightly confused with your stats, not that that is unusual.
England. Total Scrums = 17 (NZ 12 + Eng 5 Feeds) Scrum Results = 20 (NZ win 10, Pen to England, 5, England Win 5)
Scotland. Total Scrum = 22 (NZ 12, Sco 10) Scrum Results = 21 (NZ win 10, Pen to Sco 4, Sco Win 7)

I am splitting hairs on a largely irrelevant point.

My main comment is related to the initial question. Do you have to pack straight?
Law 20.2 says "When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove". Sanction: Free Kick.

I guess the bush lawyer in me reckons that this will only relate to when the scrum forms. Once the scrum has "formed", then all bets are off, and there is no obligation for the front row to be in a position to make a forward shove, ie fill your boots to bore in at an angle on the Hooker.

 

[Scott Allen]

HJ – you make a good point – the closest I can see is Law 20.8(j) "Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum ...".

The laws of rugby are pretty poorly written (in legal terms) so are sometimes open to interpretation. When that is the case one of the unions (such as the ARU) may submit a request for a clarification to the IRB and the IRB explains what they think the rule means. That interpretation then becomes part of the rules that are applied. I'll bet someone asked what this law means once and the IRB would have said something like "you must stay straight" and that's then become the way the law is refereed.

One of the classic anomalies in the law came up in the final Tri-Nations game this year in regards to the infamous NZ scrum where McCaw broke early. Law 20.10(c) says "If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player's feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends." People argued that the scrum ended when Read picked up the ball, not when he broke from the scrum. However, that's not the way the law is refereed because if you think about it, if the law was applied as it reads, Read could have detached from the scrum and kept the ball at his feet and kicked it forward until he walked over the try line himself whilst the rest of the NZ scrum stayed bound. According to the wording of the law, no Wallaby could have detached from the scrum or come inside the offside line because the scrum would not have ended. Obviously this was not what the law was meant to mean so someone has clarified it at some point and it's now refereed that the law applies when the #8 unbinds, yet the law remains in place!

I'll bet you can find plenty of anomalies in the rules where there's no law that exactly confirms the way the referees interpret the law. With all the interpretations that have been issued over time by the IRB, the laws probably need to be updated.

 

[Groucho]

the laws probably need to be updated.

Good luck with that.

 

[Ash]

Austin - not only that, but the multiple of cheeky 9s who try to kick the ball at the same time as the number 8 picks it up. It's a practice I hate.