Prop Dilemma

[topo]

In the semi final against SD, after Jerry Y got injured I think, in the last 5 minutes before half time the Uni scrum was totally dominated and only got saved by Walsh not awarding a penalty try when he should have. Props that day as I recall were Tilse at LHP and Ryan at THP. Its for this reason that I'm so concerned about the Tahs scrum if Ben, Fuse or Kepu get injured. That 5 minutes against a really good front row said more than a whole grand final against a lesser pack.

Well, to put it in context: The scrums you refer to were right on halftime and 5m out from the Uni line. If SD score they go into half time with a huge pump up. There was a delay before it for a fair while as Jerry Y was stretchered off with a fracture/dislocation of his ankle. Ryan came on cold as a replacement after a full game in 2nds and Tilse moved from THP to LHP causing a fairly big disruption. The first time the scrum packed Ryan got smashed but it went to ground. The reset was very unsteady before the ball came in (but didn't go to ground) and the ref blew it up. The subsequent reset was won by SD but they weren't able to get the shove on so rolled it off the back and got turned over a couple of phases later. That was the winning of the game for Uni. IMO the Uni scrum improved in the 2nd half and the same front row went pretty well against Randwick a week later.

 

[Hawko]

Well, to put it in context: The scrums you refer to were right on halftime and 5m out from the Uni line. If SD score they go into half time with a huge pump up. There was a delay before it for a fair while as Jerry Y was stretchered off with a fracture/dislocation of his ankle. Ryan came on cold as a replacement after a full game in 2nds and Tilse moved from THP to LHP causing a fairly big disruption. The first time the scrum packed Ryan got smashed but it went to ground. The reset was very unsteady before the ball came in (but didn't go to ground) and the ref blew it up. The subsequent reset was won by SD but they weren't able to get the shove on so rolled it off the back and got turned over a couple of phases later. That was the winning of the game for Uni. IMO the Uni scrum improved in the 2nd half and the same front row went pretty well against Randwick a week later.

I only saw it on I-view so I haven't got a copy to review but my memory says that the third scrum was destabilised by the uni pack boring in on the angle trying to disrupt what they couldn't resist. Walsh saw it differently and let it go. I would have awarded a penalty try under the posts.

It was the turning point in the game and I reckon that a try then would have been a massive boost for Southern and would have given them a huge advantage in morale. Uni might have come back in the second half, they are very good at that, but SD would have been in the box seat. On such little incidents are semi's won and lost. Ref's are now very reluctant to award penalty tries on the grounds that if they have got it wrong they will have disadvantaged the defending team. No one ever thinks about the disadvantage to the attacking team. The decision turned the game. That being said, I am not saying Uni should have lost, there were 40 minutes to go for SD to establish supremacy. But after that, SD did not have the same positive vibe they had in the last ten minutes of the first half.

 

[Lee Grant]

Referring to when the ball is put in and not really to the point: but I'm told that coaches tell them to engage on the end of the EN and take the risk.

One hopes that not too long after the RWC that these engage type problems will be lessened by outlawing the power hit, a relatively new thing in the history of rugby.

There are many important things to good scrummaging but the increased importance of the power hit, especially in the professional era, has lead to a virus of collapses IMO. Getting the hit right or ever so slightly premature, can enable an otherwise lesser scrum to get parity, or better, so they give it a shot, and a good scrum will fancy themselves to get the hit right anyway.

So scrums go down; it's madness.

We saw before the early 80's, when the disease started, that teams would fold into each other, even sometimes whilst the scrummie was picking up the ball to put it in. They'd take the weight of the other team and wait for the scrumhalf to put the ball in. Then the scrum started.

The more powerful and technically better scrummagers would still get dominance and get the benefit of what a superior scrum gets now. There were a few collapses but not nearly as many as presently and the time between the whistle and putting the ball in was reduced, because they automatically engaged soon after the whistle.

My fear is that the lawmakers who did not experience the 1970's or before as players will not know how powerful a scrum can be without a power hit and keep trying to correct the pimple on rugby's bum (getting the engage right) whilst being ignorant of the cancer.

I know I've said this a dozen times before but one lives in hope.


PS There is no mystery as to why the malign importance of the power hit and the ignoring of skew put-ins to scrums by referees have developed together.

Sometimes front-rowers are so unbalanced by a mistimed power hit (including one side of one's own scrum getting it right but the other not) that they have to move their feet and the tunnel disappears. A straight feed is difficult; so the ball is put in a clearer channel behind the hookers feet. By allowing this two or three generations of referees have created a convention that the crooked feed will be ignored in the interest of keeping powerful scrummaging intact.

In doing so they have destroyed a contest and helped to lessen the game.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Wow - I didn't know that. There's never a list of reserves in the Shute Shield (regular season) games because they usually use players from the Twos, but I didn't notice that in the finals that there were indeed 8 reserves.

They have in fact allowed a 23rd man or 6th front rower for many years but it was optional until mandated this year.

Does anyone remember who the prop's for the Under20 World Cup were? I realise they will be too young for the WC in 2011 but am curious to see where they will be playing next year and whether we will see them making any super 15 appearances.

Cruze Ah-Nau
Paul Alo-Emile
Salesi Manu

and um, others....

Other Aus U20's front rowers were Scott Sio (Prop), Sam Roberson and Siliva Siliva (Hookers)

A thought I had about the scrum rules; doesn't seem impractical to use a non-monosyllabic word to engage the front rows? Do the ref's tell the teams whether they want them to engage on "EN-gage" or "en-GAGE"?

The referees would request the "E" of Engage but most fron rowers go on the "E" of pausE.

I only saw it on I-view so I haven't got a copy to review but my memory says that the third scrum was destabilised by the uni pack boring in on the angle trying to disrupt what they couldn't resist. Walsh saw it differently and let it go. I would have awarded a penalty try under the posts.

I do not agree with your call as I don't believe that you could say that it would "probably" have resulted in a try. For mine, the Souths scrum had not moved far enough towards the line to assess it as "probable". I thought Walshy handled a difficult phase very well. In the end, I thought Souths were impatient as another collapse penalty would have ended up with a YC for repeated infringements or the aforementioned penalty try (assuming that it would probably have been scored at the next scrum)

 

[Eyes and Ears]

In doing so they have destroyed a contest and helped to lessen the game.

Lee, despite many tinkering with the Laws including ELVs and interpretations and the referees ignoring the straightness of the feeds, the scrum contest seems as important today as ever. It is very difficult to win a game with a weak scrum. The nature of the contest has changed and there are probably less tight heads but the scrum remains fundamental to the contest and the game. If it had really been destroyed, then you would see rugby league scrums. IMO the lack of ability in the Australian scrum has kept us confined to being a good team rather than a great one for the past 10 years

 

[Lee Grant]

The contest destroyed I was talking about was the contest of hooking for the ball. This has lessened the game.

 

[TOCC]

Agree LG, it's amazing how little actually hooking for the ball counts these days, to be honest it's always going to be a one sided affair though, by having the halfback feed the ball from the loose head prop side, his own hooker gets first strike at the ball, it's why they call it a tight head scrum, because the tight head prop on the opposition is really the person who causes the turnover, by exerting pressure on the hooker as soon as the ball is fed he can hook or step over the ball before the hooker gets a chance..

 

[en_force_er]

In my experience at tighthead most scrums against the feed are caused by the opposition hooker fecking up but it's still nice to cop a pat on the back after.

 

[liquor box]

A thought I had about the scrum rules; doesn't seem impractical to use a non-monosyllabic word to engage the front rows? Do the ref's tell the teams whether they want them to engage on "EN-gage" or "en-GAGE"?

One rule/idea that I think should be looked at everytime I see a scrum penalty is introducing a "beep" system (think the start of a time trial in cycling) or metronome where there is an outside force other than the referees brain that decides the speed of the call. It could be a hand held object that ensures that the speed of the call is the same the world over.

 

[Lee Grant]

In my experience at tighthead most scrums against the feed are caused by the opposition hooker fecking up but it's still nice to cop a pat on the back after.

In my experience of watching it, most scrums against the feed in pro rugby are caused by the ball from the crooked feed being accidentally kicked forward.

Bring back the hooking contest !!!!!!

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Bring back the hooking contest !!!!!!

If the contest was brought back, would you also be happy to see more FKs for not straight, early hook and for hookers not maintaining their weight on either foot and probably more re-sets for "same tunnell"?

 

[Lee Grant]

That's a deflection, but cleverly done. You indicate that if something happens it follows that other things will follow; so let's talk about the other things.


First enforce the straight put in. Then let us worry about the problems that arise. It can't be worse than the abortion we have now.


For the record: I will suffer the FKs if not straight put ins are enforced if the law is imposed with the same strictness as is being used in applying the releasing of the tackled player currently. We may see something strange. Players complying because they are being whistled up and being harangued by their coaches because they are. That second matter of the coaches is important - coaches affect the game heavily.


We are seeing something unusual happening in the Heineken Cup compared to last year in regards to releasing the tackled player: reluctant compliance. The end of the Saracens v Leinster game was a perfect example: Leinster angels - 15 of 'em; and for 30 Saracens phases.


Is the crackdown on releasing the tackled player perfect? No way; it needs more time for players to be educated. Has the game been improved because players are being forced to release the tackled player? IMO, yes. Has the enforcement of the law, as written, made attacking teams more willing to retain the ball because referees are now enforcing the law as it is written? Of course. Is there less aerial ping-pong this year? No brainer.


What's this got to do with putting the ball in straight to the scrum? It's another law written that has been deliberately ignored by officials for a long time and one that could have a similar promising effect on the game.


What is the effect? Having two specialists being able to hook for the ball instead of what we have now: the scrummie putting the ball behind his hooker's feet and relying on the push to win the ball - or in the case of the defending scrum: perhaps winning the power hit to overcome the routine skew put in.


Will it work? Like the current crackdown on releasing the tackled player as the first item in the tackle transaction - and not allowing the chasing of kicks from an offside position - and the other items being enforced - FFS, who knows - but let's see it in action first then decide.


Who knows we may see a reprise of a forgotten contest: the defending hooker actually hooking for the ball.


I realise that younger forum members may be scratching their heads and be wondering what this old fogey is talking about - but to me, that is the problem.

.

 

[Lee Grant]

PS - if I were arguing about what I have written above I would go through the law book and challenge me that I am arguing that every single law should be upheld hoping I would say "Yes".

I wouldn't. For example: enforcement of the law requiring players not to have their hands in the ruck would be stupid, because attacking scrummies would not be allowed to fish the ball out of the ruck, just as they were certainly not allowed to do in the 50's - and even the 60's IIRR.

So, you are arguing for selective compliance you old fart? Probably - but one thing I am damn sure of: I want to see a contest to hook the ball in the scrum. Hell yes; to my dying day.

 

[disco]

'You just look at the quality props who have been left behind in Al Baxter, Matt Dunning, Sekope Kepu, Guy Shepherdson, Nick Henderson, Tim Fairbrother - there's a lot of depth in Australian front rows now,'' Alexander said.

From what I saw from Matt Dunning this year he's lucky to get a run in the super 15 let alone the test squad he was getting pinged nearly every scrum.

Ben Alexander wasn't far behind either he was actually a bigger problem than Mafu when it come to collapsing scrums. I'd have Greg Holmes over all of them & that's not watching with me Reds glasses on either he gave a much better platform & he packed in with a much smaller hooker also.

Holmes alongside a beast like TPN or even Moore would look even better especially with Fatcat at LH.

 

[Lindommer]

One rule/idea that I think should be looked at everytime I see a scrum penalty is introducing a "beep" system (think the start of a time trial in cycling) or metronome where there is an outside force other than the referees brain that decides the speed of the call. It could be a hand held object that ensures that the speed of the call is the same the world over.

Good idea, fancy talker, but I'd be quite happy with a steady simple "crouch", "touch", "pack" routine. And, please, no exaggerated pauses a la Kaplan after the "pause".

 

[Slim 293]

From what I saw from Matt Dunning this year he's lucky to get a run in the super 15 let alone the test squad he was getting pinged nearly every scrum.

Ben Alexander wasn't far behind either he was actually a bigger problem than Mafu when it come to collapsing scrums. I'd have Greg Holmes over all of them & that's not watching with me Reds glasses on either he gave a much better platform & he packed in with a much smaller hooker also.

Holmes alongside a beast like TPN or even Moore would look even better especially with Fatcat at LH.

Alexander didn't seem to have this problem a year earlier... I think swapping sides has probably hampered his LH technique... but let's hope going back to LH for the Brumbies hasn't now done the same for his TH development...

As for Ma'afu, despite all the criticism he's been getting he did have a pretty good S14 and IMO generally scrummaged better than Alexander... I still fondly remember him tearing Woodcock a new one...

 

[liquor box]

Good idea, fancy talker, but I'd be quite happy with a steady simple "crouch", "touch", "pack" routine. And, please, no exaggerated pauses a la Kaplan after the "pause".

Its getting rid of the uneven pauses by different referees that I want to get rid of. You could even have the "beeps" into the referees earpiece

 

[TOCC]

Good idea, fancy talker, but I'd be quite happy with a steady simple "crouch", "touch", "pack" routine. And, please, no exaggerated pauses a la Kaplan after the "pause".

Exactly, in the army, drill is called to a cadence, it's a standardized beat which varies only the slightest across all the army units no matter who is calling it.

I'm not proposing that referees go to recruit training, the point I'm getting to is it's possible to have a standardized pattern or structure to calling the scrum engagement across the board.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

There has been some similar discussion on referee scrum call cadence on "Cheating Half Back" Thread
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/threads/5879-Cheating-Half-Backs

Originally Posted by Thin Thighs
What about the "new" engagement sequence? Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage.

The timing differences between individual referees must confuse and frustrate scrums. With some it is like touch/pause very quickly, with others it is like touch (2 seconds), Pause (2 seconds) Engage.

T'other observation I have about modern scrums is that the feeding teams halfback is being nailed at the back of the scrum by the non feeding halfback more than "the olden days". Are the 8's not doing their job, are the 9's just useless, or are the non feeding #9's cheating?

Originally Posted by Rob42
I'm guessing each team has a chart defining the average time each ref takes between Pause and Engage. Nigel Owens on the weekend seemd quite happy to let the packs engage slightly before his call when the hit was simultaneous - almost as though he wanted to let them play the game. Shocking. Then we had the spectacle earlier in the Tri-Nations of...another ref, was it Joubert?...holding the packs up for an eternity after Pause, just so's they'd know who was really in charge.

Originally Posted by Richo
Kaplan was doing "Crouch... Touch... Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse.... .... ... Engage" in Christchurch. Maybe that's who you're thinking of?

Originally Posted by Thin Thighs
And meanwhile on Fox, the NZ Commentators during ITM Cup games have said that there is a bit of debate going on in Kiwiland about the inconsistencies of the scrum calls.
They said it is like "...trying to hold back a pack of wild horses with a few pieces of string"