Scrum tactics

[Scoey]

If one front row is driving square and straight, it (the scrum) can only go through and past 90 degrees if the other front row breaks binds. It is not physically possible to have a square front row and a 'wheeled' back 5 without binds being broken first.

 

[masai]

If one front row is driving square and straight, it (the scrum) can only go through and past 90 degrees if the other front row breaks binds. It is not physically possible to have a square front row and a 'wheeled' back 5 without binds being broken first.

What you're describing is not a wheeled scrum. A wheeled scrum is when both front rows remain properly bound, but have rotated 90 from their starting position such that the line between the front rows is parallel to the touchline.

Both front rows can be square and straight and the scrum can still wheel. If this wasn't possible, there would be no point in the IRB even having laws about wheeling. They would just regulate front row binding and be done with it.

Wheeling can occur legally in two ways:

• A big shove through the loose head side, which will naturally rotate the scrum due to the two packs being laterally offset.
• When a force is applied tangentially to the scrum's axis (ie. back row crabbing).

The only time wheeling is illegal is when one of the two props pulls his opposing prop back towards himself, so that the opposing scrum drives through out of control on that side. This is not what happened on Saturday, and at any rate not what the original post of this thread describes.

 

[fatprop]

I thought the Brumbies scrum tactics were dumb, they quickly should have realised they weren't getting anywhere holding the ball at the back and played some rugby instead

 

[Ash]

I thought the Brumbies scrum tactics were dumb, they quickly should have realised they weren't getting anywhere holding the ball at the back and played some rugby instead

Exactly, I think that's what cost them the turnover in that case. The scrum actually sat there for close to 5 second dead solid before the shenanigans.

If the Chiefs had been instantly (or within 1 - 2 seconds) been moving backwards before around, it would've been a Brumbies penalty. I reckon the fact that the ball sat at the back for so long (due to the Brumbies playing for a penalty off an apparently solid scrum) greatly affected the decision.

 

[Scoey]

What you're describing is not a wheeled scrum. A wheeled scrum is when both front rows remain properly bound, but have rotated 90 from their starting position such that the line between the front rows is parallel to the touchline.

Both front rows can be square and straight and the scrum can still wheel. If this wasn't possible, there would be no point in the IRB even having laws about wheeling. They would just regulate front row binding and be done with it.

Wheeling can occur legally in two ways:

• A big shove through the loose head side, which will naturally rotate the scrum due to the two packs being laterally offset.
• When a force is applied tangentially to the scrum's axis (ie. back row crabbing).

The only time wheeling is illegal is when one of the two props pulls his opposing prop back towards himself, so that the opposing scrum drives through out of control on that side. This is not what happened on Saturday, and at any rate not what the original post of this thread describes.

I am aware of what constitutes a 'wheeled' scrum but appreciate that may not have been obvious from my post. What you have said in your first paragraph was kind of my point. Kind of.

Essentially what I was saying is that for a team to lose their feed due to their scrum being wheeled as in the case on the weekend, certain things need to happen. One of which is that the front rows cease driving straight (or parallel to the touchline). This is a fundamental part of a wheeled scrum. The feed is lost because they could not control their own scrum and the other side were able to legally manipulate it. This did not happen on the weekend.

What happened on the weekend is that the Brumbies front row at all times were driving straight (parallel to the touchline). For the Chiefs to wheel the scrum, they would have needed to turn the front row with them. To end up in a position where the Chiefs pack, including the front row, turn through 90 degrees and the Brumbies pack remains straight, binds need to have been broken first. It is not mechanically possible otherwise. Therefore the first infringement is not the wheeled scrum.

On your two points:

• I agree with the first one. This is how it usually happens. The stronger scrum is able to manipulate the weaker one.
• I am no expert on the laws, so won't claim to be. I base my opinion on my experience of locking in too many scrums than is probably healthy. But almost every time I was involved in a wheel of this variety, it was when we were the weaker scrum. We were nearly always penalised for 'stepping sideways'. Summary: I don't think this type of wheeling is legal.

Certainly your example of a prop pulling his oppo prop backwards would be illegal.

 

[masai]

I am aware of what constitutes a 'wheeled' scrum but appreciate that may not have been obvious from my post. What you have said in your first paragraph was kind of my point. Kind of.

Apologies. You and Pfitzy were trying to educate me on what's physically possible. I was just trying to make it clear that I don't have any serious deficiencies on this subject, given that I live under those constraints every day as you do.

What happened on the weekend is that the Brumbies front row at all times were driving straight (parallel to the touchline).

This is where we disagree. I think it's pretty clear from the video and corresponding time stamp that I posted that the Brumbies front row wheeled around along with the Chiefs and then subsequent to the whistle, turned back around and drove straight to influence the umpire's decision. Joubert didn't fall for it and correctly ruled a wheeled scrum (as opposed to a lost bind).

I am no expert on the laws, so won't claim to be. I base my opinion on my experience of locking in too many scrums than is probably healthy. But almost every time I was involved in a wheel of this variety, it was when we were the weaker scrum. We were nearly always penalised for 'stepping sideways'. Summary: I don't think this type of wheeling is legal.

I'm no expert either, but I've read the Laws and I can't find anything explicitly ruling this out as a legitimate tactic. There are plenty of extremely nebulous refereeing guidelines that may or may not cover it, but it's very subjective and every referee is within his rights to interpret as he pleases.

But again, the more important point here is that defensive wheeling is a self-defeating tactic anyway as long as the 8/9 knows what he's doing. If the Wallabies are aware of the tactic, it will actually be to our advantage, so whether or not it's illegal is immaterial.

 

[Rassie]

Apologies. You and Pfitzy were trying to educate me on what's physically possible. I was just trying to make it clear that I don't have any serious deficiencies on this subject, given that I live under those constraints every day as you do.


This is where we disagree. I think it's pretty clear from the video and corresponding time stamp that I posted that the Brumbies front row wheeled around along with the Chiefs and then subsequent to the whistle, turned back around and drove straight to influence the umpire's decision. Joubert didn't fall for it and correctly ruled a wheeled scrum (as opposed to a lost bind).


I'm no expert either, but I've read the Laws and I can't find anything explicitly ruling this out as a legitimate tactic. There are plenty of extremely nebulous refereeing guidelines that may or may not cover it, but it's very subjective and every referee is within his rights to interpret as he pleases.

But again, the more important point here is that defensive wheeling is a self-defeating tactic anyway as long as the 8/9 knows what he's doing. If the Wallabies are aware of the tactic, it will actually be to our advantage, so whether or not it's illegal is immaterial.

Wheeling is legal. The whip wheel is illegal.

But I like to know. When a scrum was designed. What was the purpose? When they push against each other what was the original idea to happen? All the laws prevent that now.

 

[Rassie]

It is possible that he ruled erroneously in this match, as opposed to another.
I'm not sure what the previous match has to do with this one.
People are talking about THIS scrum, in THIS match.

Its the same referee with the same interpretation. The post I replied to mentions incidents of previous games so how come I get the lecture when really asking to go look at previous games and say how Joubert interpret the scum.

He is neutral so he will not look for one teams specific mistakes that we pick up. We miss our own teams mistakes because we are bias and we already made up the result in our minds. His interpretation stayed the same with all the games. That what makes him a good referee. He is consistent.

That is what teams want. They do not want the referee to change his whole dynamics from game to game.

There is no such thing as ‘rewarding a dominant scrum’. Both teams are to scrum technically correctly and within the laws. (If a scrum is dominant then there is no reason for it to scrum illegally – or is the scrum dominant because it scrums illegally?)

That is the first principle referees apply to a scrum.

 

[Gnostic]

I thought the Brumbies scrum tactics were dumb, they quickly should have realised they weren't getting anywhere holding the ball at the back and played some rugby instead

I actually thought they were succeeding with their tactics. they won a couple of penalties and the Chiefs started to pack early. That was their tactic against the Bulls and they scored a few points of it.

As for Mowen being under pressure at the back of the scrum, the 9 (as is so often the case nowdays is offside by basically almost tackling the 8 before he detaches to pick up the ball. The 9 cannot legally be in a position to contact the 8 at the moment he picks up the ball, similarly the flankers cannot be in the position to tackle at the moment the 8 touches the ball without being unbound.

The reason for the thread is basic:-

1) The Wallabies rightly IMO have been found wanting by the referees in many instances because they will collapse when they lose the hit or are under pressure. This became so well known that many teams will collapse their scrums to win a penalty against the Wallabies because its an odds on call that the referee will award a collapse penalty against the Wallabies. This is the perception and mindset that the Wallabies will have to battle for a long long time before it is overcome (Thanks Eddie Jones).
2) Other sides when they are under pressure to my mind have taken a different way of removing the advantage, such as the wheeling of the scrum. It is not a genuine wheel through the drive of a dominant scrum to disadvantage opposition. The Chiefs tight 5 detached and were at 90 degrees to the Brumbies 8 who continued to drive parallel to the touch lines. The loose forwards of the Chiefs were unbound and ready to defend if the Brumbies cleared the ball. This was a definite tactic and illegal, in a few obvious areas, including Not staying square and players being unbound.
3)The Crusaders do not stay down in the contest. Crocket in particular drive up out of the scrum before driving forward.

These are tactics IMO formulated to circumvent the dominance of the opposition set piece just as the Wallabies forcing a reset by collapsing. The important advantage these tactics have is they do not concede dominance in the eyes of the ref.

 

[cyclopath]

Its the same referee with the same interpretation. The post I replied to mentions incidents of previous games so how come I get the lecture when really asking to go look at previous games and say how Joubert interpret the scum.

He is neutral so he will not look for one teams specific mistakes that we pick up. We miss our own teams mistakes because we are bias and we already made up the result in our minds. His interpretation stayed the same with all the games. That what makes him a good referee. He is consistent.

That is what teams want. They do not want the referee to change his whole dynamics from game to game.

There is no such thing as ‘rewarding a dominant scrum’. Both teams are to scrum technically correctly and within the laws. (If a scrum is dominant then there is no reason for it to scrum illegally – or is the scrum dominant because it scrums illegally?)

That is the first principle referees apply to a scrum.

No, your post implied his rulings were all the same in both matches, but the complaining was different because the Brumbies lost.
The discussion was around one scrum, not all of them, and whether that decision may have been wrong or inconsistent. I'm not sure you can prove your sweeping statements that all his interpretations were exactly the same, unless you are Craig Joubert, and the rest of your post is the usual filler you apply to most of them, i.e. irrelevant obfuscation. Nobody was arguing he is a poor ref, just that he might have made a mistake. Unless you have a large series of near-identical scrums, your argument is unproveable.
I can't wait for the mini-GIFs, explaining it all, to follow.

 

[Rassie]

No, your post implied his rulings were all the same in both matches, but the complaining was different because the Brumbies lost.
The discussion was around one scrum, not all of them, and whether that decision may have been wrong or inconsistent. I'm not sure you can prove your sweeping statements that all his interpretations were exactly the same, unless you are Craig Joubert, and the rest of your post is the usual filler you apply to most of them, i.e. irrelevant obfuscation. Nobody was arguing he is a poor ref, just that he might have made a mistake. Unless you have a large series of near-identical scrums, your argument is unproveable.
I can't wait for the mini-GIFs, explaining it all, to follow.

Please read this
http://www.frontrowgrunt.co.za/2013/07/the-scrum-policing-the-impossible/

 

[cyclopath]

Great, a blog article about scrum laws referring to the inconsistency of their application, including by Craig "The Consistent" Joubert, and amazingly how that dudded the Bulls because Ben Alexander scrummed poorly against the British and Irish Lions.
Quod erat non demonstrandum.

 

[humanbeast]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere that Dan Palmer is the scrum coach for the brumbies? Maybe the wallabies should enlist him as a scrum coach before he takes of for France, the brumbies have had a very solid scrum all year

 

[Rassie]

Great, a blog article about scrum laws referring to the inconsistency of their application, including by Craig "The Consistent" Joubert, and amazingly how that dudded the Bulls because Ben Alexander scrummed poorly against the British and Irish Lions.
Quod erat non demonstrandum.

Seems similiar to a post I quoted which you included its irrelevant as that was a past game? A SA supporter not happy with a SA team getting penalized? Pointing out the faults of Alexander?
And did you read it because it clearly mentions the talk about the weak scrum before the game?

So what we had on Saturday was exactly the same thing that happened in the Australia vs Lions series. There was plenty talk about the Bulls scrumming woes in the build up to the game, much like there was plenty talk about the Lions’ scrumming prowess in the build up to that series. And instead of judging the scrums on their merit at Loftus, Joubert penalised the perceived weaker scrum.

I saw this coming when the SA cast officiated the semi final. This is a no win situation and for peace I am glad the Brumbies won it. Remember the game at Loftus when the Brumbies lost by 2 points and his accused of being biased. Even his previous games where he officiated the Bulls and how many games they won when he refereed.

Luckily the SA academy have opened up to referees outside the country so it means that Australia and NZ will have more referees at international level.

NZ know how to play Joubert the WC semi final should have given you a clue. Off course they have the full power of Opta to give them that advantage.

For info sake Tank Lanning played for WP and he knows his way around the scrum.
One man have to do a checklist of 38 things in less than 5 seconds. So he calls what he sees. Not what we see from different camera angles.

 

[cyclopath]

It is irrelevant, and I'd have thought the tone of my post made it clear what a nonsense contribution it was.
In any event, I'm done arguing with you, it's pointless.
You'll just post more spam and crap all the threads up.
In light of your very recent return from the wilderness, you might want to rethink your method of contribution to this forum. God knows enough posters are complaining about it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Wheeling can occur legally in two ways:

• A big shove through the loose head side, which will naturally rotate the scrum due to the two packs being laterally offset.
• When a force is applied tangentially to the scrum's axis (ie. back row crabbing).

The only time wheeling is illegal is when one of the two props pulls his opposing prop back towards himself, so that the opposing scrum drives through out of control on that side. This is not what happened on Saturday, and at any rate not what the original post of this thread describes.

Many times, in tests as well as S15, refs have penalised a scrum for "walking around". Can you enlighten me as to what they mean? I was under the impression it meant precisely that the back row was crabbing sideways to wheel the scrum, but you say above that that is legal. What is the difference?

 

[Santiago]

in the last rugby union match (pumas vs barbarians)

the argie ref had a rule, dunno if is new that "steady" so the scrum doesn't go down and you can continue it


hope Pumas can work in that good scrum that made them famous.

 

[masai]

Many times, in tests as well as S15, refs have penalised a scrum for "walking around". Can you enlighten me as to what they mean? I was under the impression it meant precisely that the back row was crabbing sideways to wheel the scrum, but you say above that that is legal. What is the difference?

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that it comes under the purview of collapsing. If the referee adjudicates that the manner in which the scrum was wheeled was likely to cause a collapse, he will award a penalty.

My explanation in that post was probably a bit flawed. If the scrum does not move vertically (towards either goal line) from the mark, but wheels 90 degrees due to one side's back row walking around, simple physics dictates that the tight head prop must be pulling his opponent for this to occur. This is deemed a likely cause of collapse, and will be blown up.

If one team gets a shove on, there's nothing illegal about the weaker side's back row converting that forward momentum into rotation by walking around. In this situation the tight head did nothing that risks collapse. He simply withdraws his resistance to the opposing loose head's progress. The onus is on the dominant scrum to keep the platform steady.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Thanks for some of the incisive comments about the dark art of scrummaging. Personally I love the contest each scrum brings to the horror of my wife. She likes a 7 man game - a game where backs do everything - poor tragic

 

[Lee Grant]

I can't wait until these scrum ELVs become law.

It will take a while for the referees and players to come to terms with it but its effect should be salutary after a while.

Some people have mentioned dominant scrums. There is nothing more likely to neutralise the effect of the dominant scrum than the power hit.

Dominant scrums have been dudded in the last 10 years because of sudden collapses, which force referees to guess who was at fault—guesses as to who engaged early—props not being able to bind against a body that is moving all over the shop—more frequent inadvertent crabbing to deal with getting balance after the hit, and yarda yarda.

There will still be sanctions because of early pushes (before the ball is thrown in) as it was in the olden times, but we can live with that.

But what I am looking for most of all is a clearer tunnel in a stationary scrum which will lead to enforcing the straight put-in. Then we should see the return of the hooking contest.

Some young-uns may say, What is that?

That is my point.
.