Scrum tactics

[Gnostic]

Australian scrums have over the years gained a deserved reputation for taking the scrum down when they are under pressure, particularly on the hit.

After this year's Super season and in particular the performance of the Chiefs on Saturday night, I have had a think about some previous games of note where NZ scrums were being dominated by Australian sides.

I have formed a view that needs some discussion and thought from better front row thinkers than me. I feel that the NZ scrums are taught not to take the scrum down, as that is a sign of weakness and being dominated. Instead they will wheel the scrum actively dragging it around, often such that the backrow detaches. This was particularly easy to see against the Chiefs on Saturday night as the back row and second rows were not even driving the Chiefs scrum but were walking sideways. The forward momentum was always with the Brumbies and it should have been penalised.

Anybody else have thoughts on this aspect of the dark arts. Surely there are other ploys that are coached to negate a dominant scrum, or even achieve illegal dominance such as the Crusaders standing up and driving forward.

 

[Pfitzy]

I know one of the scrums you're taking about: Afeaki hadn't been in that long, Sio absolutely drilled him (he was on his knees) and the back five for the Chiefs walked around the corner. Joubert turned the ball over with a thru 90 call which was ridiculous, given the Brumbies were dominating from the first.

Benny A was about ten metres upfield when the whistle sounded, with the remnants of Waikato pride under his boots. Looked very aggrieved, and rightly so.

Only one thing will turn around the notion that we can't scrum:

Endless hard fucking work.

From what I've seen so far, this new system rewards hard work and skill, but being Australian we will have to dominate just to get parity in the eyes of the ref; and don't dominate too much or we will still be pinged.

-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...

 

[Dam0]

Law reference for the illegality please?

 

[Pfitzy]

Well, pick one from the following for either Chiefs prop on that particular scrum:

Binding arm
Losing bind
Collapsing scrum
Not holding weight
Not pushing straight

Then for the other five:
Wheeling
Back row binding
Second row binding
Failing in general


-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...

 

[Rassie]

Dominance gain by legal or illegal scrumming?

 

[Dam0]

Well, pick one from the following for either Chiefs prop on that particular scrum:

Binding arm
Losing bind
Collapsing scrum
Not holding weight
Not pushing straight

Then for the other five:
Wheeling
Back row binding
Second row binding
Failing in general


-----------------------
I hate autocorrect .

The bolded ones are not offences. The other ones are, though I don't see them in this scrum.

*The TH bind is marginal, but not on the arm.
*No prop lost his bind until after the scrum went around 90 degrees.
*The scrum did not collapse.

*The No 8 dropped his bind for a fraction of a second, but regained it almost immediately. The 19 is clearly bound onto the scrum at all times.
*The locks never lost their bind at any point.


I'm no apologist for CJ, who I didn't think was particularly good that game, and I do have sympathy with the notion that different teams are treated unequally due to perceptions, but there is no clear and obvious PK there.

I'm not sure why the Brumbies halfback didn't pick the ball up and run almost unopposed to the line with his 3 back rowers in support, and the Chiefs 3 back rowers around the corner and too far away to do anything.

 

[FrankLind]

The bolded ones are not offences. The other ones are, though I don't see them in this scrum.

*The TH bind is marginal, but not on the arm.
*No prop lost his bind until after the scrum went around 90 degrees.
*The scrum did not collapse.

*The No 8 dropped his bind for a fraction of a second, but regained it almost immediately. The 19 is clearly bound onto the scrum at all times.
*The locks never lost their bind at any point.


I'm no apologist for CJ, who I didn't think was particularly good that game, and I do have sympathy with the notion that different teams are treated unequally due to perceptions, but there is no clear and obvious PK there.

I'm not sure why the Brumbies halfback didn't pick the ball up and run almost unopposed to the line with his 3 back rowers in support, and the Chiefs 3 back rowers around the corner and too far away to do anything.

You and your facts.

 

[boyo]

You and your facts.

Damn inconvenient, what.

 

[Rassie]

Well, pick one from the following for either Chiefs prop on that particular scrum:

Binding arm
Losing bind
Collapsing scrum
Not holding weight
Not pushing straight

Then for the other five:
Wheeling
Back row binding
Second row binding
Failing in general


-----------------------
I hate autocorrect .

The bolded ones are not offences. The other ones are, though I don't see them in this scrum.

*The TH bind is marginal, but not on the arm.
*No prop lost his bind until after the scrum went around 90 degrees.
*The scrum did not collapse.

*The No 8 dropped his bind for a fraction of a second, but regained it almost immediately. The 19 is clearly bound onto the scrum at all times.
*The locks never lost their bind at any point.


I'm no apologist for CJ, who I didn't think was particularly good that game, and I do have sympathy with the notion that different teams are treated unequally due to perceptions, but there is no clear and obvious PK there.

I'm not sure why the Brumbies halfback didn't pick the ball up and run almost unopposed to the line with his 3 back rowers in support, and the Chiefs 3 back rowers around the corner and too far away to do anything.

Penalize the cause not the symptom

For example

If the loosehead walks around the tighthead, the tighthead will have to break his bind and bring his arm to his chest to protect his ribs. The loosehead has to “leave” his hooker and you will note that the loosehead is “shearing off” and his spine is no longer “in line” .

Penalize the CAUSE (loosehead) NOT the symptom (tighthead).

If a looseheads elbow points down he is hanging on the tighthead who might have to turn in or fall into the tunnel.

Again Cause not the symptom

 

[Dam0]

Don't get me wrong, these are all arguable points, and different refs approach this stuff differently. And the debate is certainly worth having.

I also don't doubt that Poite and a few others would have pinged the Chiefs in that scrum, but I do doubt that he or they would have been correct to do so.

 

[masai]

I'm not sure why the Brumbies halfback didn't pick the ball up and run almost unopposed to the line with his 3 back rowers in support, and the Chiefs 3 back rowers around the corner and too far away to do anything.

This is exactly right. Intentional wheeling caused by the backrow walking around the corner is not illegal and should not be penalised, but when it's done by the defensive scrum it's extremely risky for the very reason Dam0 mentioned. If the attacking 8/9 are alert and aware of the developing situation, they can clear the ball immediately and make easy metres. Messam did exactly this for the Chiefs' first try. That the Brumbies didn't in this case is entirely the fault of Mowen and White. They both did their very best all night to negate their own dominant tight five.

If the All Blacks really are using this as a scrum tactic, I would hope that Link's coaching staff are smart enough to teach the Wallaby 8/9 to take advantage of it, because it is absolutely suicidal.

 

[Rassie]

^I would ask were it turned over by the wheeling or the 9 not using it when available. Joubert have no obligation to yell use it.

The Chiefs got 100's of tricks up their sleeve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pWfoE0qYAE0
Latimer does that a lot if they can get away with it

Ever seen a 9 outrun a pass?

 

[Pfitzy]

How can you say that walking around the corner is not illegal? Its the very antithesis of "pack and push straight"!!! There is a little law called "Foul Play" that covers most of this, but FFS if you want Scrum laws:

20.8 (g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.

(h) Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the scrum. This is dangerous play.

Afeaki's knee(s) touch the ground as his body twists down while Sio is pooching him - that enough? What about May (loosehead) diving in hard while Alexander walks past him?

Or this:

20.4 (d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

You may claim that it IS covered by Law, but if you want to get technical - the "scrum" actually never went through 90 - it was only the Chiefs players who did so. The Brumbies were playing by the Laws.

There IS a perception by Joubert. This is the man who at least had the guts to apologise to Al Baxter after he smashed 16 shades of shit out of Woodcock in a Bledisloe. You'd think he'd learn his lesson.

What's the old Kiwi quote about Aussie teams? "No team with a scrum that shit should be rewarded with victory".

Well, I sincerely hope the refs approach the upcoming games with more neutrality.

 

[Rassie]

^So last week against the Bulls joubert were absolutely correct in awarding the penalties to the Brumbies in the scrum because they won. Now that they lost Joubert is completely wrong?

 

[cyclopath]

^So last week against the Bulls joubert were absolutely correct in awarding the penalties to the Brumbies in the scrum because they won. Now that they lost Joubert is completely wrong?

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.

 

[masai]

How can you say that walking around the corner is not illegal? Its the very antithesis of "pack and push straight"!!! There is a little law called "Foul Play" that covers most of this, but FFS if you want Scrum laws:

20.8 (g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.

I said back row walking around the corner. Show me where it says that's illegal.

20.3 (g) A flanker may bind onto the scrum at any angle, provided the flanker is properly bound.

Sounds to me like pushing on an angle is permitted.

20.4 (d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

You may claim that it IS covered by Law, but if you want to get technical - the "scrum" actually never went through 90 - it was only the Chiefs players who did so. The Brumbies were playing by the Laws.

Only thing I agree with there is that it is covered by the Laws. Namely, 20.11 (a) and (b), which Joubert correctly applied in this case.

Please, explain to me how it is not way more than 90 degrees at 1:05:42 here:

 

[masai]

Anyway, we are getting off topic. My main point is in response to the original post of this thread, which is that the All Blacks use this as a scrum tactic. I'm saying that if they do, it is a benefit to the Wallabies as long as the 8/9 are doing their jobs.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Dear MODS

Should this thread be merged into the overall Scrum Discussion at the Scrum Talk thread?: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/scrum-talk.4363/page-25#post-513252

 

[Pfitzy]

I said back row walking around the corner. Show me where it says that's illegal.

If the scrum is formed properly, with everyone binding correctly, then what you describe is impossible - therefore it is illegal.

Go try to form a scrum with proper binding (shoulders engaged) and see how far your front row has to be in the wrong for the back rowers to even get close to 90.

 

[masai]

If the scrum is formed properly, with everyone binding correctly, then what you describe is impossible - therefore it is illegal.

Go try to form a scrum with proper binding (shoulders engaged) and see how far your front row has to be in the wrong for the back rowers to even get close to 90.

You misunderstand me. I'm clear about what wheeling means. It's when the tunnel goes 90 degrees from its starting position. Obviously for this to happen the front row must rotate with the rest of the pack.

What I understand this thread to be about is when the back row generates the force that wheels the whole scrum. The front row can be scrummaging square and pushing forwards (ie. legally) but if the back row is scrummaging at an angle (still legal), the scrum can wheel (again, legally).