Scrum Talk

[Bowside]

JKB - sorry I merged your thread with another as there was discussion about scrums in it and some posts are to the point that you raise.

Cheers LG

Any chance you could move all the posts from the old thread, a few of them seemed to disappear with the merge. Cheers

The "How good is our scrum" thread? Actually I didn't change it at all, except that I merged the new thread into it and just changed the name. I also merged a thread on Nucifora's comment about the Oz scrum into it.

Cheers LG



Edit: I meant the rule changes thread, I suspect plastic paddy did as well. No worries most of what I wrote has already been said in this thread.

Maybe the problem was that I took too long to do it and some posts made in the transition were lost. - LG

 

[the plastic paddy]

Didn't like my post then!?!

I don't know why it would have dropped out as I merged the new thread into the old one - not post by post.

Maybe I did something wrong but I don't know what it would be.

You there Moses?

 

[waratahjesus]

as a front rower (having not been able to play for the last couple of years) just get rid of the pause and most of the problems would be solved, touching then recoiling to get space for a hit while your fellow scrum members take weight and get ready for the push only changes your body position, if the engage came right after touch, even while the touch was happening, it would allow the scrums momentum to travel in a singular direction from both sides and keep the hit level.

the other thing, once the ball is in, if its at the back of the scrum, use it, if the scrum goes down and there isnt momentum then just call it a ruck, of cause if a side has a shove on, give em a penalty.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

JKB - sorry I merged your thread with another as there was discussion about scrums in it and some posts are to the point that you raise.

Cheers LG

Is there any chance of merging some of the posts from this thread http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/threads/8534-The-Scrum-Solution. There are some good contributions in there, which would not be out of place in "Scrum Talk"

I am enjoying reading about the dark arts of the front row on this thread.


DONE

 

[the plastic paddy]

Didn't like my post then!?!

I don't know why it would have dropped out as I merged the new thread into the old one - not post by post.

Maybe I did something wrong but I don't know what it would be.

You there Moses?

Sorry, that was dumb post of mine, sure it wasn't deliberate. Probably did me a favour losing that post anyway as it was a bit inflammatory; We are not used to having an advantage at Scrum time and I got ahead of myself.

 

[XVProps]

I'm starting to get the shits with the continual awarding of full arm penalties at scrum time. So what if it goes down, repack it. One ton of force smacking into three sets of shoulders on a slippery surface will go down. I believe the only time full arms should be awarded is for attacking scrums 5m out. But to be penalised on half way on your own feed? A short arm for continued collapsing would not only stop some of the long range shots at goal, but encourage ball in hand attack. This wc may be the victim of a decsision like this. And what a shame of the a team is crowned as champions due to a scrum collapse on half way.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm starting to get the shits with the continual awarding of full arm penalties at scrum time. So what if it goes down, repack it. One ton of force smacking into three sets of shoulders on a slippery surface will go down. I believe the only time full arms should be awarded is for attacking scrums 5m out. But to be penalised on half way on your own feed? A short arm for continued collapsing would not only stop some of the long range shots at goal, but encourage ball in hand attack. This wc may be the victim of a decsision like this. And what a shame of the a team is crowned as champions due to a scrum collapse on half way.

But that only encourages cheating at scrum time if you think you can defend them...
A solution would be to reduce the value of a penalty to 2 points

 

[Lee Grant]

Dear me no. Think it through.

What would be the unintended consequences of such a change?

 

[Athilnaur]

Er that would reduce the post count Lee.

 

[cyclopath]

Er that would reduce the post count Lee.

Good point!
But Lee is dead right - less for penalties does not decrease the incentive to offend.

 

[Lee Grant]

Er that would reduce the post count Lee.

Very droll.

Good point!
But Lee is dead right - less for penalties does not decrease the incentive to offend.

Correct -quite the opposite - as I have mentioned almost a dozen times in the last few years - though it looks good and smells good, almost a no brainer.

But think about what defenders will do if a penalty is 2 points and a converted try still 7 points when they are defending their goal line. What will they do? If they want to play in the next game they will do what their coach has told them with a steely eye: "Give up 2 to save 7."

But Lee old chap, surely you have forgotten that referees can give yellow cards for frequent infractions? No I didn't; referees don't have big balls and they too frequently pike out on the cards; always have. Poite is quite good at it but very few others others are.

So, going by that logic Lee,surely you think that a penalty should be worth 4 and/or a converted try should be worth only 6?

No, like Baby Bear's porridge: it is just right how it is IMO.

 

[Utility Back]

If the only excuse is that referees are scaredy cats than something can and should be done about that. But that's my opinion I prefer tries over penalties. I understand it would increase the incentive to offend, but it also increases the incentive to score off those offences.

 

[Athilnaur]

Change the numbers in a system, reap the unintended consequences.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Good point!
But Lee is dead right - less for penalties does not decrease the incentive to offend.

So how do you solve XVProps issue? Which I think is a valid one.

 

[cyclopath]

I don't solve the problem in 5 minutes on the internet. But, there is enough skullduggery going on in scrums that I don't think fiddling with the infringement system is the answer. I think re-thinking the way scrums are packed would be the better focus.
The current 4 step engagement is too variable, and rewards the power hit too much, which seems to me to be the crux of the problem. If a bind is not right, teams are not quite square, teams are just a little too far apart, it is wet and slippery then a collapse more often than not occurs on the hit. If a team loses the hit, I think quite a few will drop it to get a reset. If they remove the hit, as more than a few posters have suggested before a superior scrum will still have the advantage, and I think a lot of the collapses will go.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't solve the problem in 5 minutes on the internet. But, there is enough skullduggery going on in scrums that I don't think fiddling with the infringement system is the answer. I think re-thinking the way scrums are packed would be the better focus.
The current 4 step engagement is too variable, and rewards the power hit too much, which seems to me to be the crux of the problem. If a bind is not right, teams are not quite square, teams are just a little too far apart, it is wet and slippery then a collapse more often than not occurs on the hit. If a team loses the hit, I think quite a few will drop it to get a reset. If they remove the hit, as more than a few posters have suggested before a superior scrum will still have the advantage, and I think a lot of the collapses will go.

The very tight fitting jerseys are also creating a problem with the bind on the hit.
The traditionally strong scrummaging nations would not like the idea of de-powering the engagement or a system of engagement which favoured australia (which any system which limited the significance of the hit would).

 

[cyclopath]

The very tight fitting jerseys are also creating a problem with the bind on the hit.
The traditionally strong scrummaging nations would not like the idea of de-powering the engagement or a system of engagement which favoured australia (which any system which limited the significance of the hit would).

I don't think the removal of the hit would advantage Australia over, say England. Why would it? If the English pack can drive and scrum better as a unit, they'll still be more effective. The drawn out process does not help with early hits either - refs are too inconsistent with their timing cadence. Eliminate the variables and let's see the pack that binds, packs and scrums best as a unit get the reward.
Jerseys are a factor for sure, but many of the poor binds, and penalties for such, are because the player is binding on the arm to start with.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't think the removal of the hit would advantage Australia over, say England. Why would it? If the English pack can drive and scrum better as a unit, they'll still be more effective. The drawn out process does not help with early hits either - refs are too inconsistent with their timing cadence. Eliminate the variables and let's see the pack that binds, packs and scrums best as a unit get the reward.
Jerseys are a factor for sure, but many of the poor binds, and penalties for such, are because the player is binding on the arm to start with.

I think that the England would suspect an antipodean ambush if any proposals were made to change the scrum. The binding on the arm may be a response to inability to get hold of any jersey.
Do you envisage the ref not calling them in at all or reducing the number of steps involved in doing so?

 

[cyclopath]

I think that the England would suspect an antipodean ambush if any proposals were made to change the scrum. The binding on the arm may be a response to inability to get hold of any jersey.
Do you envisage the ref not calling them in at all or reducing the number of steps involved in doing so?

Well, whether England, or anyone else are paranoid about an ambush is up to them, but if they convene a panel from all the big players, and get some scrummaging experts like Mike Cron to submit ideas / proposals then who knows? I agree the jersey may make getting the bind harder - many seem to not try to bind anywhere but the arm though.
Watching "old time" scrums from the 80s and 90s is interesting - they just folded together once called, ref wanted them steady, then the drive came as soon as the ball is in. So yeah, reducing the number of steps would be a start. Of course, no system is perfect, and front rows will find a way to "cheat", for want of a better term. But I think it could be simplified.

 

[Lee Grant]

The traditionally strong scrummaging nations would not like the idea of de-powering the engagement or a system of engagement which favoured australia (which any system which limited the significance of the hit would).

They would if they think it through. Rather than rehash what I have said before folks should read post no. 146 and 152 in this thread.

The dominant scrumming nations are dudded by the consequences of the power hit, which is not a part of rugby tradition, by the way.

In earlier days the dominant scrum was allowed to dominate. Now they are not. Now, you get a skinny referee who has never been near a front row adjudicating on a collapse caused by nearly 1 tonne of weight exploding against another tonne. Unless the forces meet right the scrum will go down and the ref will often throw the arm up, bent or straight. Refs are almost relieved to see a props arm loose on the collapse, or to see a hand got down because it is a gilt-edged justifiable reason to sanction one side with a FK or PK. Often these happenings had nothing to do with the collapse.

Then you get the early engage something unheard of in the past. Hands up those who don't like that being pinged with a free kick - or if it's happened a bit, a penalty kick? It was unheard of before because they were engaged and settled in passively before the ball was put in. There was power and skill after that, but it was a power push not a power hit.

FFS let's not care that the abolition of the power hit will not benefit Oz rugby, which has received the benefit of the negatives of the power hit. Let's put our I love rugby hats on and insist on laws that benefit the game and let the best scrums dominate even if it's not the Wallabies or an Oz team in Super Rugby.
.