Scrum Talk

[teach]

Do you envisage the ref not calling them in at all or reducing the number of steps involved in doing so?

We don't want to go back to that. I remember those days well, eyeing up your opponent, looking for slip or distraction so you could call in the scrum when they were weaker.

I believe if the refs enforce proper binding, especially LH getting their arm up and binding to the side and not on the arm or shoulder, the the TH letting him, then we will solve a lot of problems.

One idea we knocked about at school, if a scrum collapses after the put in, and the ball can be played, let it go. and not allow loosies to detach until it has been passed by the halfback. That would mean no real benefit of collapsing the scrum.

 

[Lee Grant]

I believe if the refs enforce proper binding, especially LH getting their arm up and binding to the side and not on the arm or shoulder, the the TH letting him, then we will solve a lot of problems.

Heard it before on rugby forums teach when the collapses stated in earnest about the time of the 2003 RWC. Didn't work then either.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We don't want to go back to that. I remember those days well, eyeing up your opponent, looking for slip or distraction so you could call in the scrum when they were weaker.

I believe if the refs enforce proper binding, especially LH getting their arm up and binding to the side and not on the arm or shoulder, the the TH letting him, then we will solve a lot of problems.

One idea we knocked about at school, if a scrum collapses after the put in, and the ball can be played, let it go. and not allow loosies to detach until it has been passed by the halfback. That would mean no real benefit of collapsing the scrum.

I like the diea of not resetting but the weaker scrum would have an incentive to collapse so that the backs weren't getting ball going backwards

 

[teach]

Yeah, no matter what changes you make, there will be some way devised by weaker scrums to try and counteract stronger teams.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yeah, no matter what changes you make, there will be some way devised by weaker scrums to try and counteract stronger teams.

League has fixed it:lmao:

 

[James Buchanan]

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.

For the sake of pedantry Lee, you can make an analogy between the early engage as current and the early shove, which existed in the pre-form scrum days. If I remember correctly, a drive before the ball was in the scrum was a FK.

In those days it was more a case of watching and timing your shove for just as the scrummy put the ball in to best improve your chance at the strike/disrupt the strike. These days, its timing it with engage.

That being said, its a completely different beast to what we have with the power hit; which involves the front rows trying to a) secure a good bind and b) win the battle for ascendancy over their counterparts all while hurtling at each other with enormous force.

Just something to add re: the "this is a law to benefit australia", its something that is being championed by a number of home nation ex-front rowers. I think some of them have been referenced in this thread. Frankly, I'm happy to let them be the spokespeople for the law change and get behind them.

Also, as an aside; Ash, I completely agree with you re: the use it or lose it idea.

 

[Lee Grant]

For the sake of pedantry Lee, you can make an analogy between the early engage as current and the early shove, which existed in the pre-form scrum days. If I remember correctly, a drive before the ball was in the scrum was a FK.

In those days it was more a case of watching and timing your shove for just as the scrummy put the ball in to best improve your chance at the strike/disrupt the strike. These days, its timing it with engage.

That being said, its a completely different beast to what we have with the power hit; which involves the front rows trying to a) secure a good bind and b) win the battle for ascendancy over their counterparts all while hurtling at each other with enormous force.

Very good.

One mentioned some of these matters at the end of post no. 146 of this thread and about a dozen times in the past. There will be sanctions against early pushes if the power hit is outlawed, but they will be about only half compared to the current early engages with the power hit as front rows try to win the race across the short distance.

But with the power hit being outlawed, as it should be, literally, since there is a law against it, you will see a credible tunnel between the front rows that has not been corrupted by the feet of the 6 men moving all over the shop from the shock of it. There will be no excuse then for referees to close a blind eye to crooked feeds. I don't blame them too much now because the damage was done by the generation of referees before them, who probably retired thinking what a grand job they had done.

Then the hooking contest will be reborn.

You are right in indicating that old front rowers in the NH (such as Phil Vickery and Brian Moore) have deplored the incidence of collapses from power hits - as one has mentioned many times. Let's hope that they help to get the IRB to outlaw the power hit instead of trying to manage it. This has not worked.

Again, as mentioned a lot of times, old front rowers should be consulted before scrum ELVs are formulated. If there are any folks that can work out what the unintended results of a change will be, it is them.

Maybe a law change is not needed, just a crackdown on the law that prohibits charging in at scrum time - plus a regulation that players must push forward when the ball is put in, because the law doesn't really say that at the moment. After the initial hit though, wheeling by pushing one side of the scrum more than the other should be allowed so long as no prop (and especially the defending THP) moves deliberately backwards.

A real hooking contest, crikey, as they said in the old TV ad: "I'd like to see that."

 

[XVProps]

The early engage has increased since the refs started mixing up the calls. It's almost like they trying to penalise Simone at scrum time. Crouch, touch, pause................engage. If there was some consistency in this area, both scrums could time the hit, and get better purchase on the bind.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In order to placate the mums this engagement without the power hit would have to be structured: any ideas?

 

[Lee Grant]

XVProps

Get rid of the power hit and have the power push from players already engaged in a stationery crouch as used to work fine. There will be no need for the referee priest to recite the catechism as though in church..

This recital is a confected abomination and doesn't work anyway. People talking about doing this or that with the engage recital miss the point that they are trying to manage the power hit instead of managing a stable scrum which enables dominant scrummagers to be rewarded. Get rid of the power hit so a stable scrum can be managed - and expose the weak scrummagers, who benefit from the guesses of skinny referees.

 

[Lee Grant]

In order to placate the mums this engagement without the power hit would have to be structured: any ideas?

I mentioned something like this in post no 152 but it doesn't need a lot of structure; it needs less. Since you probably missed it I will quote it, as much as I dislike long quotes which take up space.

In my Don Quixote quest to get rid of the power hit through the forum I have mentioned this before but there has been no response by the authorities; yet I thought G & G was required reading at all levels of the IRB.

One of my variant suggestions was to keep the "touch" command in but the players had to touch with their necks; so they had to be close enough to do so before they crouched.

"Crouch, touch and bind" could be one conversational command, said I, then when the ref was satisfied necks were touching and players had a long bind he would call "pause". On hearing this command the scrummie would put the ball in without delay. The present laws would prevail - feet could not be raised to hook the ball, nor the scrum pushed, before the ball was thrown in.

It may be naive to suppose that we can get professional players to do what test level amateurs did about the time of the first RWC, but it is a more worthy endeavour than what they are attempting to do now: controlling the power hit. That is trying to get the tail to wag the dog.

The old timers didn't need all that stuff I mentioned above but it could bring modern players back to the future in a way they would understand. The old timers just folded into each other and waited for the scrummie to put the ball in before they pushed. They still played silly buggers on the push, but at least they were doing so from a position of stability.

It resulted in a beautiful contest and the straight put in was refereed as the much more difficult throw to the lineout is refereed now. Therefore the defensive hooker had a reasonable though slight chance to hook the ball.

The power hit and the crooked feed have destroyed the hooking contest and I demand to have it back. "Demand," I say - are you there IRB? Helloooo ?
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

My apologies.
This could work.
Could you replace the touch with a requirement that prior to engagement the props must bind to their opposite number? This would remove any chance of the tight jersey being a cause of a slipped bind.
It seems to me that the fewer the opportunities for truly accidental error the more obvious any cheating will be.

 

[James Buchanan]

To add to why this would not be a 'weakening' of the scrum. In a recent interview (that I can't find ) of either the Argentine scrum coach or one of their props, the person involved in the interview admitted that the bajada no longer works because of the focus on the hit these days. There's no longer an opportunity to put together a concerted 8 man synchronised push which defined the bajada.

To me, this feels like that something has been taken out of the game and that we haven't gained anything for it. A nation renowned for their scrummaging prowess have been brought back to the rest of the pack because of the power hit. This doesn't seem to encourage 'strong' scrummaging, but instead weaker scrummaging.

 

[BPC]

This doesn't seem to encourage 'strong' scrummaging, but instead weaker scrummaging.

I would say it it worse than that. It now awards the luck of timing and guessing the referee's call of engage correctly, irrespective of the strength or weakness of the scrum. We might as well replace it with bingo or papaer-scissors-rock.

Actually, going down the paper-scissors-rock path isn't a bad idea. Having to go through eight rounds of paper-scissors-rock and maybe a tiebreaker (scrum-half) would probably be quicker than some of the endless collapse-reset-collapse cycles we see in some matches.

 

[Dan54]

Actually you wouldn't think getting rid of hit would be that hard, legally the scrum does not start until the ball is put in anyway. You can put hand on ground to steady scrum before ball is put in but not after, so really you shouldn't be able to give yourself advantages with hit before ball. You can't jump in lineout before ball is thrown in so same principle I would think.
Can I add,I think this is a great thread.

 

[Lindommer]

Get rid of the power hit and have the power push from players already engaged in a stationery crouch...

A stationery crouch? That'd be pushing the envelope a bit wouldn't it, Lee?

"Crouch, touch and bind". There's a lot of merit in this instruction. The current practice where every referee has a different cadence is patently ridiculous. And the fact they insist on taking their time with their calls leads to unnecessary infringements. Whoever came up with "Crouch (pause) Touch (pause) Pause (pause) Engage" should be sent back to basic English class. The final signal is the only word in this sequence starting with a soft vowel rather than a hard consonant; it's also the only word with two syllables. What do front rows listen for, the E or the G?

"Crouch, touch and bind", how about "Crouch, Touch, Pack", all over in about 1.5 seconds?

 

[cyclopath]

Very droll, Lindo.
A subtle ream for Lee.

 

[XVProps]

I agree Dan54 this is a great thread. Where else can you talk scrums before work. Awsome. On the engage, however, the point I was trying to make earlier was that the calls are too slow, and it is probably drawing penalties. Your point was a good one, if there is a hand on the ground before the ball goes in, who cares, let the the player get his bind back on, then put the ball in, then...well scrum away.

 

[Lee Grant]

A stationery crouch? That'd be pushing the envelope a bit wouldn't it, Lee?

Very droll, Lindo.
A subtle ream for Lee.

OK, OK - That was funny guys.

The "Crouch, touch and bind" suggestion was really just a conversational type command for modern players who are not used to folding into each other like the old guys were. The worst thing would be to make a law about it and to have another catechism with pauses between each word. However it would allow the ref to ping players for time wasting if they postured around and delayed the game. This would happen in a transition when players would attempt to get some positional advantage not realising that there was a change in the fabric of the scrummage.

If players stood up again playing silly buggers, ping them until they realise that things have changed.

I think it is important that referees ensure that the binds are right, as much as he can from one side of the scrum, before he gives the signal for the scrummie to put the ball in. I said "Pause" but it could be "Ready". Pushing on the "Ready" would be pinged until players realised that things had changed: they would have to wait until the scrummie actually put the ball in as the law has been since time everlasting.

 

[XVProps]

Couldn't agree more. The law hasn't changed, the refs are too busy looking at binds, early engage, etc. But are forgetting that both scrums aren't supposed to push until the ball is fed. The hit 'n run scrums are a big part of the issue. Perhaps a delay on the feed until the momentum of the hit has settled a bit. Penalise if the drive continues before the ball is fed. The message would get through eventually and this may stop the power hit while still allowing for an engage, which i believe is still an important part of the process.