• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Scrum Talk

Status
Not open for further replies.
XVProps

XVProps

Herbert Moran (7)
snowman said:
stevens couldnt bind because the scotttish loosehead was binding on his shoulder.

Note to people, loosehead props theat are going forward dont collapse scrums.
Click to expand...

Stevens was in trouble cause he was loosing the hit badly, and folding over, that was why he couldn't bind and was going down. He got touched up and remained on the field. I do agree, LHP going forward don't collapse.
 
Hugh Jarse

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
A worthy conversation starter.

Was originally on the "10 Questions For Link to Answer" thread. Anyone care to take a swing at the answer "on behalf of Link"?

max11247 said:
I was watching some '91 rwc footage and it seems like scrums were packed down more quickly (you props didn't even have time to catch your breath before you had your head in the scrum), more emphasis on propping technique, scrums did not collapse as readily, and it was a lot less incumbent on refs to police the contest.

What do you think of current scrummaging, and specifically the scrum engagement procedure as compared to say 20 years ago?
Click to expand...
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
It is best if we are kept out of it, because we are deemed by many "up north" to be wanting to get rid of it because we are crap at it.
 
Scotty

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Haven't we all been saying this for a while? They should have just read one of lg's posts on the subject! I have also noted a few times that the scrum is the only area of the game where you can get penalized for not being good enough.
 
Jnor

Jnor

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Cardiffblue said:
Cotton, Burton and Mcloughlin have undertaken review of scrum with particular focus on your game reffed by Lawrence. To me this is the firs bit of sense I've heard on the subject. Hope it gets taken seriously

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-IRB-calling-for-scrummaging-law-changes.html
Click to expand...

Entirely unrelated (except maybe for something about low skin folds) but love the new avatar CB. I don't know if can have rights to use it though - shouldn't you be finding a Welsh posterior to claim as your own?
 
Cardiffblue

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
Think what is good about this is yes it is exactly what forums like this have been saying and thank god they are saying to IRB. Also from Australian perspective analysis shows that many of the penalties were given at random or else because the prop (on either side) found it physically impossible to stay up. As for NH vs SH- this is bullshit. Everyone wants the scrum imporoved
 
Cardiffblue

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
Jnor said:
Entirely unrelated (except maybe for something about low skin folds) but love the new avatar CB. I don't know if can have rights to use it though - shouldn't you be finding a Welsh posterior to claim as your own?
Click to expand...

HaHa. Will try and find one for tomorrow. Won't beat Kylie's though
 
Rob

Rob

Sydney Middleton (9)
Looks like an interesting read. Bottom line for Australia is that (whatever the rules) we tend to struggle in the scrum which I put down to the lack of attention it is paid through junior and senior development process. U19 rules mean that in GPS and schoolboys selections teams can get away without having a great scrum. Have seem many teams pick bulked up backrowers (ahead of genuine props) in the prop positions to get more speed around the field knowing that they can only get pushed back 1.5m. This seems to continue through schoolboy selection process and more annoyingly at super 15 level where converted backrowers e.g. Tilse, the Fuse, Kepu etc get the rails run even though it is evident they they are not great scrummagers. Not sure selectors even know how to identify a good scrummager. It is good that we now have dedicated scrum coaches like patricio noriega but he is not selecting only dealing with what is sent his way. It needs a greater focus in Aust rugby as in the end it does costs us games.
 
Cardiffblue

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
Been wondering. From memory the scrum laws used to state the scrum must contain a front row of 3. Any more than that is optional. Is this same now. So, If team loses player ala SW, rather than considering feigning injury, what's to stop them packing just 3 on their own ball and relying on a REALLY quick strike?
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Cardiffblue said:
Been wondering. From memory the scrum laws used to state the scrum must contain a front row of 3. Any more than that is optional. Is this same now. So, If team loses player ala SW, rather than considering feigning injury, what's to stop them packing just 3 on their own ball and relying on a REALLY quick strike?
Click to expand...

Because those 3 would get annihilated on the hit, even if the ball somehow got miraculously out in time, the other 8 would push them over into the ground and probably injure them with the force.
 
Dam0

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
Cardiffblue said:
Been wondering. From memory the scrum laws used to state the scrum must contain a front row of 3. Any more than that is optional. Is this same now. So, If team loses player ala SW, rather than considering feigning injury, what's to stop them packing just 3 on their own ball and relying on a REALLY quick strike?
Click to expand...

Not true.

Law 20.1(e)

(e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight
players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players
in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of
players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is
made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction.
However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Click to expand...

(My emphasis)

In any case as a referee I would have grave concerns about the safety of players in an 8 v 3 scrum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top