• 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.

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'll give you scrum talk:
AUCKLAND: The International Rugby Board will launch a review of Warren Gatland's admission that he considered cheating during the World Cup semi-final against France.
Gatland revealed that he and his coaches had discussed the possibility of ordering a player to feign injury to force uncontested scrums.
At the time, Wales were without captain Sam Warburton, who had been sent off, and injured prop Adam Jones. Gatland and his staff considered asking one of their remaining props to fake injury, which would have forced the referee, Alain Rolland, to order uncontested scrums.
Advertisement: Story continues below
That would have relieved the pressure that was building on the makeshift Wales pack, while ruining the game as a spectacle.
The IRB, which is reported to be alarmed by Gatland's comments, could now ask the New Zealander to explain his comments, which came in a press conference on Tuesday.
"We had already lost Adam Jones and we discussed in the box: 'Do we fake an injury to one of our props to go to uncontested scrums?"' Gatland said. "Morally I made the decision that it wasn't the right thing to do.
"We could have easily done that in the first 25-30 minutes of the game but in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-final, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.
"That's why I honestly believe that Alain Rolland made the wrong decision, I think the right decision was a yellow card.
"In terms of the rules and regulations he was perfectly entitled to give a red card but every game is different and you take the circumstances, the situation and intent into account."
Gatland's revelation shocked the assembled media and, it seems, the rugby authorities.
In what appeared to be a damage limitation exercise, Welsh Rugby Union chief executive Roger Lewis attempted to defend Gatland by saying the coach should be praised for not doing what he could have done in claiming an injury to a prop.
"Warren Gatland should be applauded in this professional era where tough things and tough decisions are made, that he didn't go into that particular zone," Lewis said.
"Warren Gatland is a brutally honest rugby coach. He is a very serious thinker and he tells it as he sees it. That was something that was considered and the guys said, 'We are not going there'.
"In professional sport there is always an opportunity to manipulate the laws and that opportunity could have presented itself. But we did not go there."
Gatland's remarks overshadowed the announcement of his team for Friday's third-place play-off against Australia at Eden Park.
In the absence of Warburton, prop Gethin Jenkins has been appointed captain while Toby Faletau, the only Wales player with a 100 per cent appearance record in the tournament, will move from No.8 to openside flanker to fill Warburton's boots.
Ryan Jones comes in at No?8 with Paul James packing down at tight head prop instead of Adam Jones, who has failed to recover from that calf muscle injury. At lock, Bradley Davies replaces Alun-Wyn Jones.
"We are sticking with the majority of the side which has put together a string of performances for us so far in this tournament," Gatland said.
"We face Australia back home at the Millennium Stadium in just over a month's time, and we are single-minded in our assertion that we want that homecoming to be a celebration of us being one of the top three teams in the world."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...eating-plan-20111019-1m6yw.html#ixzz1bDJx79XX

Imagine the can of worms if Gatland had not done the "right thing" - but should the competition have relied on him to do so?
The present incarnation of this law/rule, as i recall it, was to overcome a ploy introduced by Eddie Jones in which we would not pick enough front row reserves and would go to uncontesteds.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
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

Yeah Right. What flankers stay bound to the scrum until it ends?

They are like stuffing meerkats. No pushing just hanging on with the loosest of grips.

In the good old days the scrums needed the strength of all 4 in the second row to be shoving their guts out to keep the scrum strong.

Bludging flankers were very quickly sorted out then, Not such an issue now obviously.
 

Cardiffblue

Jim Lenehan (48)
I'll give you scrum talk:


Imagine the can of worms if Gatland had not done the "right thing" - but should the competition have relied on him to do so?
The present incarnation of this law/rule, as i recall it, was to overcome a ploy introduced by Eddie Jones in which we would not pick enough front row reserves and would go to uncontesteds.

Covered on Wales france thread.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Australia's best young tight-head scrummager by a country mile is Dan Palmer from the Brumbies. When raising his credentials with David Nucifora I was respectfully dismissed on the grounds of work rate and mobility.
From a post in the Quade Cooper thread, quoting Gordon Bray.
It shits me to tears to hear this tosh trotted out relentlessly to justify our mobile, but scrum-deficient front rowers (mainly props, I will admit).
Has that approach worked well in the past decade? Oh yes, we reamed England once in 2008, we go OK every now and then, but for how long can we plod along with the reputation from all quarters of being a weak, penalty-prone scrum? Surely, if there is a player who is rock-solid at THP, his deficiencies at running on the wing and chip-kicking can be covered well enough by others?
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
From the above post, quoting Gordon Bray.
It shits me to tears to hear this tosh trotted out relentlessly to justify our mobile, but scrum-deficient front rowers (mainly props, I will admit).
Has that approach worked well in the past decade? Oh yes, we reamed England once in 2008, we go OK every now and then, but for how long can we plod along with the reputation from all quarters of being a weak, penalty-prone scrum? Surely, if there is a player who is rock-solid at THP, his deficiencies at running on the wing and chip-kicking can be covered well enough by others?

Spot on
I'd rather lose a test cos a prop couldn't get there to make the final try saving tackle than on the back of scrum penalties.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Another area where the Refs are not policing the law strictly.

How many times do we see a forward sent to the bin and the scrum is packed with 7. By this Law a back should be required to pack in the scrum. Now imagine the first phase advantage to the attacking team.

Law 20.1(e)

(e) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team.
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
and what about the next phrase of Law20.1(e) "All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends...."
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Another area where the Refs are not policing the law strictly.

How many times do we see a forward sent to the bin and the scrum is packed with 7. By this Law a back should be required to pack in the scrum. Now imagine the first phase advantage to the attacking team.

Very interesting, I was not aware you HAD to make up the number to 8 if one was binned. Of course, it makes sense, but so do a lot of things I miss! ;)
 

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Law20.1(e)
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.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Law20.1(e)
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.
There you go, I didn't miss anything.
Matty-K - bite yer tongue!
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Law20.1(e)
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.

Well I suppose I should have learnt by now to read to the end of the Section including all the subsections. :)
 

Dam0

Dave Cowper (27)
Another area where the Refs are not policing the law strictly.

How many times do we see a forward sent to the bin and the scrum is packed with 7. By this Law a back should be required to pack in the scrum. Now imagine the first phase advantage to the attacking team.

and what about the next phrase of Law20.1(e) "All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends...."

Come on fellas.

In post #299 I quoted the relevant law and even highlighted the important stuff so you couldn't miss it . . .
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I think our scrum has improved significantly. The Problem as I see it is so has everyone else's. Do we need to import a few decent scrum coaches?
 
P

pete88

Guest
We need to hit David Nucifora and any other relevant Wallaby coaches in the dick until he/they realise that a THP in particular has one job, the rest is icing.

DO NOT GO BACKWARDS AT SCRUM TIME. Fuck their ball up wherever possible.

Feel free to hit some rucks, make a few tackles and take a couple of hit ups around the fringes, sure, but THAT SHIT IS THE ICING, NOT THE CAKE.

I am feeling very ranty tonight. Don't think watching someone that wasn't the Wallabies win the world cup is agreeing with me too well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top