Scrum Talk
- Thread starter JJJ
- Start date
- Status
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
I think he became the scapegoat and public face for the Anti-Uni brigade and copped a few very silly posts from some of the more immature Gaggerlanders.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
No different to any other poster in that I don't always agree with his view but his dry sense of humour is a pearler and more often than not he talks sense on matters of rugby. The forum is a better place when Bruce is around.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
This from The Telegraph (UK) a couple of months ago
****************
Three of Britain's greatest prop forwards have submitted a paper to the International Rugby Board calling for sweeping changes to the current scrummaging laws.
By Mark Reason
4:43PM BST 18 Oct 2011
Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin want the IRB to change the current laws surrounding scrummaging
They point out that the current laws are "unjust, illogical and inoperable". Sunday's World Cup final between New Zealand and France could be decided because the referee is required by law to "guess" or "flip a coin" between two competing offences.
The paper has been put together by Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin, Lions prop forwards to a man and all very successful businessmen. They have been aided by Mike Molloy, former international lock forward, and a medical adviser to the IRB and Ireland.
Isaac Newton has also been brought in as an adviser because, as the paper points, several of the current scrummage laws run contrary to the laws of physics. The paper concludes that 13 laws "need to be amended or eliminated."
The quartet argues that "the action of pushing is initiated by pushing the foot backwards and downwards." The subsequent forces generated by the loosehead prop is therefore both horizontal and upwards.
The only way that the opposing tighthead prop can keep the scrum stable is by exerting downward pressure. But such an act is outlawed and punishable by a penalty kick. There are many such anomalies under the current laws.
When a prop forward's shoulders are lower than his hips, referees are currently instructed to award a penalty. The paper argues: "If one player's shoulders are lower than his hips, is it not very likely that the other player's shoulders will also then be lower than their hips. Does the referee toss a coin? Does he penalise both?
"If one prop were 6ft 4in and the opposing prop were 5ft 10in then, if everything were equal, it would be likely that the hips of the taller player would be above the level of his shoulders. Surely therefore this law constitutes bias against taller men."
Too often referees are required to "assume" a crime that is unjust and contrary to logic "at least 80 per cent of the time." Sometimes the tighthead will be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he wasn't strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up. It can cost his side three points. The men argue that this is akin to penalising a centre for being "too slow."
They call for the introduction of the UPK - the unconvertible penalty kick - for scrum offences. They also say that a scrum should only be reset once before a range of options become available to a referee.
Their analysis of the World Cup pool game between Ireland and Australia, refereed by Bryce Lawrence, indicated 22 scrums, 11 collapses and seven penalties, while 43 per cent of the game's points came from scrummage offences and it would have been over half if the kickers had been successful with all their attempts.
Cotton, Burton, McLoughlin and Molloy are agreed six of the seven penalties were lotteries. They were also classified as 'a guess', 'unjust' or 'seriously unjust'. It is not the fault of the referee, they argue, but laws that run contrary to physics and have no understanding of front row forward play.
Twisting is a penalty but inevitable because of the torque created by props who are not directly opposite each other. Slipping the bind is a penalty, but many of the initial collapses in the Ireland v Australia match were caused because Cian Healy could not get a grip in ben Alexander's skintight jersey.
The quartet says that the current command of "Crouch, touch, engage, pause" should be replaced by "Stand, touch, engage, push." They argue that the requirement to crouch "increases the disposition towards charging" and that the pause "creates a sense of tension of the kind that would apply to a 100 yard sprinter on the starting blocks."
These instructions have created 'hits' that were never part of the scrummage concept. Serious scrummage injuries have come down due to some of the refinement to the laws, but the four wise men argue that spine or neck injuries, coupled with arthritis, will be the long term consequence of the current law.
The paper is now in the hands of Graham Mourie, former New Zealand captain and flanker, and the current chairman of the IRB's advisory committee on rugby's laws. Cotton, Burton and McLoughlin each drew up separate reports, critiqued each other's works, and then prepared the final document in consultation with Molloy.
It is a brilliant piece of work and already causing a stir among the members of the IRB.
****************
Three of Britain's greatest prop forwards have submitted a paper to the International Rugby Board calling for sweeping changes to the current scrummaging laws.
By Mark Reason
4:43PM BST 18 Oct 2011
Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin want the IRB to change the current laws surrounding scrummaging
They point out that the current laws are "unjust, illogical and inoperable". Sunday's World Cup final between New Zealand and France could be decided because the referee is required by law to "guess" or "flip a coin" between two competing offences.
The paper has been put together by Fran Cotton, Mike Burton and Ray McLoughlin, Lions prop forwards to a man and all very successful businessmen. They have been aided by Mike Molloy, former international lock forward, and a medical adviser to the IRB and Ireland.
Isaac Newton has also been brought in as an adviser because, as the paper points, several of the current scrummage laws run contrary to the laws of physics. The paper concludes that 13 laws "need to be amended or eliminated."
The quartet argues that "the action of pushing is initiated by pushing the foot backwards and downwards." The subsequent forces generated by the loosehead prop is therefore both horizontal and upwards.
The only way that the opposing tighthead prop can keep the scrum stable is by exerting downward pressure. But such an act is outlawed and punishable by a penalty kick. There are many such anomalies under the current laws.
When a prop forward's shoulders are lower than his hips, referees are currently instructed to award a penalty. The paper argues: "If one player's shoulders are lower than his hips, is it not very likely that the other player's shoulders will also then be lower than their hips. Does the referee toss a coin? Does he penalise both?
"If one prop were 6ft 4in and the opposing prop were 5ft 10in then, if everything were equal, it would be likely that the hips of the taller player would be above the level of his shoulders. Surely therefore this law constitutes bias against taller men."
Too often referees are required to "assume" a crime that is unjust and contrary to logic "at least 80 per cent of the time." Sometimes the tighthead will be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he wasn't strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up. It can cost his side three points. The men argue that this is akin to penalising a centre for being "too slow."
They call for the introduction of the UPK - the unconvertible penalty kick - for scrum offences. They also say that a scrum should only be reset once before a range of options become available to a referee.
Their analysis of the World Cup pool game between Ireland and Australia, refereed by Bryce Lawrence, indicated 22 scrums, 11 collapses and seven penalties, while 43 per cent of the game's points came from scrummage offences and it would have been over half if the kickers had been successful with all their attempts.
Cotton, Burton, McLoughlin and Molloy are agreed six of the seven penalties were lotteries. They were also classified as 'a guess', 'unjust' or 'seriously unjust'. It is not the fault of the referee, they argue, but laws that run contrary to physics and have no understanding of front row forward play.
Twisting is a penalty but inevitable because of the torque created by props who are not directly opposite each other. Slipping the bind is a penalty, but many of the initial collapses in the Ireland v Australia match were caused because Cian Healy could not get a grip in ben Alexander's skintight jersey.
The quartet says that the current command of "Crouch, touch, engage, pause" should be replaced by "Stand, touch, engage, push." They argue that the requirement to crouch "increases the disposition towards charging" and that the pause "creates a sense of tension of the kind that would apply to a 100 yard sprinter on the starting blocks."
These instructions have created 'hits' that were never part of the scrummage concept. Serious scrummage injuries have come down due to some of the refinement to the laws, but the four wise men argue that spine or neck injuries, coupled with arthritis, will be the long term consequence of the current law.
The paper is now in the hands of Graham Mourie, former New Zealand captain and flanker, and the current chairman of the IRB's advisory committee on rugby's laws. Cotton, Burton and McLoughlin each drew up separate reports, critiqued each other's works, and then prepared the final document in consultation with Molloy.
It is a brilliant piece of work and already causing a stir among the members of the IRB.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
And here, also in The Telegraph are some comments on the matter:
*************
By Brian Moore
9:42PM BST 19 Oct 2011
Welcome though it is that attention is drawn to this, their proposal to mandate shoving at the referee’s call is a serious flaw.
All this does is reinforce scrummaging as a power activity and it would wreck the role of hooking, which used to be a primary art. For hookers to hook a ball properly fed, with and against the head, a scrum needs to be stationary, not one where the feet of both packs are moving while pushing.
What is more, a stationary scrum is safe.
The timing between scrum-half and hooker must be left to the put-in team; in which other area of the game do we dictate in this way; we don’t tell jumpers when to jump, kickers when to kick or throwers when to throw.
What is needed is a return to shirts on which props can bind easily and then enforcing the straight feed, proper bind and penalising any shove before the ball is fed by the scrum-half, particularly shoving immediately the front rows engage. All these laws exist, but have been ignored.
This is a curious state of affairs given that Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s refereeing tsar, recently insisted IRB directives must be adhered to by referees, and is why Alain Rolland sent off Sam Warburton for a dangerous tackle. But what about when Richard Kahui tackled Quade Cooper? And what about straight put-ins? Or indeed many of the front row laws in general? How is he still in a job?
*************
By Brian Moore
9:42PM BST 19 Oct 2011
Welcome though it is that attention is drawn to this, their proposal to mandate shoving at the referee’s call is a serious flaw.
All this does is reinforce scrummaging as a power activity and it would wreck the role of hooking, which used to be a primary art. For hookers to hook a ball properly fed, with and against the head, a scrum needs to be stationary, not one where the feet of both packs are moving while pushing.
What is more, a stationary scrum is safe.
The timing between scrum-half and hooker must be left to the put-in team; in which other area of the game do we dictate in this way; we don’t tell jumpers when to jump, kickers when to kick or throwers when to throw.
What is needed is a return to shirts on which props can bind easily and then enforcing the straight feed, proper bind and penalising any shove before the ball is fed by the scrum-half, particularly shoving immediately the front rows engage. All these laws exist, but have been ignored.
This is a curious state of affairs given that Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s refereeing tsar, recently insisted IRB directives must be adhered to by referees, and is why Alain Rolland sent off Sam Warburton for a dangerous tackle. But what about when Richard Kahui tackled Quade Cooper? And what about straight put-ins? Or indeed many of the front row laws in general? How is he still in a job?
darkhorse
Darby Loudon (17)
IMO removing the hit seems the only way to go.
I would like to keep the hit as it makes for a great spectale when done properly. However, there are to many obvious problems with the scrum atm and if we alter the scrum laws there will be unintended consequences. At the end of the day when 1600kg of men crash into each other nothing should remain standing.
I would like to keep the hit as it makes for a great spectale when done properly. However, there are to many obvious problems with the scrum atm and if we alter the scrum laws there will be unintended consequences. At the end of the day when 1600kg of men crash into each other nothing should remain standing.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I agree with all you have said here Lee. [Edit - I just cut and pasted Moore's article - LG]The bold part highlights perhaps why I have been a strident critic of his management of the refs for over three years. Apart from the disastrous IRB directives, which serve to only confuse the players and make massive alterations between tournaments and even within competitions (see the 6N during which they played under two different sets of rules during the comp), POB has failed to create systems that develop consistency. So many have justifiable gripes about refereeing in our game the officials are in a credibility crisis. Just railing against those with such justifiable gripes does nothing to fix the issues.
In this case we need to do away with all the "directives" and actually play the Laws. That would mean the hit is gone, the Hook returning, and the ball actually being fed straight. Then whoever takes over from POB can ensure the referees are fit, and have the required knowledge to do their job in a manner that leaves less genuine questions than are created.
On thing I noted in my re-watching of the Wales V Aust. game was the positioning of Kaplan at the scrums. He is not alone in this, I know, but why do the referees not stand on the side of the scrum furthest from the Assistant ref. leaving the assistant to watch the nearside and report while the ref takes the side with furthest distance. In a few cases Kaplan and his assistant were almost side by side and the far side of the scrum 40 metres from the other assistant. It doesn't make sense.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Good idea about where the ref should stand. Worth a trial, whatever the theoretical objections are. How else do we really know if it's a good or bad idea? But it's a ref thing - not a law thing.
I've always thought the ref should stand on the opposite side of the put in because sometimes he gets in the way of the scrummies and also because it's usually the defending LHP who transgresses most - but that he should be on the put-in side if the "opposite side" is close to the touchie.
I remember writing once that whichever side the ref stands on, the touchie on the other side should be allowed to advance 10 metres into the field of play to get a closer view. "Allowed" - it should be at the discretion of the touchie who should be alert to switches of play and start retreating to his normal post when the ball is out of the scrum, or nearly so.
I've always thought the ref should stand on the opposite side of the put in because sometimes he gets in the way of the scrummies and also because it's usually the defending LHP who transgresses most - but that he should be on the put-in side if the "opposite side" is close to the touchie.
I remember writing once that whichever side the ref stands on, the touchie on the other side should be allowed to advance 10 metres into the field of play to get a closer view. "Allowed" - it should be at the discretion of the touchie who should be alert to switches of play and start retreating to his normal post when the ball is out of the scrum, or nearly so.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
This is an interesting article from ex-England LHP David Flatman (who still plays for Bath) writing for The Independent a couple of weeks ago. It's good to see that more ex-international front rowers are turning to his way of thinking rather than take the "There's no problem if everyone does it right" line. We already know that, but it doesn't help.
........................................................
David Flatman: When push comes to shove over the scrum, all we need is to lose the hit
Sunday 08 January 2012
So the International Rugby Board are looking into what has become of the scrummage. Without wishing to appear too cynical, history suggests that the outcome will be the legal equivalent of a glass of warm water. Maybe they will deem us all naughty boys and instruct our invigilators to bring back the cane. Maybe they will leave it as it is, just for fun. Or maybe they will ask us props to perform some sort of hand jive before impact. After all, the spectacle must go on. Whatever the suits decide, if the scrum does not change dramatically then not enough has been done, because the whole area is a dog show.
Being chubbier and less athletic than most, I have never been a fan of statistics. But I was shown one last week which I found to be quite staggering: since the start of the Aviva Premiership season, just 56 per cent of scrums have resulted in the ball being passed or picked from the back and the game continuing. All the others have ended in a free-kick or penalty. I doubt if the likes of Fran Cotton and Gareth Chilcott can bear to watch.
It is not the referees who are to blame. I cannot remember playing in or watching a game where the referee got every decision right, but this is because they are being given far too many things to look for. Are the two front rows head on head? Are they at the same height? Is anyone engaging early? What are the scrumming angles of the four props and two hookers? Are all four props' binds in precisely the right place? Is the put-in straight? Are the locks stepping one way or the other in order to whip the thing around? Are all six back-row players joined to the scrum correctly, with their shoulders? The list goes on. It makes all our lives impossible.
As a player, things are stacked against you. For instance, the team with the put-in has a massive advantage, with what is often called the "hit and go" scrum. They whack in and, instead of providing a steady, stable scrum, they charge forward and instruct their scrum-half to pop the ball in, for them to walk over. Get it right and this is seemingly undetectable. At this point the opposition are often knackered – they cannot push before the ball comes in because, under strict instruction, the attacking scrum-half will not put the ball in and the defending side will be penalised for an early shove. And, invariably, as the defending scrum moves backwards the back row turn into meerkats, their heads popping up, leaving their portly pals to do all the work. Often, especially against the good teams, all you can do is wait until it's your put in and seek vengeance via the same technique. Survival of the fittest, etc.
Another popular theme is binding. And this is where I get all touchy. You see, I have extremely short arms. I got them from my mother. This means that, even leaning casually against a team-mate in the lunch room, I cannot reach the section of jersey covering the right hip of my opposing tighthead. Some props have longer arms and more flexible shoulders, so this range comes easily.
The thing is, though, it makes no bloody difference whatsoever. As long as I don't bind on his collar and I don't burrow in at 45 degrees and use his navel as purchase, the position of my left hand affects nothing. Imagine the level of force travelling through a top-class scrum. Now imagine my little hand. Exactly, as long as it finds somewhere to rest along the right side of my opponent, it should be left alone.
The tighthead's bind, well, that's another matter. Put simply, if he binds on my arm and pulls it in or down, I cannot do much about it. Put your right arm out and bend it to 90 degrees. Imagine now how much stronger you would be at pulling that in towards your body than you would be at lifting it up towards the sky and you'll see why this technique makes life impossible for a loosehead. So all a ref needs to do is make sure the loosehead isn't choking anyone and that his arm is not being massaged by a big, hairy mitt.
There are many opinions on how we might fix the scrum. I have two, both drastic. We should either be left alone to sort it out ourselves, with a "Don't feed the animals" sign hung around the hooker's neck, or the "hit" should be taken away. We can probably discount the first option, as it will only end up in a dozen mass brawls every week and as fun as that sounds, the mums wouldn't like it.
The removal of the hit would not necessarily be popular in the front-row community. We are, generally, excessively macho and like behaving like mountain goats in search of a rut. But the result would mean a steady scrum, which, to an extent, would be correctable. If the referee thought a bind was in the wrong place he could demand that it be altered before the ball came in. (Once that ball was in, of course, it would be a full metal jacket contest.) This would also turn the scrum back into a contest of strength. This would be beneficial not just because it's like it used to be, but because it would be so exhausting. Exhausted forwards leave holes for centres and wingers.
I don't know who is looking into this, nor do I know how good their eyesight is. But I do really hope there are a few gnarled, angry-looking men with scarred faces and horrible ears in the room. They might need a few extra biscuits, but their wisdom will prove invaluable.
........................................................
David Flatman: When push comes to shove over the scrum, all we need is to lose the hit
Sunday 08 January 2012
So the International Rugby Board are looking into what has become of the scrummage. Without wishing to appear too cynical, history suggests that the outcome will be the legal equivalent of a glass of warm water. Maybe they will deem us all naughty boys and instruct our invigilators to bring back the cane. Maybe they will leave it as it is, just for fun. Or maybe they will ask us props to perform some sort of hand jive before impact. After all, the spectacle must go on. Whatever the suits decide, if the scrum does not change dramatically then not enough has been done, because the whole area is a dog show.
Being chubbier and less athletic than most, I have never been a fan of statistics. But I was shown one last week which I found to be quite staggering: since the start of the Aviva Premiership season, just 56 per cent of scrums have resulted in the ball being passed or picked from the back and the game continuing. All the others have ended in a free-kick or penalty. I doubt if the likes of Fran Cotton and Gareth Chilcott can bear to watch.
It is not the referees who are to blame. I cannot remember playing in or watching a game where the referee got every decision right, but this is because they are being given far too many things to look for. Are the two front rows head on head? Are they at the same height? Is anyone engaging early? What are the scrumming angles of the four props and two hookers? Are all four props' binds in precisely the right place? Is the put-in straight? Are the locks stepping one way or the other in order to whip the thing around? Are all six back-row players joined to the scrum correctly, with their shoulders? The list goes on. It makes all our lives impossible.
As a player, things are stacked against you. For instance, the team with the put-in has a massive advantage, with what is often called the "hit and go" scrum. They whack in and, instead of providing a steady, stable scrum, they charge forward and instruct their scrum-half to pop the ball in, for them to walk over. Get it right and this is seemingly undetectable. At this point the opposition are often knackered – they cannot push before the ball comes in because, under strict instruction, the attacking scrum-half will not put the ball in and the defending side will be penalised for an early shove. And, invariably, as the defending scrum moves backwards the back row turn into meerkats, their heads popping up, leaving their portly pals to do all the work. Often, especially against the good teams, all you can do is wait until it's your put in and seek vengeance via the same technique. Survival of the fittest, etc.
Another popular theme is binding. And this is where I get all touchy. You see, I have extremely short arms. I got them from my mother. This means that, even leaning casually against a team-mate in the lunch room, I cannot reach the section of jersey covering the right hip of my opposing tighthead. Some props have longer arms and more flexible shoulders, so this range comes easily.
The thing is, though, it makes no bloody difference whatsoever. As long as I don't bind on his collar and I don't burrow in at 45 degrees and use his navel as purchase, the position of my left hand affects nothing. Imagine the level of force travelling through a top-class scrum. Now imagine my little hand. Exactly, as long as it finds somewhere to rest along the right side of my opponent, it should be left alone.
The tighthead's bind, well, that's another matter. Put simply, if he binds on my arm and pulls it in or down, I cannot do much about it. Put your right arm out and bend it to 90 degrees. Imagine now how much stronger you would be at pulling that in towards your body than you would be at lifting it up towards the sky and you'll see why this technique makes life impossible for a loosehead. So all a ref needs to do is make sure the loosehead isn't choking anyone and that his arm is not being massaged by a big, hairy mitt.
There are many opinions on how we might fix the scrum. I have two, both drastic. We should either be left alone to sort it out ourselves, with a "Don't feed the animals" sign hung around the hooker's neck, or the "hit" should be taken away. We can probably discount the first option, as it will only end up in a dozen mass brawls every week and as fun as that sounds, the mums wouldn't like it.
The removal of the hit would not necessarily be popular in the front-row community. We are, generally, excessively macho and like behaving like mountain goats in search of a rut. But the result would mean a steady scrum, which, to an extent, would be correctable. If the referee thought a bind was in the wrong place he could demand that it be altered before the ball came in. (Once that ball was in, of course, it would be a full metal jacket contest.) This would also turn the scrum back into a contest of strength. This would be beneficial not just because it's like it used to be, but because it would be so exhausting. Exhausted forwards leave holes for centres and wingers.
I don't know who is looking into this, nor do I know how good their eyesight is. But I do really hope there are a few gnarled, angry-looking men with scarred faces and horrible ears in the room. They might need a few extra biscuits, but their wisdom will prove invaluable.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
What Flatman doesn't say, probably because he is too young to know about it, but what he is advocating is what used to happen before the first proto power hits appeared in the 1970s. They evolved later into the abomination we have today.
The hits ebbed and flowed, year by year, gradually intensifying; then in 1995/96 the professional era started. Once it became a full time job players could condition themselves to apply and resist more powerful hits and they had the time to practise the sprint - the sumo sprint of 8 players from each side over 100cms.
There were at least two drawbacks to this:
1. the natural instability of opposing forces which were not symmetrical, and which anyway had to be met just so vertically otherwise front rowers would collapse down, or be pushed up.
2. whereas other parts of the body could be conditioned, it was impossible to strengthen the discs of the front rowers' necks to cope with the impact of the escalated forces.
After a few years of this everybody started noticing that a lot of scrums were collapsing and the punters realised that there was an insidious kind of inflation taking place: the cost of watching a minute of rugby per dollar, pound or euro etc. since the pro era started, was rising fast, because there were fewer minutes of actual play in the 80 they paid for.
The refereeing Brahmans came to a fork in the road and took the wrong path. Instead of getting rid of the power hit they decided to manage it and finally came up with with a C-T-P-E catechism which referees intoned like high priests. Scrums kept on collapsing.
They should have done as Flatman suggested, perhaps without fully appreciating that he was going back to the future: a soft engage, then the scrum starting after the ball is fed in. Sorry, no free kicks for anybody for early engages caused by the mania for winning a sumo hit race.
Flatman mentions that this would "turn the scrum back into a contest of strength." Slight disagreement with him on that point. There was strength all right but there was technique also.
And there was power, not in the hit because there was none. The power was in the push after the put in, not before it. The tunnel was not compromised by the impact of a hit and the ball was fed into the middle of the scrum. There was therefore a hooking contest for the ball and real tight heads sometimes. The stronger scrums were not disadvantaged from wrong refereering guesses over early engages, or who was to blame for collapses.
Interesting concepts really.
The hits ebbed and flowed, year by year, gradually intensifying; then in 1995/96 the professional era started. Once it became a full time job players could condition themselves to apply and resist more powerful hits and they had the time to practise the sprint - the sumo sprint of 8 players from each side over 100cms.
There were at least two drawbacks to this:
1. the natural instability of opposing forces which were not symmetrical, and which anyway had to be met just so vertically otherwise front rowers would collapse down, or be pushed up.
2. whereas other parts of the body could be conditioned, it was impossible to strengthen the discs of the front rowers' necks to cope with the impact of the escalated forces.
After a few years of this everybody started noticing that a lot of scrums were collapsing and the punters realised that there was an insidious kind of inflation taking place: the cost of watching a minute of rugby per dollar, pound or euro etc. since the pro era started, was rising fast, because there were fewer minutes of actual play in the 80 they paid for.
The refereeing Brahmans came to a fork in the road and took the wrong path. Instead of getting rid of the power hit they decided to manage it and finally came up with with a C-T-P-E catechism which referees intoned like high priests. Scrums kept on collapsing.
They should have done as Flatman suggested, perhaps without fully appreciating that he was going back to the future: a soft engage, then the scrum starting after the ball is fed in. Sorry, no free kicks for anybody for early engages caused by the mania for winning a sumo hit race.
Flatman mentions that this would "turn the scrum back into a contest of strength." Slight disagreement with him on that point. There was strength all right but there was technique also.
And there was power, not in the hit because there was none. The power was in the push after the put in, not before it. The tunnel was not compromised by the impact of a hit and the ball was fed into the middle of the scrum. There was therefore a hooking contest for the ball and real tight heads sometimes. The stronger scrums were not disadvantaged from wrong refereering guesses over early engages, or who was to blame for collapses.
Interesting concepts really.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Great article and post, Lee.
I believe that one of the reasons some of the powers that be are loathe to remove the hits is that they think it will reduce the scrums to the farce that is the league "scrum".
No doubt you recall, as I do, that there was a world of difference between a 1970s league scrum and a 1970s union scrum: the league hookers were never in a pushing position, as the laws of union require them to be, and would often not even bind on the prop - relying, instead, on him using his outside arm to hold the hooker up while he swung for the ball.
If the relevant powers could be persuaded that the changes you and Flatman suggest would not lead to league scrums maybe they would be prepared to consider them.
On another note - Flatman is citing stats that seem a lot better than the RWC stats were.
I believe that one of the reasons some of the powers that be are loathe to remove the hits is that they think it will reduce the scrums to the farce that is the league "scrum".
No doubt you recall, as I do, that there was a world of difference between a 1970s league scrum and a 1970s union scrum: the league hookers were never in a pushing position, as the laws of union require them to be, and would often not even bind on the prop - relying, instead, on him using his outside arm to hold the hooker up while he swung for the ball.
If the relevant powers could be persuaded that the changes you and Flatman suggest would not lead to league scrums maybe they would be prepared to consider them.
On another note - Flatman is citing stats that seem a lot better than the RWC stats were.
W
What2040
Guest
Terrific posts Lee - forgetting the technical aspects for a moment it gives me the gripes because the Ref is often in the way of the TV coverage of the absolute contest between the LHP and THP.
S
spooony
Guest
You can't take 7000N of force and convert it to zero without something giving way. It is impossible. We learned that in what primary school. Take 2 objects off different weight and mass and push them hard against each other. One is going to give way where the force 9 out of 10 times will be pushing it down.
This is the law regards to charging
There is nothing in the laws about taking or not taking a hit. The nearest bit of law we have says that charging in is illegal. The law also says that the scrum does not start till the ball leaves the scrumhalf's hands at the put-in.
This is the law regards to charging
There is nothing in the laws about taking or not taking a hit. The nearest bit of law we have says that charging in is illegal. The law also says that the scrum does not start till the ball leaves the scrumhalf's hands at the put-in.
MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
Bit of movement on this perhaps, not much detail though. From an article Paarl posted on the Stormers thread. (link to original article)
I know you don't need the encouragement Lee, but it seems constant posting in our forum makes things change...
I know you don't need the encouragement Lee, but it seems constant posting in our forum makes things change...
S
spooony
Guest
The so-called 'Big Five' - tackle, scrum, offside, ruck, and maul - remain the priority areas as in previous years but with additional emphasis on the following points:
Scrum:
• Alignment - front rows must be in a position to interlock on engagement; there must be no touching of heads.
• Early engagement - both teams must start the engagement process simultaneously on the referee's call.
• Engagement angles - front rows must push straight and parallel to the touchlines; loosehead props must not 'walk' the scrum around the tighthead.
• Binding - front rankers must bind on their opponent in the appropriate manner; no hands on the ground for support.
• Post-engagement infringements - illegal wheeling on purpose, so-called 'whip wheeling' and not pushing straight and parallel to the touchline are all actions to be penalised.
Tackle:
• The tackler must release and clear away after the tackler.
• The tackler assist must release and show clear and obvious release before going for the ball.
• Arriving players must not go past the ball into an offside position and try to obstruct the opposition going for the ball.
• Players must respect the offside lines at the ruck and maul (the hindmost foot of their player in the ruck or maul).
• Arriving players not attempting to clean-out the opposition must demonstrate positive actions to stay on their feet.
• A player who uses correct technique but ends up off his feet after removing a threat is not penalised; this is a positive action and the "hammer or snake" technique is included here.
Assistant Referees at Super Rugby will also be called on to take a more involved approach to the game without becoming an interference or hindrance to the referee. This will involve greater monitoring of offside lines at the ruck and maul and infringements close to the touchline where the referee may be unsighted.
Scrum:
• Alignment - front rows must be in a position to interlock on engagement; there must be no touching of heads.
• Early engagement - both teams must start the engagement process simultaneously on the referee's call.
• Engagement angles - front rows must push straight and parallel to the touchlines; loosehead props must not 'walk' the scrum around the tighthead.
• Binding - front rankers must bind on their opponent in the appropriate manner; no hands on the ground for support.
• Post-engagement infringements - illegal wheeling on purpose, so-called 'whip wheeling' and not pushing straight and parallel to the touchline are all actions to be penalised.
Tackle:
• The tackler must release and clear away after the tackler.
• The tackler assist must release and show clear and obvious release before going for the ball.
• Arriving players must not go past the ball into an offside position and try to obstruct the opposition going for the ball.
• Players must respect the offside lines at the ruck and maul (the hindmost foot of their player in the ruck or maul).
• Arriving players not attempting to clean-out the opposition must demonstrate positive actions to stay on their feet.
• A player who uses correct technique but ends up off his feet after removing a threat is not penalised; this is a positive action and the "hammer or snake" technique is included here.
Assistant Referees at Super Rugby will also be called on to take a more involved approach to the game without becoming an interference or hindrance to the referee. This will involve greater monitoring of offside lines at the ruck and maul and infringements close to the touchline where the referee may be unsighted.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Will be interesting to see if this happens?
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Have commented on this on the other thread.
• Engagement angles - front rows must push straight and parallel to the touchlines; loosehead props must not 'walk' the scrum around the tighthead.
This is good. The laws don't actually say you have to push straight, just that you have to be in a position to do so. The laws are also silent on the walking around. Hopefully referees will stand more on the 'put-in' side as the defending LHP is often the baddest boy of the 16.
• Engagement angles - front rows must push straight and parallel to the touchlines; loosehead props must not 'walk' the scrum around the tighthead.
This is good. The laws don't actually say you have to push straight, just that you have to be in a position to do so. The laws are also silent on the walking around. Hopefully referees will stand more on the 'put-in' side as the defending LHP is often the baddest boy of the 16.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
I wonder if they'll ever apply it to the attacking team.
- Status