Scrum Talk
- Thread starter JJJ
- Start date
- Status
The really big secret is which one of us is Robbie Deans
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
What JON should have said, to get more interest in the NH, is that the power hit actually benefits a team that scrums poorly. That would have got their interest.
In the old days a poor scrum had nowhere to hide: after a passive engage all the power started when the ball was put in, and they got sorted out. There were a few collapses then too, don't you worry, but a lot fewer, and it was easier to identify the culprit correctly because things happened more slowly.
Now the scrums collapse regularly and quickly; so refs start getting worried about their reset percentages. Anybody suspect that refs ever throw their arms up, crooked or straight, yet there doesn't seem to be any real culprit, so they have guessed? ("Binding, no.1", is usually a good thing to say as the arm goes up.) Of course you have, and of course that's what they do - even if some ref who is a G&G member posts that they don't do that kind of thing.
Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Referees Don't Guess - fairy tales; I love 'em all.
The thing is: the dud scrum benefits when the ref guesses the other team was at fault when the scrum collapses: they get a 50/50 call which is a lot better than the 30/70 they were looking at if the scrum had stayed up. And if they got pinged correctly and got only a free kick sanction, at least they dodged a scrum.
Guesses happen on the early engage also, so dud scrums can pig out on a few of them. And why does there have to be something like an engagement that you can get pinged for anyway? It is just something that players can get wrong, and they do, and referees can get wrong, and they do.
But, you say, that engagement and the power hit used for it is part of our game? Bullshit. It isn't; it's a new thing; people hardly ever mentioned it 10 years ago because it wasn't a problem. Now it is, because in the last 10 years players have been training to win the 40 cm dash (900 kgs category).
No wonder there are so few scrums completed today. Too many of them are pinged for collapsing, standing up, or engaging early, and it's mainly the fault of the you-know-what.
And teams with dud scrums don't care - so long as they can spin things out for 80 minutes and win the match with non-scrum activities.
.
In the old days a poor scrum had nowhere to hide: after a passive engage all the power started when the ball was put in, and they got sorted out. There were a few collapses then too, don't you worry, but a lot fewer, and it was easier to identify the culprit correctly because things happened more slowly.
Now the scrums collapse regularly and quickly; so refs start getting worried about their reset percentages. Anybody suspect that refs ever throw their arms up, crooked or straight, yet there doesn't seem to be any real culprit, so they have guessed? ("Binding, no.1", is usually a good thing to say as the arm goes up.) Of course you have, and of course that's what they do - even if some ref who is a G&G member posts that they don't do that kind of thing.
Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Referees Don't Guess - fairy tales; I love 'em all.
The thing is: the dud scrum benefits when the ref guesses the other team was at fault when the scrum collapses: they get a 50/50 call which is a lot better than the 30/70 they were looking at if the scrum had stayed up. And if they got pinged correctly and got only a free kick sanction, at least they dodged a scrum.
Guesses happen on the early engage also, so dud scrums can pig out on a few of them. And why does there have to be something like an engagement that you can get pinged for anyway? It is just something that players can get wrong, and they do, and referees can get wrong, and they do.
But, you say, that engagement and the power hit used for it is part of our game? Bullshit. It isn't; it's a new thing; people hardly ever mentioned it 10 years ago because it wasn't a problem. Now it is, because in the last 10 years players have been training to win the 40 cm dash (900 kgs category).
No wonder there are so few scrums completed today. Too many of them are pinged for collapsing, standing up, or engaging early, and it's mainly the fault of the you-know-what.
And teams with dud scrums don't care - so long as they can spin things out for 80 minutes and win the match with non-scrum activities.
.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I still hold out hope that the Power Hit will disappear.
The simplest example I can give for the removal of the Hit isn't even about looking for infringement, in fact it is about absolving a scrum of blame when they are in fact blameless. How much discussion has there been in world rugby about the tightness of the modern jersey preventing binding, long, short or otherwise. How many times have you seen a prop struggling to get a bind? Lets add in water/sweat to the equation and you have a exponential worsening of the situation as the modern fabrics actually get harder to grip while the old cotton I believe was easier to grip wet.
No, I do not advocate a return to the old cotton jersey, except for the supporters to collect (please). The removal of the Hit will remove the possibility that a prop just missed his millisecond window of opportunity to get a bind on a slick surface and a team will be penalised for something which was pure accident/chance with no ill intent, and really has no place in the contest in any event.
The simplest example I can give for the removal of the Hit isn't even about looking for infringement, in fact it is about absolving a scrum of blame when they are in fact blameless. How much discussion has there been in world rugby about the tightness of the modern jersey preventing binding, long, short or otherwise. How many times have you seen a prop struggling to get a bind? Lets add in water/sweat to the equation and you have a exponential worsening of the situation as the modern fabrics actually get harder to grip while the old cotton I believe was easier to grip wet.
No, I do not advocate a return to the old cotton jersey, except for the supporters to collect (please). The removal of the Hit will remove the possibility that a prop just missed his millisecond window of opportunity to get a bind on a slick surface and a team will be penalised for something which was pure accident/chance with no ill intent, and really has no place in the contest in any event.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
I've been banging on about this for a while, probably as long as Lee has been banging on about eliminating the hit, but I think the compromise move is to make props bind before the engagement. This would mean they already have a bind and so will eleiminate the "dropping the bind" and "hand on the ground" infringement, and will force the front rows to pack closer, deminishing the hit. This, coupled with the ref enforcing a straight feed, would get the crum back to what it used to be.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
This is what happened in the old days smartarse. 
In the 1950s and 60s the front rows would bind as they walked in and the 2nd rows would bind once they had something to bind onto. Often the scrummie would be picking up the ball while this was going on.
The back rows, packed last of course; I've got a video of the 1960s 0-0 test match and a backrower got there late and bound on after the ball was out.
Later they engaged 8 on 8 but still, the referee wouldn't let the scrums start unless he was sure it was steady and the bind was correct.
Look at the video in the scrum blog that was done recently. Gagger put a 1973 video into it.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/irb-kill-the-power-hit/
Notice that referee Georges Domercq did not let Sid Going put the ball into the scrum until he was sure the bind was OK.
This is what we need to happen now. The players in the old days didn't need laws to tell them to start the scrum from a steady platform: it was understood, but we need something for the professional players of today for the transition.
The Forming A Scrum laws will have to be recast - 20.1. (g) and (h), in particular.
To make a bird of it I would also change Law 20.1 (i) which currently reads: Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play.
To: Charging: A front row must not charge against its opponents. This is dangerous play.
As I have said several times in the last 4-5 years: tweaking this one law could change the scrum by itself, but today's professional players probably need some guidelines in the other Forming laws.
.
In the 1950s and 60s the front rows would bind as they walked in and the 2nd rows would bind once they had something to bind onto. Often the scrummie would be picking up the ball while this was going on.
The back rows, packed last of course; I've got a video of the 1960s 0-0 test match and a backrower got there late and bound on after the ball was out.
Later they engaged 8 on 8 but still, the referee wouldn't let the scrums start unless he was sure it was steady and the bind was correct.
Look at the video in the scrum blog that was done recently. Gagger put a 1973 video into it.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/irb-kill-the-power-hit/
Notice that referee Georges Domercq did not let Sid Going put the ball into the scrum until he was sure the bind was OK.
This is what we need to happen now. The players in the old days didn't need laws to tell them to start the scrum from a steady platform: it was understood, but we need something for the professional players of today for the transition.
The Forming A Scrum laws will have to be recast - 20.1. (g) and (h), in particular.
To make a bird of it I would also change Law 20.1 (i) which currently reads: Charging. A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them. This is dangerous play.
To: Charging: A front row must not charge against its opponents. This is dangerous play.
As I have said several times in the last 4-5 years: tweaking this one law could change the scrum by itself, but today's professional players probably need some guidelines in the other Forming laws.
.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
I can't see the scrum getting all the way back to this. What I'm suggesting is a scrum packed as it currently is, and with an engage call where the 2 whole packs come together, but one where the props are pre bound and the hit is minor. This is actually how we used to pack in U19 rules in the 80s and 90s. It's safer and more of a contest for the ball.
As an aside, the ref call was Crouch, Hold, Pause, Engage, with props binding on the hold call
As an aside, the ref call was Crouch, Hold, Pause, Engage, with props binding on the hold call
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
You have just described the 1973 scrum in the blog mentioned, except an engage call was not needed. Todays players could get back to that.
The 'engage' word scares me because of what scrums do when they hear that now. I'd use another word like 'form'. Then the ref should look at the bind as in the 1973 video, then the ball can be put in, then they can push and the ball hooked - ditto.
People may say that the 1973 type procedure won't work because it's too old school - but at least it has the advantage that it has been proven already, unlike some ELVs we have tried in recent years that looked good on paper.
I'd give it a go.
.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Once in the Men in Gold vs Les Bleus, Mr Owens penalised the cheating runt #9 for incorrect feed.
Once in the Taffys vs Los Pumas, M. Poite penalised the cheating runt #9 for incorrect feed.
Has the worm finally turned on cheating runt halfbacks dodgy scrum feeds?
Bring back the hooking contest!
Once in the Taffys vs Los Pumas, M. Poite penalised the cheating runt #9 for incorrect feed.
Has the worm finally turned on cheating runt halfbacks dodgy scrum feeds?
Bring back the hooking contest!
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
A lot of the penalties the French got at scrum time were when the far side prop stepped back and dropped his head below his waist, forcing the australian prop to drop the scrum. I was surprised Owens fell for it, but I guess our reputation proceeded us.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Yes, it's not mungoball.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
That is how it looked to me on the 5m scrum, our feed, towards then end.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
Part of the problem is they genuinely drove through us on the first scrum, and after that the Ref had it in his mind that we couldn't cope. It took many scrums (can't bear to re-watch to count exactly) for our front row to pick up on the trick, stand a little higher, and we actually drove over the top of the french late in the game when they tried this again.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Was it just me or did anyone else notice that the scrum call in the weekends games, by many of the referees, has slowed down to the same level as the crouch touch pause engage? Some referees seem to be adding their own silent pause into the new sequence. In the NH club competition the whole sequence seemed to be more fluid than what I saw at the weekend.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
you may be Jack. Watch the french first try. First scrum (our feed) we got pinged for crooked feed. The second scrum we were monstered - they drove us off the ball, we fractured and were luck they didn't get the try from that scrum. Third scrum they drove us up, and we popped too, when they went blind and got a (cheeky/illegal) try
- Status