Scrum Talk

[Brendan Hume]

On balance I like they way scrummaging is going, I like the competition, I love the static battle. I love the pressure

The only tweaks I could see is getting rid of the "bind" hit and the use of 'use it' quicker

At the moment sides are still trying to get a hit in, that leads to instability.

...Lets see more 1/4 turns (to put the defending 7 a step behind) and more set piece 1st phase moves and less walking scrums forward until given the penalty

I'm not too sure on that hit on the bind - you're right that teams still want to get some 'hit' advantage, but I'm not sure if it's creating the instability. I tend to think most scrums are being reset because of the pressure in that static scrum, or because the props are set up right prior to the hit.

I think the tweaking of the movement when a scrum is dominant should be pressuring the backs defensively - I'd love to see teams having packs on roller skates and attacking a retreating defence, or catching that defence off-side. I really think referees aren't policing the off side well enough in general play or from set pieces. Perhaps if this was enforced more strictly teams would be running the ball a bit more and not looking for scrum penalties.

 

[Marcelo]

If it says it on the internet, it must be true.

Maybe he's smuggling some extra weight in his jheri curls.

Well the official website of his team is an information source more reliable than Wikipedia or something like that. It's assumed that they are close to their players, unless the website is administered by a Pole who lives in Thailand

 

[fatprop]

I'm not too sure on that hit on the bind - you're right that teams still want to get some 'hit' advantage, but I'm not sure if it's creating the instability. I tend to think most scrums are being reset because of the pressure in that static scrum, or because the props are set up right prior to the hit.

I think the tweaking of the movement when a scrum is dominant should be pressuring the backs defensively - I'd love to see teams having packs on roller skates and attacking a retreating defence, or catching that defence off-side. I really think referees aren't policing the off side well enough in general play or from set pieces. Perhaps if this was enforced more strictly teams would be running the ball a bit more and not looking for scrum penalties.

I don't think a hit can improve stability and set up, it is done to get an advantage

 

[Brumbieman]

I don't think a hit can improve stability and set up, it is done to get an advantage

It's mechanically impossible.

Smashing two compact things together will generally result in the fracture or deformation of either, or both.

The hit also puts more energy into the engagement, which needs to be dissapated somehow, in some direction.

 

[TOCC]

I think Kafer mentioned it in the REBvBRU game..

Basically the Brumbies had earned a scrum penalty but the ball was still playable, it would be good to see advantage played rather then just blowing a penalty.. i.e opposition front row collapses but the ball is still playable for the halfback, spread the ball and after a short period if they can't crack the defence then return for the penalty.

 

[Sully]

I think that if you have the ball at the back of the scrum the penalty should be off the table.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I think that if you have the ball at the back of the scrum the penalty should be off the table.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

That would see the end of pushover tries though, i think a pushover scrum is just reward for having a dominant scrum and too many teams(i.e Wallabies) would just collapse the scrum if they were getting shunted back.

But in this scenario, lets say the Wallabies did collapse the scrum, it would be good to see advantage awarded and then the opposition back-line can have a crack at a back-line move knowing that it would come back for a penalty if it doesn't work.

In a way this is already the case, but its not readily enforced by the referee, their first reaction is to blow a penalty, i think this is something which could be encouraged by the referees, telling a halfback to use it.

 

[Sully]

You could easily account for that with a five metre line clause.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

You could still get a free kick. Besides the teams aren't interested in having a backline move just a penalty.
As example what were the chances of nic white pulling the ball out of that scrum earlier. None! They played for the penalty and nothing else.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

they aren't interested in a back-line move because a penalty from a scrum guarantee's either 3points or a large chunk of territory, the halfback pulling the ball from the scrum offers the small chance of a try.

However if an amendment or interpretation of the rules was changed so that it something along the lines of: teams have 3 phases to either score a try or improve field position 20m, if not it comes back to a penalty.

We might actually see the halfback using the ball and teams attempting some riskier back-line moves knowing that it will come back for a penalty if they don't succeed.

 

[Sully]

I think my idea is a lot easier than yours.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Without starting a shit-fight & in all seriousness can I just ask if it's true that during the Deans coaching era the Wallabies front row would deliberately & collectively drop their bind when under duress & take their chances on receiving or conceding the penalty? It's a theory that got a lot of traction in NZ & seemed to be borne out by onfield evidence, e.g. 2nd & 3rd B&IL Tests & more than a few Bledisloes.

 

[Sully]

Could not tell you if it is true or not.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

I'd find it hard to believe too waiopehu oldboy, but i'm somewhat of a romantic of the game and this would certainly cloud my judgement to a degree. That being said I did wonder at times how we could be so incredibly shit at scrummaging sometimes.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I'd find it hard to believe too waiopehu oldboy, but i'm somewhat of a romantic of the game and this would certainly cloud my judgement to a degree. That being said I did wonder at times how we could be so incredibly shit at scrummaging sometimes.

One of the reasons it got traction was that it seemed like the Deans-era Crusaders did it when under the pump & all of a sudden the Wobs went from having at worst a stand-up & scrap it out pack to one that just seemed not to want to. Like I said, not trying to start a shit fight, just curious as obviously there are people on here who know things the likes of me never will.

 

[boyo]

In the Clan v Reds match it was a breath of fresh air to have an ex-prop (Kees Meuws) on the sideline.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Nice use of (brackets) there, for some of us he will always be the the c##t who stood back & watched while his captain was getting his face bitten by a Frenchman & chose to do FUCK ALL about it, let the littest guy on the park try to drag his fat French arse off've him.......

 

[Brumby Runner]

You could still get a free kick. Besides the teams aren't interested in having a backline move just a penalty.
As example what were the chances of nic white pulling the ball out of that scrum earlier. None! They played for the penalty and nothing else.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

During the second half tonight, the Brumbies were awarded a penalty from either a ruck or scrum infringement by the Rebels, and they took the odds and ran the ball in a backline movement that took it to the opposite sideline. One or two rucks later they lost it to a knock on or turnover, but having made only about 10 - 15m forwards, Walsh apparently decided it was enough to cancel the penalty advantage and set a scrum with Rebels'feed rather than going back for the penalty.

Can you blame a team for not trying their hand under advantage when the refereeing is so inconsistent?

 

[Quick Hands]

I think that if you have the ball at the back of the scrum the penalty should be off the table.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

100% agree. NH teams regularly have a solid platform with No8 controlling the ball and rather than take the possession they go for the 2nd shove for the sole purpose of earning a penaltu.

 

[Quick Hands]

they aren't interested in a back-line move because a penalty from a scrum guarantee's either 3points or a large chunk of territory, the halfback pulling the ball from the scrum offers the small chance of a try.

However if an amendment or interpretation of the rules was changed so that it something along the lines of: teams have 3 phases to either score a try or improve field position 20m, if not it comes back to a penalty.

We might actually see the halfback using the ball and teams attempting some riskier back-line moves knowing that it will come back for a penalty if they don't succeed.

So don't give them the choice. Once the ball is at 8 the ref calls use it, just like at rucks - from that point on scrum penalties (except for foul play - punchng etc) aren't awarded. The sole exception as Sully indicated is at 5m attacking scrum for the pushover try.