Scrum Talk

[Bruwheresmycar]

I just hope they (IRB) make a decision only after extensive testing and experimentation. This is a huge issue and i hope they are doing something about it as we speak. If not, well we are stuck with the current mess for a while.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It makes you wonder how we ended up with the mess that scrums are these days, when the method back then seemed pretty no-nonsense and the packs just got on with it.

 

[Lee Grant]

I just hope they (IRB) make a decision only after extensive testing and experimentation.

Exactly. There is no use assuming that things are going to be better because a few lines are typed out on paper. We have to consult elite props on the the matter. This should include old props as newer props will tend to answer that there is nothing wrong with current laws and conventions provided it's done right. (But they don't have to pay to watch themselves.)

We must be beware that there are unexpected consequences of changes to the laws. For example: aerial ping pong was spawned of a sudden because players were too scared to retain the ball in their half because ELVs or IRB rulings proved to be counter-productive.

In particular we must not replace the present engage ritual with another one. We have to replicate the no delay folding in of the front row even if the scrummie doesn't have the ball yet. As indicated in an earlier post: front rowers are accustomed to getting their configuration optimised before crouching and they will tend to delay the folding in or even stand up again if things don't feel right.

We have to nip this in the bud at the elite level and free kick or penalise front rowers and put up with their ritual looks of puzzlement, but it will be worth the effort. It will not be much different from pinging hookers for delaying the throw into the lineout. Elite players have to get used to it for the sake of the game.


Obviously there has to be some gradation of the application of the scrum ELVs in community and other forms of amateur rugby. Amateur players need short breaks. Strict application will not be so necessary anyway to levels of rugby that don't have power hits and therefore have a credible tunnel to put the ball into straight. Hooking contests prevail at the lower level and scrum ELVs need not be enforced to the letter.

 

[DPK]

I just hope they (IRB) make a decision only after extensive testing and experimentation. This is a huge issue and i hope they are doing something about it as we speak. If not, well we are stuck with the current mess for a while.

And when they do make a decision, stick with it and tell the complainers tough shit.

If I hear the words "IRB Law change" and "conspiracy" in the same sentence, someone will be reading me the Riot Act shortly after.

 

[chasmac]

New thread started with a letter from IRB requesting rule change submissions for post RWC2011. Anyone keen to put something up based around the scrum topic?

 

[Groucho]

And when they do make a decision, stick with it and tell the complainers tough shit.

If I hear the words "IRB Law change" and "conspiracy" in the same sentence, someone will be reading me the Riot Act shortly after.

Unfortunately, that is how it'll be portrayed in the powerful NH press.

They will proclaim that Australia is a weak in the scrum, and that this is a move instigated by Australia to erode NH scrum dominance. It doesn't matter if Australia isn't weak in the scrum: their readers and viewers will believe we are. It doesn't matter if Australia didn't instigate the ELV: their readers and viewers will believe we did. And it doesn't matter that NH scrum dominance is a myth: their readers and viewers will never accept that it is.

What is the psychology behind all this? Here's my two cents worth:

The NH is, to a varying degree, behind the SH in all facets of play. In the NH, this is elephant in the room. They must accept that SH teams consistently win in all conditions and in both hemispheres, but (for perfectly human reasons) they require a rationale for this that isn't rooted in their history and systems.

To provide that rationale, they've constructed a couple of myths.

First is the myth that NH rugby is better suited to knockout rugby. They point to England's good results and the early departure of Australia and New Zealand in 2007 as evidence of this. The fact that World Cups are running 6:1 in the SH's favour can (with discipline and willpower) be ignored.

Second is the myth that NH teams are dominant at scrum time. To bolster that myth, the NH points to changes in the laws as the cause of its current untruth. First, the ELVs de-powered scrums. Second, the breakdown convention is decreasing the relative importance of scrums. And, by the same reasoning, to remove the hit would be specifically intended to remove England's dominance over Australia.

There is no defence against these perceptions. How can facts compete with an infinitely adjustable past?

Happily, such perceptions have no effect upon future games, apart from perpetuating SH dominance by encouraging NH teams to choose the wrong tactics based on a mythological view of history.

 

[DPK]

Would you sum up, Groucho, by saying "let our footy do the talking"?

 

[Lee Grant]

Excellent post Groucho - one of your best of many.

"Agree" doesn't quite do it.

England has a good scrum most of the time so they should be looking for laws that maximise the effects of that strength and will result in less referee guesswork which blunts their advantage. The number of completed scrums (those not subjected to free kicks or penalty kicks) in professional rugby over the last 5 years is dropping in my unconfirmed coach potato opinion - and that is even after tiresome resets have been made.

Therefore England should be party to law changes that seek to maximise the number of completed scrums in an average game.

 

[Crow]

J'ON could come out with strong support of the current scrum laws.
I bet we'd see change within weeks.

 

[Blue]

I would argue that the likes of SA. NZ and England are neither here nor there about scum law changes. They'll take improvement if they can get it but won't be fussed if it stays the same.

 

[Lee Grant]

Whatever happens I'm sure that they and their fans would like more rugby and fewer resets also.

How could they not?

 

[Blue]

Whatever happens I'm sure that they and their fans would like more rugby and fewer resets also.

How could they not?

Sure they would Lee but I suggest it is generally speaking not much of an issue for them as it seems to be here in Australia.

 

[MrTimms]

I am an unabashed fan of keeping the hit, just to disclose it straight up.

But, Australia cannot raise anything about changes to anything to do with scrums as all the other countries just bang on about us trying to cover a weakness, sadly. jon needs to let someone else bring it up.

Sent from my transformer using tapatalk

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Agree with that Timmsy. Until we become a dominant force at scrum time there will always be the perception that we are trying to de-power the scrum. Which is bullshit, but that perception exists.

 

[liquor box]

Agree with that Timmsy. Until we become a dominant force at scrum time there will always be the perception that we are trying to de-power the scrum. Which is bullshit, but that perception exists.

Maybe we use reverse logic and suggest strongly we dont want any changes as it will ruin the tactics of the SH teams. THis way the NH teams may go for a change if they think they can win

 

[IronAwe]

Guys, I'm not sure if you are all aware, but the IRB has ALREADY decided to remove the hit. The northern hemisphere was just as annoyed at the scrum resets as the south were. They even had clocks that appeared and counted the time taken during scrums to reinforce the idea it needed to be fixed.
I'm not sure who the IRB convened with in deciding to remove the hit, but it has made the decision.

 

[Nusadan]

Guys, I'm not sure if you are all aware, but the IRB has ALREADY decided to remove the hit. The northern hemisphere was just as annoyed at the scrum resets as the south were. They even had clocks that appeared and counted the time taken during scrums to reinforce the idea it needed to be fixed.
I'm not sure who the IRB convened with in deciding to remove the hit, but it has made the decision.

Source please, IA?

 

[IronAwe]

If you read my original post that started the thread I mentioned that the ARU announced this at a recent coaches meeting. My brother is a coach and was attending when this announcement was made. It will be 'officially' announced after the world cup.

 

[liquor box]

I recall a study being done I think in France where they assessed the amount of force involved in scrums and it caused a lot or concern about possible injury and that they would perhaps look at depowering the scrum. It was probably 6 months ago.

 

[Lee Grant]

The scrum resets problem in the 3 month wet and mud period in the UK and Ireland in 2010-11 was monumental. Different commentators were bagging the situation and not just Brian Moore, ex England hooker, solicitor, commentator and prime goose.

The Eurosports commentator in the Top14 Robbie Nock was often sarcastic on the matter. Prop icons like Phil Vickery were blogging about it. There is definitely a move against the hit and as I keep harping on: it discriminates against the dominant scrum as we saw when England was out here a year ago when they were dudded.

Like the old hair shampoo ad it won't happen overnight, but it will happen. We all like the spectacle of the power hit and we all want to bring back rucking, but as rucking will never come back except on rugby forums when when beat our breasts manfully at the keyboard, so will the power hit be legislated against. It may not happen after the RWC as mentioned but it will happen whatever we say or don't say, or like and don't like.

But as others have said: Oz shouldn't say boo on the matter.

Now I feel better. Should take my blue pill now.