Scrums 2012

[Gnostic]

So far in Super Rugby 2012, and it is still very early days, we have seen far fewer collapses even considering the horrendous weather Oz and NZ have been subjected to of late. This is a very good thing.

There is one major area of concern for me though after two weeks and one game. The Refs are very vigilant on everything to do with the "Hit" and binding. They then don't seem to be watching after that. There have been multiple examples of the flankers binding on their opposition prop and driving him. This needs to be policed much closer. In tonights game Liam Messam in one dominant scrum was bound and driving on Franks who rightly appeared to blow up about this. In the next Crusaders scrum Whitelock did the same.

Heaven forbid I suggest the Kiwi teams do it more, but from anecdotal evidence it would appear the case and it is yet to be penalised.

Just on the side a big thanks to Sona Taumalolo, in the fantasy team, picked him to score a try, picked the Ciefs to win by 5..

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Agree but when they have collapsed it has been ugly - one in the game you mentioned saw Franks (TH) go face first into the turf and while still bound to his hooker the other side of the scrum folded over the top of him.
I've noticed a couple of others where the destruction of one scrum by another seems far greater than last year.
i dont think its conducive to parents letting the kids play.

 

[Jnor]

Halfbacks also seem to be all over the place from my viewings in the first couple of rounds, I think you're right about all the focus being on the hit.

 

[waratahjesus]

The Crusaders Cheifs game last night featured one of the longest pauses between touch and engage I have ever witnessed, that ref was slow beyond belief.

I agree that the flanker coming up on the bind needs to be policed more closely, it's becoming an epidemic in some games.

 

[topo]

Interesting call from Lawrence last night. Penalised tahs front row for "pushing up". I have never seen this penalised when the "offending" pack is going forward as was the case on this occassion. It sometimes (probably not frequently enough) gets called when a team is on roller skates going backwards and pops up to get away from the drive of the opposition front row, but that was certainly not the case last night. The ball was won when the penalty occurred it should have been play on. It occurred when things were getting desperate in the last ten minutes and certainly took momentum away from the tahs.

 

[Hawko]

Interesting call from Lawrence last night. Penalised tahs front row for "pushing up". I have never seen this penalised when the "offending" pack is going forward as was the case on this occassion. It sometimes (probably not frequently enough) gets called when a team is on roller skates going backwards and pops up to get away from the drive of the opposition front row, but that was certainly not the case last night. The ball was won when the penalty occurred it should have been play on. It occurred when things were getting desperate in the last ten minutes and certainly took momentum away from the tahs.

100% agree. I thought the reason the front row went up was that the Highlanders' front row fractured. Just a poor decision but it was Bryce Lawrence. My expectations are very low.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

100% agree. I thought the reason the front row went up was that the Highlanders' front row fractured. Just a poor decision but it was Bryce Lawrence. My expectations are very low.

It is against the law is it not?

 

[topo]

It is against the law is it not?

I suppose Law 20.8(i) could be interpreted that way, but that's the first time I have seen it applied in that fashion. I think most would agree that this law was brought in to prevent "popping" a player where their feet are off the ground and their neck may be flexed into a dangerous position (the famous Pontypool "snow on your arse, boyo" trick). The wording of the law is that this is considered "dangerous play". I don't see how two opposing front rowers standing up can be considered dangerous. Ben Franks frequently ends up in this position and I can't remember him being penalised once. If you've got a drive on and the opposition starts to break up it's better than collapsing when you haven't got much to push against.

 

[Scotty]

You've never seen that call (driving up), Really?

 

[topo]

You've never seen that call (driving up), Really?

Not in those circumstances, no.

 

[suckerforred]

100% agree. I thought the reason the front row went up was that the Highlanders' front row fractured. Just a poor decision but it was Bryce Lawrence. My expectations are very low.

Remembering of course that Brye was the one who penalise the Wallaby scrum last year for being 'to dominant' wasn't he?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I agree there is some difference in the way this law is enforced but I see this as the natural interpretation of the law.
If it were universally enforced it would be beneficial to the game.
A dominant scrum that is forced to ensure it stays down is not going to dominate as much nor fracture the opponents in the dangerous manner that we are seeing these days. Once the dominant scrum has to force themselves to stay down they will find it more difficult to push straight and so they will be forced to depower somewhat.

 

[topo]

I agree there is some difference in the way this law is enforced but I see this as the natural interpretation of the law.
If it were universally enforced it would be beneficial to the game.
A dominant scrum that is forced to ensure it stays down is not going to dominate as much nor fracture the opponents in the dangerous manner that we are seeing these days. Once the dominant scrum has to force themselves to stay down they will find it more difficult to push straight and so they will be forced to depower somewhat.

or,more likely, it will collapse.

 

[MrMouse]

I'm with Topo.

Given that another factor in more scrums coming to fruition has been the tendency to have shoulders above hips (to avoid the 'hingeing' calls we all loved last year) you're more likely to have scrums come up than down, and that's a lot safer. I've never seen a front rower hurt by a Fat Cat/Franks powerful leg drive and lift, but I have seen enough from collapses. Keeping the hit and bind low increases the likelihood of that happening.

 

[Bowside]

I would rather they just bit the bullet and did away with the hit so everyone has enough time to sort themselves out before the lions tour and WC.

 

[MrMouse]

As a prop, I enjoy the hit. I also enjoy seeing two opposing forward packs applying the hit and then the heat. But I can understand why you feel that way.

 

[Bowside]

I didn't mind the hit when I played rugby, but the play is so much more cynical at the professional level that scrums collapse far too often. Removing the hit doesn't take anything much away from the contest at scrum time but it would drastically reduce the number of resets.

 

[MrMouse]

It might. But to be honest, I suspect that it wouldn't take too long for those coaches/players who were inclined to find other ways to collapse or otherwise deliberately illegally slow/disrupt opposition ball.

I'd prefer to see at least one full season with a steady, consistent call of crouch-touch-pause-engage and players with shoulders above hips and see what the reset rate is like at the end of all that. Of course, it won't happen because some referees police it and some don't, and almost every referee fucks with the timing of the engagement.

 

[MrMouse]

By the way, that is a dig at the Super and International referees - I actually think it's by and large refereed much better at lower levels, for whatever reason.

 

[Nusadan]

By the way, that is a dig at the Super and International referees - I actually think it's by and large refereed much better at lower levels, for whatever reason.

Refereed a women's rugby match today, and the stand out item today was the fact the both packs actually waited for my call to 'engage' before doing so! It really helped with my cadence.

Often I rushed that call if both packs move early as it is the case with the men's version.

Furthermore, as the women's match was played under the u'19 rules, I called a penalty against one team for pushing the scrum two metres (max was 1 and half) early on in the match, and after that they behaved (with my help in saying 'enough' if they were likely to go too far forward).