The positives & failings from Bledisloe 1 2011
- Thread starter disco
- Start date
- Status
Looking at those photos and video screenshots, I disagree that Alexander was binding on the arm - to me it looks like his hand is on Crockett's side below the axilla. As for the point of Alexander "driving through" after Crockett dropped his bind, and apportioning intent to it (" this is nasty"), could it not just be that Alexander has players behind driving him forward and suddenly has no resistance, and so goes forward. Seems more likely to me. What about the whole issue of Franks not packing square, as you note, and yet applaud as a pincer movement to pop Kepu. I thought they had to pack square and straight? There seem to be many issues with the scrums from Saturday, yet I find it scarcely credible that you say the ABs were clearly ascendant.
And before someone wants to have a crack about McCaw and glass houses, I have never subscribed to the whole cheat thing.
And before someone wants to have a crack about McCaw and glass houses, I have never subscribed to the whole cheat thing.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Cyclo, you're a fine man with a winky in hand, but you might want to brush up on the upper limb; because Alexander has his hand on Crockett's sleeve, not his side. 
On the driving through, it's not just the pressure from behind. If it were, he'd not have reset his right leg and driven again off it, which you can see him do. I hate that, passionately; you DON'T drive through a collapse, no matter what. It's how people get hurt.
On the square and straight one, this is one of those fun ones. There's no reference to it at all in the Laws. Search Law 20, you won't find it. You just have to be in "a normal position to make a forward shove" - Law 20 (2) (a). It's another makey-uppy one from refs.
Also - and this is fun, and something the commentator on Fox should have known - shoulders lower than your hips is a FK, not a full penalty. Laws 20 (1) (f), 20.2 (b). Granted, you can't twist, dip or do anything likely to collapse the scrum - Law 20 (8) (g) - but nothing about pushing at an angle or shoulders lower than your hips. In passing, just about anything can make a scrum collapse, so Law 20 (8) (g) is another "Because I say so" law.
On the driving through, it's not just the pressure from behind. If it were, he'd not have reset his right leg and driven again off it, which you can see him do. I hate that, passionately; you DON'T drive through a collapse, no matter what. It's how people get hurt.
On the square and straight one, this is one of those fun ones. There's no reference to it at all in the Laws. Search Law 20, you won't find it. You just have to be in "a normal position to make a forward shove" - Law 20 (2) (a). It's another makey-uppy one from refs.
Also - and this is fun, and something the commentator on Fox should have known - shoulders lower than your hips is a FK, not a full penalty. Laws 20 (1) (f), 20.2 (b). Granted, you can't twist, dip or do anything likely to collapse the scrum - Law 20 (8) (g) - but nothing about pushing at an angle or shoulders lower than your hips. In passing, just about anything can make a scrum collapse, so Law 20 (8) (g) is another "Because I say so" law.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Cyclo, you're a fine man with a winky in hand, but you might want to brush up on the upper limb; because Alexander has his hand on Crockett's sleeve, not his side.
On the driving through, it's not just the pressure from behind. If it were, he'd not have reset his right leg and driven again off it, which you can see him do. I hate that, passionately; you DON'T drive through a collapse, no matter what. It's how people get hurt.
On the square and straight one, this is one of those fun ones. There's no reference to it at all in the Laws. Search Law 20, you won't find it. You just have to be in "a normal position to make a forward shove" - Law 20 (2) (a). It's another makey-uppy one from refs.
Also - and this is fun, and something the commentator on Fox should have known - shoulders lower than your hips is a FK, not a full penalty. Laws 20 (1) (f), 20.2 (b). Granted, you can't twist, dip or do anything likely to collapse the scrum - Law 20 (8) (g) - but nothing about pushing at an angle or shoulders lower than your hips. In passing, just about anything can make a scrum collapse, so Law 20 (8) (g) is another "Because I say so" law.
I've said that a number of times.....
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
Fantastic insight into scrums Thomond78.
Some comments on Scrum 1 - the camera angle often plays a role in analysis. In the following video I've used the overhead footage of that scrum to show what was really happening with the angles by adding lines through each spine. Before the engage Alexander and Moore are quite square whilst Kepu is angling in. On the All Blacks side both Crockett and Franks are angling in. Crockett is angled in so much that he's lined up on Alexander's head. Should have been a free kick to Wallabies at that point against Crockett as he was the one lining up head to head.
As the scrums come together Alexander has to move his head to get inside Crockett's head. On the engage the angles are pretty much the same as they were before the engage.
I have then used slow motion and a freeze frame at the time Alexander binds. That is a bind on the jersey below the armpit to me.
[video=youtube;u2oJmIafwNs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2oJmIafwNs[/video]
Some comments on Scrum 1 - the camera angle often plays a role in analysis. In the following video I've used the overhead footage of that scrum to show what was really happening with the angles by adding lines through each spine. Before the engage Alexander and Moore are quite square whilst Kepu is angling in. On the All Blacks side both Crockett and Franks are angling in. Crockett is angled in so much that he's lined up on Alexander's head. Should have been a free kick to Wallabies at that point against Crockett as he was the one lining up head to head.
As the scrums come together Alexander has to move his head to get inside Crockett's head. On the engage the angles are pretty much the same as they were before the engage.
I have then used slow motion and a freeze frame at the time Alexander binds. That is a bind on the jersey below the armpit to me.
[video=youtube;u2oJmIafwNs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2oJmIafwNs[/video]
J
Jay
Guest
If you pause the video at :45, you can see that Alexander's hand has come down with the arm. If it were bound on the jersey, it'd be higher. It's on the sleeve, to me.
I don't think he's pulling it down though, cause his elbow stays high. In order to pull down on the arm, he'd have to drop his arm from horizonal to underneath Crockett.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
No. Law 20 (1) (f); you just have to interlock so your head isn't next to a teammate's. So, head-fencing like that is okay as long as you come together properly on the engage.
However, a sensible ref will, as soon as he sees it, tell both front rows to stand up, and tell them to cut it out; because it's a cracking way to start a fight when it's going on, and if the ref gets on top of that, and the bind, early on, the props will settle down and be good children. If the ref doesn't, there's a better than evens chance of popping, collapsing and messing all day.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
Don't know, Thomo, I got a pretty good score in upper limb anatomy in my surgical exams. Still looks like the hand is behind the arm.
Agreed cyclo - think I thomond needs to open his other eye..... its a good read, for a work of fiction.
G
gowallabiesgo
Guest
+1. Totally agree!
talking about scrums. I still lol every time I see a rugby league scrum. Its one of the funniest things on tv for sure!!
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
The thing about the scrum was that it was rock solid if not slightly dominant on any of the ABs put in. It only seemed to go to deck on the Wallaby put in. So why wouldn't Crockett be able to keep the scrum up on the hit when it was the Wallaby ball? To me, he would have more reason to keep it up so they could contest for ball which I think the AB pack would have fancied themselves as half a chance.
I think the first penalty set Alexander for the rest of the game against Crockett. If Crockett hadn't missed the bind, it might have been a different story. I think RuckingGoodStats made the comment before the game that Joubert is statistically more likely to blow a penalty as opposed to a reset - which he did.
Anyway, I still love the analysis Thomonds done - it's a lot more in-depth and detailed than anything I've seen on scrums previously. Alexander did a good job to my mind. I don't think he owned Crockett but he (and the whole pack actually) did enough to not lose any scrums and they performed better than most punters probably expected.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
That argument is often used, but it can be indicative of two things: a dominant scrum, or a scrum seeking to milk penalties. A favourite trick of Australian scrums during the Young era was to collapse on the opposition feed.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
Frankly, I'm starting to wonder why I'm so passionate about a game it would appear I barely understand.
Thomo, your analysis and post is briliantly well done, but I'm not exactly sure that the game being open to this sort of intreptation is really what Mr Webb Ellis had in mind. If your scrum goes forward, your the better scrum - why can't it be that simple?
Sometimes I think being dumber, really is better.
Thomo, your analysis and post is briliantly well done, but I'm not exactly sure that the game being open to this sort of intreptation is really what Mr Webb Ellis had in mind. If your scrum goes forward, your the better scrum - why can't it be that simple?
Sometimes I think being dumber, really is better.
- Status