rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
agree 100%. As a prop who stopped playing at 15 because of neck injury due to a scrum engagement issue, I feel i can say with some authority that they are dangerous
The scrum collapse problem according to Link
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I would love to hear Alec Evans's views on this subject Lee.
twenty seven
Tom Lawton (22)
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Without trying to be callous cos your situation really sucks.....unfortunately the game is dangerous. Guys are running as hard as they can into each other trying to make big hits, big runs, big contact.......if people don't want to risk serious injury then they really shouldn't play rugby.
I'm with us trying something along Lee's lines; whether you get them so close (ear to ear) that the hit is taken out (like twenty seven's suggestion), or even bind them right up first - the aim is the same; stabilising the start of the scrum.
Although I bet with 27's version we still see collapses due to the impact. I don't see how Lee's version would give referees more power though - for me would take the guessing game out, which would be a good thing.
By the way, I don't actually think this would be an advantageous thing for weak (Australian) scrums - a decent hit and quick strike can get around a backpeddling scrum, as we have all watched so many times. A dominant pack will still be able to exert pressure on their own ball. I remember a lot of push over and penalty tries in the olden days, because you could actually get to a proper stabilised contest, rather than constant collapses.
Although I bet with 27's version we still see collapses due to the impact. I don't see how Lee's version would give referees more power though - for me would take the guessing game out, which would be a good thing.
By the way, I don't actually think this would be an advantageous thing for weak (Australian) scrums - a decent hit and quick strike can get around a backpeddling scrum, as we have all watched so many times. A dominant pack will still be able to exert pressure on their own ball. I remember a lot of push over and penalty tries in the olden days, because you could actually get to a proper stabilised contest, rather than constant collapses.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I would like to see the opinions of old timers who packed down with the soft engage then dominated the scrum after the put in.
Sure time has moved on and it's a professional game now but shouldn't the dominant scrum be rewarded in the professional era instead of being second guessed? Do people get the point that inferior scrums are now being advantaged outrageously by the referee who are forced to guess because of sudden collapses caused by power hits when the forces don't meet just so?
How many times have we seen dominant scrums being pinged when it was clearly the other teams fault? This will happen with the old method too but not nearly as much and I can guarantee more scrums will stay up and more rugby played.
This will disadvantage Australian teams as it did in the old times when referees didn't have to guess so much but it will be better for the game.
This is not theory as some of my stuff is - I've seen it before.
Sure time has moved on and it's a professional game now but shouldn't the dominant scrum be rewarded in the professional era instead of being second guessed? Do people get the point that inferior scrums are now being advantaged outrageously by the referee who are forced to guess because of sudden collapses caused by power hits when the forces don't meet just so?
How many times have we seen dominant scrums being pinged when it was clearly the other teams fault? This will happen with the old method too but not nearly as much and I can guarantee more scrums will stay up and more rugby played.
This will disadvantage Australian teams as it did in the old times when referees didn't have to guess so much but it will be better for the game.
This is not theory as some of my stuff is - I've seen it before.
i dont like it.
i remember a gagr podcast not long ago which featured andrew blades commenting how due to the scrum laws we are now seeing the demise of props in schoolboy rugby where they are being replaced by backrowers due to there no longer being a necessity to have a rotund bloke in the front row and the increased speed of the game.
do we really want to see this in test match rugby?
the game has changed too much, specifically in terms of speed, to return to the scrum laws of 20 years ago.
let's just sort the cadence and see where we end up.
keep the power hit!
i remember a gagr podcast not long ago which featured andrew blades commenting how due to the scrum laws we are now seeing the demise of props in schoolboy rugby where they are being replaced by backrowers due to there no longer being a necessity to have a rotund bloke in the front row and the increased speed of the game.
do we really want to see this in test match rugby?
the game has changed too much, specifically in terms of speed, to return to the scrum laws of 20 years ago.
let's just sort the cadence and see where we end up.
keep the power hit!
I think you might find the opposite REDinCPT. If you can't get away with a quick hit and hook, or scrum collapse, the better wrestling/scrummaging props are gonna tear you a new one. I know this is what the poms think about our approach to the scrum, we hit low to negate the bigger/better props.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
And the thing is as soon as they emerge from the protected environment of schoolboy Rugby they are often set upon by the larger more 'rotund' opponents. Having dabbled a bit in schoolboys and Colts Rugby facing props that resembled backrower's more often than not it proved an easy day at the office.
One of the issues is the height in which you are instructed to pack down at. This causes opposing props to fall out of alignment with one another leading to a destabilisation of the scrum following the hit. Result: collapsing scrums. Re-thinking it recently the U19 engagement rule would be interesting to look into. We had to pre -bind leading into a scrum before the hit. A hit still occurred and dominance can be established with the added benefit of the opposing front rows falling into alignment. The only collapsed scrums occurred when there were great disparity in the size of front rowers. At the pro level this wouldn't be an issue.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
REDinCPT
Schoolboy laws are pretty much the same in NZ and Oz so the schoolboy argument is irrelevant. When they leave school both sets of lads have to learn their trade under different scrum laws.
The speed of play has nothing to do with the scrum. Previously a wonderful and valid contest, the scrum is becoming a blight on the game. 1st there are too many early engages and the scrum contest is lost with a free kick; 2nd there are too many collapses; 3rd there are too many guesses as to who is at fault; 4th it is difficult to have a credible tunnel with players staggering to keep their feet during and after a power hit.
As the quality of the tunnel deteriorated referees have been forced into obeying a convention started by referees about 20 years ago and which is now entrenched whereby scrummies are permitted to put the ball into the scrum skew, in clear breach of the law. These are the same referees who sanction not straight throws to the lineout a few degrees off. As the power hits became more powerful so did the skew scrum put-ins become more acceptable.
As a result of this there is no hooking contest. I realise that there are many people who don't know what a hooking contest is and that really is a point. They don't know what they don't know. The hooking contest was a wonderful challenge and those who could earn tight heads were stars of the game.
As for Blades other comments that I have heard before: that there is no problem with the power hit and the modern scrum provided everything is done right, I agree. But Elvis is more likely to be doing a gig in Las Vegas next week than professional players will be doing things right at scrum time and having fewer scrums resets and collapses.
Vickery wants changes and so does Brian Moore the old England hooker. He may be a goose of a commentator but he knows about scrummaging.
The latest IRB idea is to have a deliberate cadence to the the engage command and having a no tolerance policy on props having a hand on the ground which is sometimes enforced and sometimes not - plus other things I have forgotten.
I am willing to follow this through as all law changes or directives should be, but if it doesn't work, something different - and within the laws of the game apart from the pause etc. rubbish - should be trialled after consultation with professional hookers and the old timers. My belief is that they are trying to solve the modern problem of the engage instead of addressing the main problem of how to validate the scrum contest.
"Form - in" - are the only commands that should be needed if you want a command. Old timers just formed up and waited for the scrummie to put the ball in. They didn't need a command - it's a modern thing but not better.
How simple it was and the dominant scrum dominated, unlike now when they get pinged too often and champion props shake their head. Early engages were impossible as that was the first thing they did.
Schoolboy laws are pretty much the same in NZ and Oz so the schoolboy argument is irrelevant. When they leave school both sets of lads have to learn their trade under different scrum laws.
The speed of play has nothing to do with the scrum. Previously a wonderful and valid contest, the scrum is becoming a blight on the game. 1st there are too many early engages and the scrum contest is lost with a free kick; 2nd there are too many collapses; 3rd there are too many guesses as to who is at fault; 4th it is difficult to have a credible tunnel with players staggering to keep their feet during and after a power hit.
As the quality of the tunnel deteriorated referees have been forced into obeying a convention started by referees about 20 years ago and which is now entrenched whereby scrummies are permitted to put the ball into the scrum skew, in clear breach of the law. These are the same referees who sanction not straight throws to the lineout a few degrees off. As the power hits became more powerful so did the skew scrum put-ins become more acceptable.
As a result of this there is no hooking contest. I realise that there are many people who don't know what a hooking contest is and that really is a point. They don't know what they don't know. The hooking contest was a wonderful challenge and those who could earn tight heads were stars of the game.
As for Blades other comments that I have heard before: that there is no problem with the power hit and the modern scrum provided everything is done right, I agree. But Elvis is more likely to be doing a gig in Las Vegas next week than professional players will be doing things right at scrum time and having fewer scrums resets and collapses.
Vickery wants changes and so does Brian Moore the old England hooker. He may be a goose of a commentator but he knows about scrummaging.
The latest IRB idea is to have a deliberate cadence to the the engage command and having a no tolerance policy on props having a hand on the ground which is sometimes enforced and sometimes not - plus other things I have forgotten.
I am willing to follow this through as all law changes or directives should be, but if it doesn't work, something different - and within the laws of the game apart from the pause etc. rubbish - should be trialled after consultation with professional hookers and the old timers. My belief is that they are trying to solve the modern problem of the engage instead of addressing the main problem of how to validate the scrum contest.
"Form - in" - are the only commands that should be needed if you want a command. Old timers just formed up and waited for the scrummie to put the ball in. They didn't need a command - it's a modern thing but not better.
How simple it was and the dominant scrum dominated, unlike now when they get pinged too often and champion props shake their head. Early engages were impossible as that was the first thing they did.
i don't think the schoolboy example is irrelevant as it can be used as an example of what happens to the game when you take the hit out of the scrum. granted, it shouldn't be taken as gospel but it should be considered. it would be a shame if the salad dodgers no longer had a place in the game.
on another note, did anyone else pick up a bit of the "matt burkes" in ewen mckenzie's article...
a lot more eloquent than burke's rant.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Please change that 2nd quote as attributable to me - I didn't say that, somebody else did.
If not I will delete it.
As to taking the power hit out: I understand why people like it: it is like WWW wrestling. If it can be kept in WITHOUT all the problems I have catalogued, that would be fine. Elvis would like it too.
If not I will delete it.
As to taking the power hit out: I understand why people like it: it is like WWW wrestling. If it can be kept in WITHOUT all the problems I have catalogued, that would be fine. Elvis would like it too.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Some excerpts from a Twitter by ex-hooker Brian Moore, who had 69 tests for England and the British and Irish Lions, after the autumn tests last year. He is also a solicitor and qualified referee (though a goose on TV commentary).
*******
It used to be that what happened was of general import only when one pack destroyed the other giving a psychological and sometimes numerical advantage from penalties extracted from hapless opponents.
The talk of a game within a game was apposite and sometimes front rows on the losing team really did come off the field inwardly satisfied that they had won the real war.
This is the case no longer; there are no dark arts any more, it is just pushing and poor refereeing.
The irony is that now what happens in scrums is of general concern on many fronts – more than ever the lottery of sanctions for offences influences games materially; scrums are less stable and hence less safe and now that a scrum clock is used (my initiative, by the way) we can all see just how much time is wasted watching incomplete scrums collapse or run hither and thither.
*******
Lest the last point be dismissed as unimportant; it is the absolute bane for the casual viewers who are left asking 'what the hell is going on', the point when they go to the bar or to make the tea. If I recall rightly, aren't these the ones that the marketing men claim are so important to rugby's future?
*******
Front rows used to engage on their own, often with the put-in hooker calling the act. Note carefully that nowhere in the entire law book is the word HIT ever used.
*******
Moreover, consulting today's players is worse than useless because hardly any have ever played when the laws were properly enforced so what would they know anyway.
*******
Furthermore, it is important because it is deciding the fate of coaches and players and for the rest of us it is maddeningly dull and we want it sorted.
*******
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or stoppage.
Here are some excerpts of some responses to the Twitter
*******
Why don’t the opposing front rows bind first and then engage? Just like the ‘very’ old days…
Surely this would lead to less infringements (already bound so no chance of a binding penalty), front rows would be at the correct distance so less collapses
*******
Brian, why do we have the 'hit' process?
If neither team is allowed to push until the ball is in then why bring them together from a distance which implies that there must be force from each pack, i.e. an early push, before the ball is put in?
Would it not be more consistent with the laws, easier to ensure a fair contest for possession (what the scrum was designed to be, a big difference between rugby union and rugby league), and safer to find an alternate process?
*******
Brian Moore are quire right. Why is the "hit" given such priority? It's not even part of the rules! Why can we get back to "front row in, second row, back row in"? This is much safer and provides a stable start for the scrum. It does NOT help the weaker scrum as anyone who has been shoved off their own ball will tell you!
*******
The scrummage needs to be a fair contest, and a weaker scrum needs to be disadvantaged - this is the main reason why props play the game - to contest in the scum, it's their moment in the sun.
*******
It used to be that what happened was of general import only when one pack destroyed the other giving a psychological and sometimes numerical advantage from penalties extracted from hapless opponents.
The talk of a game within a game was apposite and sometimes front rows on the losing team really did come off the field inwardly satisfied that they had won the real war.
This is the case no longer; there are no dark arts any more, it is just pushing and poor refereeing.
The irony is that now what happens in scrums is of general concern on many fronts – more than ever the lottery of sanctions for offences influences games materially; scrums are less stable and hence less safe and now that a scrum clock is used (my initiative, by the way) we can all see just how much time is wasted watching incomplete scrums collapse or run hither and thither.
*******
Lest the last point be dismissed as unimportant; it is the absolute bane for the casual viewers who are left asking 'what the hell is going on', the point when they go to the bar or to make the tea. If I recall rightly, aren't these the ones that the marketing men claim are so important to rugby's future?
*******
Front rows used to engage on their own, often with the put-in hooker calling the act. Note carefully that nowhere in the entire law book is the word HIT ever used.
*******
Moreover, consulting today's players is worse than useless because hardly any have ever played when the laws were properly enforced so what would they know anyway.
*******
Furthermore, it is important because it is deciding the fate of coaches and players and for the rest of us it is maddeningly dull and we want it sorted.
*******
The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or stoppage.
Here are some excerpts of some responses to the Twitter
*******
Why don’t the opposing front rows bind first and then engage? Just like the ‘very’ old days…
Surely this would lead to less infringements (already bound so no chance of a binding penalty), front rows would be at the correct distance so less collapses
*******
Brian, why do we have the 'hit' process?
If neither team is allowed to push until the ball is in then why bring them together from a distance which implies that there must be force from each pack, i.e. an early push, before the ball is put in?
Would it not be more consistent with the laws, easier to ensure a fair contest for possession (what the scrum was designed to be, a big difference between rugby union and rugby league), and safer to find an alternate process?
*******
Brian Moore are quire right. Why is the "hit" given such priority? It's not even part of the rules! Why can we get back to "front row in, second row, back row in"? This is much safer and provides a stable start for the scrum. It does NOT help the weaker scrum as anyone who has been shoved off their own ball will tell you!
*******
The scrummage needs to be a fair contest, and a weaker scrum needs to be disadvantaged - this is the main reason why props play the game - to contest in the scum, it's their moment in the sun.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
agree to an extent. if there is a way of limiting risk without limiting the way the game is played, shouldn't it be looked at? As yousay, it's already a dangerous sprt, why make it more dangerous?
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Did someone suggest a pre-bind, but keeping the hit? ie front rows binding, then pulling back and then hitting? Not sure how physically possible it would be, but would certainly ensure front rows are close enough together (it would obviously only be a loose bind).
Crouch, Bind, Back, Hit.
Crouch, Bind, Back, Hit.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
I mentioned it above. In junior Rugby that was the modus operendi for the scrums. Worked well with very, very few collapses and practically no resets.
twenty seven
Tom Lawton (22)
They tried the pre-bind in the late '80's' for a very short time. The props, who could put a hit on in this short space, got penalised. No force was to be used unitl the scrum was engaged.
twenty seven
Tom Lawton (22)
Another idea is to simply not reward the teams that can manipulate the scrum. Take the penalties away - those teams that collapse a scrum for the 50/50 chance of being rewarded a penalty will soon realise that collapsing a scrum is not beneficial. Good scrumaging will become the empahsis. Brings back the chance for good hooking. Only time a penalty is awarded is for dangerous play
- Status