Wallabies v England, Sat 11th June, 8.00pm, Suncorp Brisbane

[JJJ]

Cole did very well didn't he?

Good scrummaging

Yeah he did, but I don't understand why Sio didn't adapt to it. 7 scrums and he was still binding low on Cole's super-stretchy jersey. Surely Cole's binding wasn't that impregnable?

I don't know what other shenanigans were going on but the images are all up for the front-rowers union to peruse. If it's really just as simple as a binding issue I'd think it would be pretty easy to fix. The perception damage might be less easy to fix.

 

[Lindommer]

And for that reason Sio probably shouldn't start.

 

[Highlander35]

Good young scrummagers get beaten by clever older ones all the time. Last season PAE was smashing all comers, went up against Slipper and he just out thought him nearly every time. Hundreds of examples hold across the decades, but that's the most obvious one in my mind recently.

 

[JJJ]

I think it might be wise to note in hindsight this was the Poms' seventh game after the RWC, our first. Their combinations and tactics looked much better worked out than ours.

Also worth noting that the post-RWC exodus never hurts them, only us. Any changes they make are generally voluntary.

 

[420]

I dont understand that much the scrum laws, but why Poite penalized two times, i think, the wallabies for angling in, when Coles was the only prop perpendicular to the scrum?. Also when Poite went to Sio side, Coles was straight an Mako was the one going perpendicular. As a i said i dont understand scrum but this got me confused.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I dont understand that much the scrum laws, but why Poite penalized two times, i think, the wallabies for angling in, when Coles was the only prop perpendicular to the scrum?. Also when Poite went to Sio side, Coles was straight an Mako was the one going perpendicular. As a i said i dont understand scrum but this got me confused.

Well i reckon when Sio got carded it collapsed on the other side first: someone tell me I'm wrong, not knowing is pissing me off

 

[JJJ]

Well i reckon when Sio got carded it collapsed on the other side first: someone tell me I'm wrong, not knowing is pissing me off

I posted pics of that scrum on the scrum talk thread in the rugby discussion subforum. The problem was definitely on Sio's side. The scrum is at 53:25 on the clock. There's an overhead view replay after Sio is sent off. Here's the replay (who knows how long it'll stay up). The scrum happens 1:24:50 into it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I posted pics of that scrum on the scrum talk thread in the rugby discussion subforum. The problem was definitely on Sio's side. The scrum is at 53:25 on the clock. There's an overhead view replay after Sio is sent off. Here's the replay (who knows how long it'll stay up). The scrum happens 1:24:50 into it.

I know there was a problem on his side and Im not saying otherwise. Very interested to hear what people (like you) who seem to know about scrummaging make of it all.
What I am saying is that Poite has NFI (assuming that you agree with me that the particular scrum went down first on the opposite side). Its at 1hr 24mins 45secs into the youtube clip.

 

[JJJ]

I know there was a problem on his side and Im not saying otherwise. Very interested to hear what people (like you) who seem to know about scrummaging make of it all.
What I am saying is that Poite has NFI (assuming that you agree with me that the particular scrum went down first on the opposite side). Its at 1hr 24mins 45secs into the youtube clip.

I can't tell from the overhead view who actually hits the ground first, and the side footage is from the wrong side. I'll leave it to the front rowers to explain what actually happened, but I don't think Sio in his heart of hearts would feel too hard done by there. The destabilisation of the scrum looked to come from a combination of Cole's dominance and a wheeling pommy scrum.

But I doubt Poite knows any more about scrummaging than the average ref, which is probably why he keeps it simple. If you look like you're dominating you win.

 

[Pfitzy]

If you look at the video of the scrum replay where England shift us (1:25:30), Cole has decided to hit straight, then they shear a tiny bit left, step around, and drive back toward the right.

Without the side angle its hard to tell, but at this point Sio has probably started to chase his feet in a bit harder, and leaves himself arse-over-heels and vulnerable to this tactic.

 

[Pfitzy]

Also, Vunipola is now angling and has Holmes in a very bad position.

As JJJ says: wish I had side angles of that.

 

[tragic]

Note where Cole's left arm is - he's supposed to bind to Hartley's jersey, but instead has his arm somewhere near the bloke's arse. His right arm bind is completely illegal, and his outside foot is under his hips.

Its pretty hard for Cole to keep both his binds when his opposite number is in the process of dropping flat on his face. He'd dislocate both his shoulders.
Its impossible to tell from those stills which comes first, and its no easier on the slow motion replays either.

 

[Pfitzy]

It isn't impossible from the stills - but it is easier once you find the full match replay online.

 

[tragic]

I recorded it and re-watched it super slow mo on the big screen. From one still to the next both props have moved - Sio down and Cole flexed and rotated. Whatever initiated the move was a subtle change in angle and pressure which can't be clearly seen.
Its easy to pick whatever still you want to illustrate your point, but the reality is you can't be sure.
So how is the referee on the spot supposed to make the call.

Edit: Just saw matts article on the front page. Its pretty damning. Shows the benefit of a slow motion replay vs a bunch of tv stills advanced frame by frame. I stand corrected

 

[Pfitzy]

By stepping through the Laws of the game - binding, alignment, etc. as well as contributing their experience and training.

As an ex-prop, I've got an advantage over most refs who never played there (or at all).

There was no excuse for Cole to lose his bind on his hooker, even if he twisted in and down with his outside shoulder. It was a deliberate - and fairly cunning - move. The fact that the layman can't separate whether it was Sio or Cole at fault is testament to his timing.

 

[tragic]

#DontHingeDan has a good ring to it

 

[Dan54]

Oh come on fellas haven't seen what the argument about this is, but So was getting done, watch his bind Cole was not with straight arm, he had elbow pointing down, which is a penalty

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

Or even So, and not So lol

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

[ForceFan]

Delayed due to interstate travel but thought this comparison may still be useful before today's 2nd Test in Melbourne.


Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

Ruck Involvements over time

Some brief comments:

1. Itoje is a very useful Lock at the breakdown.
2. Note the drop-off in involvement by England in the 2nd half.
3. England Tight 5 (57% of Total team ruck involvements) far more involved than their Wallabies counterparts (43%).
4. England Locks 27% cf Wallabies 16%. But on Defense Rucks England Locks 23% cf Wallabies Locks 4%.
5. Wallabies Back Row 62% of team's Defense Ruck Involvements (DRIs) with Pocock 24% of total. Anybody who thinks that Pocock isn't going to be missed (aka Tim Horan) is fooling themselves.
6. Wallabies Backs showed strong support of their own ball carriers.

In 2nd Test:

1. If the Wallabies Tight 5 don't lift then Wallabies will be in trouble again.
2. Expect Wallabies to be very selective and limited in Defense Rucks Involvements in an effort to maintain their line of defence.
3. Either Hooper or McMahon need to lift their Defence Ruck Involvements to a level well above their Super Rugby 2016 level.