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

[JJJ]

Let's look at the scrums in the actual game rather than a different game. I'm not saying you're wrong, you obviously know a lot more about scrummaging than I do. But apples with apples. First scrum where Sio got pinged:

No side view for that one I'm afraid. Have at it!

 

[JJJ]

Thumbnail attachments were an initial fail I can't seem to delete

 

[JJJ]

Having watched it again it looks like Sio got a bad bind which slipped and Cole turned him in. If you look at the difference between the pom LH's binding compared to Sio's it's pretty stark. Let me see if I can get a better pic of it.

 

[JJJ]

I'll do the others as I get time

 

[RugbyReg]

I cant remember how many points did we conceed whilst Sio was off, I recall 3 minutes until he returns and though shit we haven't had a scrum and had to replace a loosie.

we didn't concede any points, scored a try ourselves, and didn't have a scrum.

 

[JJJ]

The above was the second scrum, which led to a penalty against Sio. First scrum (after reset):

Penalty against Cole for hinging. Sio's bind again looking shaky and Cole obviously helping him to the ground, although more with his arm than by hinging it looks to me.

 

[Pfitzy]

Cole's bind is on the arm, notice. He tries to control the LHP's bind by doing this. Pretty standard THP tactic

 

[Brumby Runner]

I won't comment on point 1 other than to say of course he was and so was the Aussie tight head. That is what props do.

Regarding point 2, you are right that Cole faded after the engagement. Sio's problem was not that this caused him to be overextended it was that he was already overextended prior to the engagement so he then collapsed. If you set yourself in a position that the opposing Prop can put you on the floor with a simple trick you are asking for trouble.

The question is why is Sio setting himself with his legs extended. The answer is obvious. It is the strongest position but it is risky as he has discovered. Perhaps he is not confident that he can match Cole without doing this?

So, after reading this I went back to have another look at the photo posted by @Pfitzy. Cole was already set up at about a 45 degree angle to the scrum while Holmes was engaged exactly straight on between the LHP and hooker. The question I ask is since when is the first infringement (at any of the contact areas of the game) not the one that should be penalised?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I cant remember how many points did we conceed whilst Sio was off, I recall 3 minutes until he returns and though shit we haven't had a scrum and had to replace a loosie.

You're right Dave about no scrums while Sio was off, and we didn't concede any points, indeed scored a try of our own, in that period.

 

[JJJ]

Still working on the others, but Cole seems to be using his initial bind to stop Sio getting a higher bind which would provide better leverage off his back before sliding up to bind on the arm and push him down. With no hold on the back, just the shirt, Sio goes straight down.

Again, from the 2nd scrum (the penalty vs Sio one):

 

[Brumby Runner]

Having watched it again it looks like Sio got a bad bind which slipped and Cole turned him in. If you look at the difference between the pom LH's binding compared to Sio's it's pretty stark. Let me see if I can get a better pic of it.
View attachment 7982

The England LH is quite clearly binding on the arm of the Wallaby hooker. Don't the laws say he has to bind on the jersey of the opposite prop?

Why would he do that? Is there some other surreptitious advantage to be gained that hasn't yet become clear to us mere mortals?

 

[JJJ]

I'm going to move my image posting over to scrum talk (rugby discussion) so I don't break this thread.

 

[Dave Beat]

we didn't concede any points, scored a try ourselves, and didn't have a scrum.

You're right Dave about no scrums while Sio was off, and we didn't concede any points, indeed scored a try of our own, in that period.

Having played in the front row, shit i love scrums - but lets not lose focus on the game. I get to work, and I'd need to be an architect to work out all the angles that are being posted.

I think one area we lacked is the go forward and winning the collision in the close channels, we miss the raw go forward power the likes of Horwill, Palu, Skelton, MacCalman bring to the 9 / 10 channel.

I was happy with the 4 - 8 selection we took, however in hindsight a hard arse was needed.

 

[The torpedo]

Why would we be shamed throughout the rugby world? Seems like you disrespect both teams, particularly England, who I think deserve credit for their achievements since the world cup.

I respect England and Australia, just that I have a bad feeling we will lose. Just a bad wording of the comment on my part. Eddie's work with the poms have been excellent after the shambles that they were in the RWC and they deserve plenty of credit for their grand slam in the 6 nations and the win on the weekend.

 

[Lindommer]

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.

 

[Pfitzy]

The England LH is quite clearly binding on the arm of the Wallaby hooker. Don't the laws say he has to bind on the jersey of the opposite prop?

Why would he do that? Is there some other surreptitious advantage to be gained that hasn't yet become clear to us mere mortals?

Not really - might piss the hooker off a bit but its better to get your bind on and keep it somewhere, because if you move the ref might ping you anyway. And on these tight jerseys, binding can be hard.

Looking at the latest pic:

Still working on the others, but Cole seems to be using his initial bind to stop Sio getting a higher bind which would provide better leverage off his back before sliding up to bind on the arm and push him down. With no hold on the back, just the shirt, Sio goes straight down.

Again, from the 2nd scrum (the penalty vs Sio one):

View attachment 7993

Exactly right JJJ.

The long bind either needs to be higher up over Cole's back, or in the red circle - bend the elbow, get the bind right up across Cole's back, and use it for leverage, as well as holding him in place.

Needs a bit of momentum to shoot that bind up there, but if he angles right on the bind call (drop the hips a little) he'll be able to get under Cole, swing the arm over the top, and force Cole's longer bind upwards.

Then he can raise the hips, let the lock and flanker set on his backside, and apply the blowtorch.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I disagree. One rank idiot (Hoiles) and one guy doing something a bit questionable (Grey) from a position where much worse has been seen in recent times (the English for instance swapping balls for Wilkinson).
And "we, as a nation"?? Please. You are usually far more rational than that.

Well if we defend these things and they're wrong we are ripe to cop the same criticism. I don't get the feeling you think either thing is defensible.
However, I am tempted to put your observation in my signature as insurance against future irrational observations.
I haven't caught this new rugby show yet: if Hoiles' question is, as he said, likely to be better understood in its context in that show then I fear we may have something akin to the Fatty Vautin style footy show infecting the rugby universe: tell me it isn't so.
I knew nothing about this ball tampering: doesn't surprise me but we don't to sink to their level (or Vautins).

 

[cyclopath]

^^^^^^
I wasn't defending either - I would have thought my language was clear. I was disputing that the actions of one, or maybe two people make us the village idiots of World Rugby, or that the use of "We, as a nation" was appropriate, when most of "we" had nothing to do with either.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^^^^
I wasn't defending either - I would have thought my language was clear. I was disputing that the actions of one, or maybe two people make us the village idiots of World Rugby, or that the use of "We, as a nation" was appropriate, when most of "we" had nothing to do with either.

You weren't others have.

 

[fatprop]

Still working on the others, but Cole seems to be using his initial bind to stop Sio getting a higher bind which would provide better leverage off his back before sliding up to bind on the arm and push him down. With no hold on the back, just the shirt, Sio goes straight down.

Again, from the 2nd scrum (the penalty vs Sio one):
View attachment 7993

Cole did very well didn't he?

Good scrummaging