Scrummaging

[Jim_P_Pulfrew]

As it is a bit unfair to hijack the 6 Nations Thread here is a new one to continue the debate.

The game has speeded up immeasurably over the last 20 years, rucking for instance used to be a good excuse for a lie down now it is a dynamic way of recycling a ball taken into contact. The one major stopper in the modern game is the scrummage. Somebody will have the statistics but the amount of time spent at the scrummage must account for a hefty percentage of 'time on'.

Is there really a need for the four steps to engagement at the top level? If the likes of Adam Jones, Castrgovanni, Healy and the rest need nannying in such a game delaying fashion, we may as well go to uncontested because all it is doing is frustrating players and fans alike. I would endorse it for U21 Matches and below, but as a grown up you takes your chances.

As for for the shirts and binding issue that is probably very valid and I don't like the new fitted shirts (Back of the arm binding was still tolerated when I played and I remember vividly David Sole cutting his shirt sleeve off to stop Probyn getting an advantage, and still being provided with a unique view of his own testes).

On the subject of Feeding? It will go this way: Lifting in the Line Out was outlawed, then supporting the jumper, became assisting the jumper and now we have the elevator lifts we see today. I think the feed is going to go the same way.

Finally I must point out that the biggest disadvantage to my supporting a radical shake up of scrummaging is that Bellend Brian Moore is calling for one too, and I would rather rinse my ricker out with Cillit Bang than agree with that gob on a stick

Jimps

 

[Inevertouchedit]

Some fair points Jimps. One of the main points is that I don't think the Refs are completely au-fait with what goes on in there - Unless you've played in the front-row at a very high level for at least 10 seasons - it'll be a mystery for most Refs.

Rule of thumb seems to be; Ref observes one side of scrum, therefore props on other side try it on, scrum collapses, ref changes sides......and so on. Ref then gives free-kicks on a rotation basis for rest of game with some vague excuse of "False binding etc".

Bonkers

 

[beowulf]

There is no need for it. It has been introduced by the risk averse and is propagated because of unintended consequences.

In order to make the scrum "safer" they have four pauses in the coming together, only one of which is cunningly called "pause". Sometimes the "pause" feels like a trap set by the ref to see how long he can hold the two sides apart before one or other jumps the gun and gets pinged. The alleged reason for this was to give the ref more control over the scrum and make it safer. The effect is the exact opposite because now you have 16 guys all coiled and waiting for the Engage call. At which point they all spring forward and make the point of contact on the front rows that much more dangerous. Would anyone with a better understanding of momentum like to express the tonnage exerted as this happens?

The ref should mark the scrum, step back. Once both front rows are ready they should come together, then the second and back rows should bind on. Once the ref is happy that everyone who should be there is there he can give the nod to the terrier and off we go.

 

[tommo9999]

It's a nonsense - no more no less. I played in the front row for 25 years or so and never felt that I needed to be told when to crouch or engage. There were a number of highish profile scrummaging collapses which resulted in some serious injuries (Matt Hampson for example) which meant the IRB poo'd their pants and needed to be seen to do something. It has never been legal to bind on the arm of the opposition, although I routinely did it when playing tighthead to tuck up the loosehead. Like most areas of the game, players will try to get away with what they can, but if you look at just the height of the scrummages now, it is a farce. It is way more dangerous to collapse from that height than it used to be when front rows were much lower after engagement. But like the nanny state we live in, we are forced down the road. It is a terrible indictment that most top sides no longer practice set moves from the scrummage because it has become a total farce - and is simply seen as a penalty machine. Most refs haven't got a clue about what goes on - boring in, inside out feet placement, lowering the scrum until the opposition hooker can't get his foot forward to strike the ball etc etc etc. It is all about the "Hit" now (And christ I hate that word, when it should be about a genuine contest for the ball. With the amount of feeding now, the contest has gone - but it should ALWAYS remain a genuine battle for the ball in my humble opinion. Straight feeds, hookers striking and forwards pushing hard - it's that simple!!

 

[gemarriott]

It's a nonsense - no more no less. I played in the front row for 25 years or so and never felt that I needed to be told when to crouch or engage. There were a number of highish profile scrummaging collapses which resulted in some serious injuries (Matt Hampson for example) which meant the IRB poo'd their pants and needed to be seen to do something. It has never been legal to bind on the arm of the opposition, although I routinely did it when playing tighthead to tuck up the loosehead. Like most areas of the game, players will try to get away with what they can, but if you look at just the height of the scrummages now, it is a farce. It is way more dangerous to collapse from that height than it used to be when front rows were much lower after engagement. But like the nanny state we live in, we are forced down the road. It is a terrible indictment that most top sides no longer practice set moves from the scrummage because it has become a total farce - and is simply seen as a penalty machine. Most refs haven't got a clue about what goes on - boring in, inside out feet placement, lowering the scrum until the opposition hooker can't get his foot forward to strike the ball etc etc etc. It is all about the "Hit" now (And christ I hate that word, when it should be about a genuine contest for the ball. With the amount of feeding now, the contest has gone - but it should ALWAYS remain a genuine battle for the ball in my humble opinion. Straight feeds, hookers striking and forwards pushing hard - it's that simple!!

Good post mate especially that last sentence. I played hooker and the dark arts on the front row weren't ever as bad as people like David Sole and Brian Moore would have you believe. Watch "that" baa baa game against the All Blacks. Lineouts and scrums all properly competitive and I defy anybody to show me a modern game as entertaining in any area as that one. I have stopped watching rugby these days as I find the game today as boring. I was coaching colt rugby at the time they started messing about with the scrum. My pack had been together from 11 year old to U19, were capable of safely pushing any same age pack then suddenly if they pushed them more than 1.5metres is was a penalty, what utter bollocks as when they stepped up to senior rugby the scrums became competitive again and bingo they need to start learning again.

I think the rule changes from the early 90s on have ruined the sport for player and fan.

 

[wolfy]

The refs already have the laws to deal with the early engage. As the law states that the scrum must be still before the ball is put in. if this was done they could then deal with the feeding issue, as it would make jumping the engage comand pointless as the scrum has to be stationary. We just need some refs to grow some and use common sense, stop pinging for early engagements which most of the time don't cause problems and work on delaying the put in to stop feeding.

 

[Jim_P_Pulfrew]

Perhaps calling for uncontested, was me putting a stick in a Hornet's nest and waiting for the reaction. As with all things safety related though, there is no going back and if anything the scrummage may become even more protracted.

I am however, pretty convinced that we are not far away from legalised feeding. It would speed up scrummaging time and do away with some of the daft penalty calls. But picking up on Tommo's point, would it also re-introduce some of the fine moves off the back of the scrum, we used to see years ago from the likes of Merv the Swerve and Zinzan etc?

Jimps