Scrum Talk
- Thread starter JJJ
- Start date
- Status
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Bloody hell, spooony. They certainly don't buggerise around in primary school in the Republic. Half of our kids are still learning their times tables.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
And the other half don't know what a times table is.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
Hold up Bruce - ask him how to calculate that force before giving away all the praise.
From ONE Sport/Newstalk ZB
The famous scrum-time catch-cry of referees worldwide, 'crouch, touch, pause, engage', could soon be a thing of the past.
The New Zealand Rugby Union are set to trial new scrum engagement calls in this year's ITM Cup.
NZRU referees manager Rod Hill says the 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' call will be changed after consultation with a linguistic expert.
Hill explained the outcome of that was the word engage being a two syllable word caused scrums to engage at different times, so they are looking at using 'crouch, touch set' instead.
********
Not exactly riveting news this. Some referees in the NH have been saying "Crouch, Touch, Pause, Gage" for a couple of seasons now, dropping the "En" syllable.
It's like curing a cancer with cough syrup.
As I said on the proposed law change trials:
I think getting rid of the power hit is the key to stopping time being wasted on scrum resets and getting more positive results for dominant scrums. Now they are dudded by:
- guessing wrongly on the timing of the hit, which was never part of the scrum until recent times
- the ref guessing wrongly on the early engage
- the ball having to be put into the scrum skew when the power hit corrupts the tunnel; so the dominant scrum can't hook it. [This led to the death of the hooking contest.]
- the ref guessing wrongly on why the scrum collapsed because it happens too fast to make an assessment.
- the ref being worried by his assessor and throwing up his arm, bent or straight, in panic.
And yarda, yarda.
Old style scrums where the dominant team had a better chance of winning the contest with a power shove after the two packs were already engaged passively were better because the ball emerged from the scrum more. Now scrums end too much after the whistle blows. Even if refs blow the whistle correctly now every time, the old way is better.
You said all things before Lee - give us a break?
Not for a few months I haven't.
.
The famous scrum-time catch-cry of referees worldwide, 'crouch, touch, pause, engage', could soon be a thing of the past.
The New Zealand Rugby Union are set to trial new scrum engagement calls in this year's ITM Cup.
NZRU referees manager Rod Hill says the 'crouch, touch, pause, engage' call will be changed after consultation with a linguistic expert.
Hill explained the outcome of that was the word engage being a two syllable word caused scrums to engage at different times, so they are looking at using 'crouch, touch set' instead.
********
Not exactly riveting news this. Some referees in the NH have been saying "Crouch, Touch, Pause, Gage" for a couple of seasons now, dropping the "En" syllable.
It's like curing a cancer with cough syrup.
As I said on the proposed law change trials:
I think getting rid of the power hit is the key to stopping time being wasted on scrum resets and getting more positive results for dominant scrums. Now they are dudded by:
- guessing wrongly on the timing of the hit, which was never part of the scrum until recent times
- the ref guessing wrongly on the early engage
- the ball having to be put into the scrum skew when the power hit corrupts the tunnel; so the dominant scrum can't hook it. [This led to the death of the hooking contest.]
- the ref guessing wrongly on why the scrum collapsed because it happens too fast to make an assessment.
- the ref being worried by his assessor and throwing up his arm, bent or straight, in panic.
And yarda, yarda.
Old style scrums where the dominant team had a better chance of winning the contest with a power shove after the two packs were already engaged passively were better because the ball emerged from the scrum more. Now scrums end too much after the whistle blows. Even if refs blow the whistle correctly now every time, the old way is better.
You said all things before Lee - give us a break?
Not for a few months I haven't.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lee I must say that there have been some awful engagements this season and I fear for the players and their long term health. The one that sticks in my mind (probably because it is the only one still within my failing memory) was the Blake franks engagement that led to Blake being penalized (wrongly in my view). Franks was involved in another one in which he went straight into a hinged position.
These collisions have such brutal force that it, surely, is only a matter of time. These 2 examples show how small is the margin for error. They also show that the refs are just guessing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
These collisions have such brutal force that it, surely, is only a matter of time. These 2 examples show how small is the margin for error. They also show that the refs are just guessing.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
W
What2040
Guest
Obviously they NEED to
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You could well be right - thats me memory for you
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
If I were in charge of scrum laws I would change one simple yet unpopular thing. I would force the props to crouch, bind on the jerseys, then engage.
A lot of people have discussed getting rid of the hit, and While I agree this would cure a lot of the scrum reset problems, it has met with huge resistance, and it would take away from a reasonable impressive part of the modern game.
A very good proportion of scrum resets or penalties occur because the props can't get a good bind on each other, and we get dropped binds, hands on the ground, or a straight drop. We've discussed looser shirts, and I've even heard the ridiculous suggestion of building handles into props guernseys.
If props were made to grip each others shirts after crouching, there is still an opportunity for a hit, albeit a shorter one, and the opportunity to get some dominance over your opposition, but as you are already bound to each other there would be a decrease in dropped front rows, hands on the ground, and dropped binds.
Now, how to get his trialled somewhere....
A lot of people have discussed getting rid of the hit, and While I agree this would cure a lot of the scrum reset problems, it has met with huge resistance, and it would take away from a reasonable impressive part of the modern game.
A very good proportion of scrum resets or penalties occur because the props can't get a good bind on each other, and we get dropped binds, hands on the ground, or a straight drop. We've discussed looser shirts, and I've even heard the ridiculous suggestion of building handles into props guernseys.
If props were made to grip each others shirts after crouching, there is still an opportunity for a hit, albeit a shorter one, and the opportunity to get some dominance over your opposition, but as you are already bound to each other there would be a decrease in dropped front rows, hands on the ground, and dropped binds.
Now, how to get his trialled somewhere....
I don't find the hit impressive, nor boring in, nor "arm-down launch control" nor any other "unequal" temporary advantage a team gets. I want to see the 2 packs in a stable bind, then a contest as to which pack is stronger, more cohesive and so on to win it. Vis-a-vis the famous Wallaby push-over of 1984 at The Arms Park. And I want to see refs penalise packs that are losing the contest, then fracturing with 3 or more effectively unbound who interfere with the playing of the ball by the dominant pack. This has happened a few times in recent weeks where there have even been turnovers when one scrum has been completely smashed. Defeats the purpose of dominating a scrum if they allow early unbinds from the decimated opposition, who then come in effectively offside.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
Agree cyclo, that's why I think the props being bound before they come together will stabilise the front rows and minimise unnecessary resets and penalties
MrMouse
Bob Loudon (25)
I loved the hit as a player. It's a whole other challenge and to me an important and fun part of rugby. Otherwise, who needs the big blokes these days? May as well get a few more flankers and turn them in to props, speed up the game.
In my opinion, it's a combination of coaching and refereeing. When referees have been very clear, both before the game and then during it, that packing too low and hingeing will be harshly penalised, packs have come in higher with much better results. Why not simply make it (universally) illegal to pack a scrum with front row shoulders lower than hips? It's a relatively easy thing to enforce, and to coach.
What you've proposed is an interesting concept, and would be worth seeing how it worked in practice - possibly for eg in a club practice session. I personally feel that binding in anything other than full engagement will be difficult, and therefore negate the hit regardless.
In my opinion, it's a combination of coaching and refereeing. When referees have been very clear, both before the game and then during it, that packing too low and hingeing will be harshly penalised, packs have come in higher with much better results. Why not simply make it (universally) illegal to pack a scrum with front row shoulders lower than hips? It's a relatively easy thing to enforce, and to coach.
T
TOCC
Guest
I don't think the hit is at all necessary in scrummaging...
The physicality of the drive is just as demanding and more exhausting then the hit, and in the context of the scrum, its also technically more demanding then the explosive power necessary in a 'hit'.
Look at mauls, there is no 'hit' engagement in those but a team who is technically superior in that department still has the opportunity to prove their dominance.
The physicality of the drive is just as demanding and more exhausting then the hit, and in the context of the scrum, its also technically more demanding then the explosive power necessary in a 'hit'.
Look at mauls, there is no 'hit' engagement in those but a team who is technically superior in that department still has the opportunity to prove their dominance.
MrMouse
Bob Loudon (25)
I'm certainly not saying that it is 'necessary', but then if we were going with what was necessary, we would have depowered scrums and feed the ball in to the second row.
The drive is more exhausting because it is prolonged; I would argue that a good and effective hit requires excellent technique and that without it, you cannot scrummage effectively. Hence, the technical aspects of the hit are just as important, too.
JJJ
Vay Wilson (31)
It keeps getting mentioned and then overlooked in favour of other proposed changes, but is it really that hard to make props wear looser shirts? They're tailored after all aren't they? What would the downside be? The inconvenience of a wardrobe inspector needed to ok prop uniforms before/during the game? Hookers scrunching up the props' shirts while binding returning everything to square one? Hookers unable to get a tight bind themselves? Uniform merchandisers unhappy with how their product is being modelled? Or do the experts just consider that an inability to get a good bind is hardly ever the primary reason scrums collapse?
I'm guessing the last one.
I'm guessing the last one.
- Status