Scrum Talk
- Thread starter JJJ
- Start date
- Status
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Re: How good is our scrum?
That's right Biff - surely you can't keep persisting with Shep at THP when the Wallaby incumbent is in the squad? Deans doesn't interfere with provincial sides, but Friend is a smart cookie.
Well we didn't doubt him - I did think he had a better body shape for THP, but it was his experience in question.
That's right Biff - surely you can't keep persisting with Shep at THP when the Wallaby incumbent is in the squad? Deans doesn't interfere with provincial sides, but Friend is a smart cookie.
Spook said:
Well we didn't doubt him - I did think he had a better body shape for THP, but it was his experience in question.
S
Spook
Guest
Re: How good is our scrum?
I don't think anyone thought he'd get up to speed so quickly except B.....O
I don't think anyone thought he'd get up to speed so quickly except B.....O
S
Spook
Guest
Re: How good is our scrum?
This is funny. This Irish journalist, Hugh Farrelly (a known twat), had this to write:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/court-callup-worries-brewer-1949467.html
He was also claiming in another article that Hayes produced a marvellous final scrum to get the try for BOD.
This is funny. This Irish journalist, Hugh Farrelly (a known twat), had this to write:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/court-callup-worries-brewer-1949467.html
He was also claiming in another article that Hayes produced a marvellous final scrum to get the try for BOD.
S
Spook
Guest
Re: How good is our scrum?
I think Hugh was claiming Hayes got a great right shoulder. :nta: I'll have to find the quote...I chuckled at the time.
EDIT: found one of them.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/odriscoll-delivers-on-cue-1944426.htmlhttp://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/odriscoll-delivers-on-cue-1944426.html
EDIT: found second.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/autumn-internationals/expert-view--prop-star-a-colossus--of-courage-for-kidney-1944427.html
I think Hugh was claiming Hayes got a great right shoulder. :nta: I'll have to find the quote...I chuckled at the time.
EDIT: found one of them.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/odriscoll-delivers-on-cue-1944426.htmlhttp://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/odriscoll-delivers-on-cue-1944426.html
EDIT: found second.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/autumn-internationals/expert-view--prop-star-a-colossus--of-courage-for-kidney-1944427.html
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
Re: How good is our scrum?
Mate, you make two very important points.
First, Friend is a very smart man. I posted, before he started with the Brumbies, that the hallmark of his teams is precision, especially at the set piece.
Second, Alexander is so close to the optimum shape for a THP that the variance doesn't matter.
NTA said:
Mate, you make two very important points.
First, Friend is a very smart man. I posted, before he started with the Brumbies, that the hallmark of his teams is precision, especially at the set piece.
Second, Alexander is so close to the optimum shape for a THP that the variance doesn't matter.
Cheating Half Backs
Now that the "Richie McCaw is a cheat" thread has been shut down, perhaps it is time to discuss the almost universally adopted practice of illegal scrum feeds by half backs.
Austin (I think it was) produced a GAGR video teaser back in July highlighting this aspect, and since then I have been watching out for this.
It is going on directly in front of referees, and is so blatant that opposition hookers appear to not even be bothering to attempt a counter hook. The tighthead has all but disappeared from the game.
Are there any half backs who actually feed the ball to a scrum such that there is an even contest for the ball?
How soon before we see mungoball feeds under the #8's feet?
Do hookers actually practice hooking the ball at training?
When was the last time a half was penalised for an illegal scrum feed?
Now that the "Richie McCaw is a cheat" thread has been shut down, perhaps it is time to discuss the almost universally adopted practice of illegal scrum feeds by half backs.
Austin (I think it was) produced a GAGR video teaser back in July highlighting this aspect, and since then I have been watching out for this.
It is going on directly in front of referees, and is so blatant that opposition hookers appear to not even be bothering to attempt a counter hook. The tighthead has all but disappeared from the game.
Are there any half backs who actually feed the ball to a scrum such that there is an even contest for the ball?
How soon before we see mungoball feeds under the #8's feet?
Do hookers actually practice hooking the ball at training?
When was the last time a half was penalised for an illegal scrum feed?
#1 Tah
Chilla Wilson (44)
Me?
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
Brian Moore had a great column on this a while back. I'll see if I can dig it out.
Edit: Here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ten-to-the-public-on-crooked-scrum-feeds.html
The technical analysis is in the latter half of the article, but it's crystal-clear, and he's right.
Edit: Here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ten-to-the-public-on-crooked-scrum-feeds.html
The technical analysis is in the latter half of the article, but it's crystal-clear, and he's right.
W
WB3
Guest
No half in their right mind would feed it 100% straight. The universal standard has been set (that scrummies can feed the ball to their side) and so long as it isn't obscenely bad they will continue to get away with it.
To say it has eliminated tighthead scrums is not necessarily true. Tightheads are most often won when (by winning the hit and putting the opposing scrum in a bad position and/or a well timed shove) the team feeding the ball is blown off of it or forced into an error due to the dominance of the other scrum. It usually isn't because of a hooker winning a "hooking contest". Although they occasionally pull off a great hook to win the ball, the opportunity is given to them by a whole pack. That less tightheads are being won reflects a few things. They are more common at schoolboy level due to the large variations in size and scrumming skill between teams, but at a professional level the packs tend to be very well drilled at scrummaging. Even someone who is "rubbish" like Maafu can usually prevent a total demolition of their scrum (except for against England) and the skill of the front rowers is reflected in the speed of their engagement. A team is rarely knocked off the ball outright just from the hit alone, though they may be destabilised by a better scrum. The players tend to be good enough to recover from this position or at least minimise the degree to which their position is compromised, meaning that they may not lose the feed, but may suffer from poor ball (either from going backwards or from being forced to send the ball out the wrong scrum channel. Also, the skill of the hookers is shown by their ability to win scrums where they are on the back foot (noting that they do of course have the advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, unlike their opponent).
So, after that extended (and probably confusing) rant on scrummaging, the fact that rugby is now very professional and scrummaging is increasingly well coached is probably explains the lack of tightheads as much as crooked feeds. Not to say they aren't occurring, but due to the skill of the packs, rarely does one dominate another to the extent that they win a scrum outright. More often, they force poor ball and therefore an error or turnover later.
In answer to the thread's actual question - no, all halfbacks feed the ball to their side. So long as it is in the channel refs tend to be very lenient.
EDIT: having read the article posted above, it seems that my experience of the modern game reflects the changing nature of scrummaging. While stability remains important, it is more of a contest revolving around shifting the other team off the ball than a direct contest for the strike. I cannot say whether one is better than the other, as I have only played in the more recent style.
As for the question of culpability in scrum penalties, and the number of resets caused by pushing before the ball is in, I agree with the article, but would say that often deciding who is at fault for a scrum collapse is not as hard as it is made to look. Still, eliminating the problem largely would be helpful (and not pushing before the ball means less reset scrums, which is good).
Also, does anyone else think that once the ball has reached the number 8's feet, the attacking team should be allowed to collapse the scrum? They do it to minimise ground lost and give the halfback cleaner ball, so it becomes a reset scrum. However, if the rule were to be that the second a scrum collapses, the opposition flankers can unbind and go for the ball, people would stop doing that quicksmart, the dominant team would keep the advantage and we could avoid another typical cause of reset scrums.
All this scrumming business probably needs its own thread.
To say it has eliminated tighthead scrums is not necessarily true. Tightheads are most often won when (by winning the hit and putting the opposing scrum in a bad position and/or a well timed shove) the team feeding the ball is blown off of it or forced into an error due to the dominance of the other scrum. It usually isn't because of a hooker winning a "hooking contest". Although they occasionally pull off a great hook to win the ball, the opportunity is given to them by a whole pack. That less tightheads are being won reflects a few things. They are more common at schoolboy level due to the large variations in size and scrumming skill between teams, but at a professional level the packs tend to be very well drilled at scrummaging. Even someone who is "rubbish" like Maafu can usually prevent a total demolition of their scrum (except for against England) and the skill of the front rowers is reflected in the speed of their engagement. A team is rarely knocked off the ball outright just from the hit alone, though they may be destabilised by a better scrum. The players tend to be good enough to recover from this position or at least minimise the degree to which their position is compromised, meaning that they may not lose the feed, but may suffer from poor ball (either from going backwards or from being forced to send the ball out the wrong scrum channel. Also, the skill of the hookers is shown by their ability to win scrums where they are on the back foot (noting that they do of course have the advantage of knowing when the ball is coming in, unlike their opponent).
So, after that extended (and probably confusing) rant on scrummaging, the fact that rugby is now very professional and scrummaging is increasingly well coached is probably explains the lack of tightheads as much as crooked feeds. Not to say they aren't occurring, but due to the skill of the packs, rarely does one dominate another to the extent that they win a scrum outright. More often, they force poor ball and therefore an error or turnover later.
In answer to the thread's actual question - no, all halfbacks feed the ball to their side. So long as it is in the channel refs tend to be very lenient.
EDIT: having read the article posted above, it seems that my experience of the modern game reflects the changing nature of scrummaging. While stability remains important, it is more of a contest revolving around shifting the other team off the ball than a direct contest for the strike. I cannot say whether one is better than the other, as I have only played in the more recent style.
As for the question of culpability in scrum penalties, and the number of resets caused by pushing before the ball is in, I agree with the article, but would say that often deciding who is at fault for a scrum collapse is not as hard as it is made to look. Still, eliminating the problem largely would be helpful (and not pushing before the ball means less reset scrums, which is good).
Also, does anyone else think that once the ball has reached the number 8's feet, the attacking team should be allowed to collapse the scrum? They do it to minimise ground lost and give the halfback cleaner ball, so it becomes a reset scrum. However, if the rule were to be that the second a scrum collapses, the opposition flankers can unbind and go for the ball, people would stop doing that quicksmart, the dominant team would keep the advantage and we could avoid another typical cause of reset scrums.
All this scrumming business probably needs its own thread.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
That's the point, though, WB3. Loading up the hit is dangerous. We've known that since 1984, and they've changed the laws to account for it. A static, straight feed where the hookers not only can, but have to, hook is safer and more interesting, as well as making the scrum more of a challenge.
W
WB3
Guest
I disagree with the bolded part. As for safety, perhaps, although having hookers contort themselves to hook whilst under enormous load is potentially unsafe, I have no idea how that would compare to the current scrum. I also don't think it would make the scrum more of a challenge, just different. I don't want to seem like a kuncklehead, promoting unsafe practices and all, but the hit is an important part of the scrum, and when performed correctly is perfectly safe (like tackling). Anyway, the problem is not with the hit, it is with what happens after.
If you want a stable feed, that is fine; allow a hit, then allow the scrum to settle, feed the ball straight and then play on.
That is BASICALLY the rules as they stand anyway - the only difference is that the referees are not forcing the scrum to settle, or a straight feed. If they did, it would probably keep the best of both worlds. A scrum without an emphasis on engagement is halfway to a league scrum.
The point of my post before was more to point out the fallacy of the "less tightheads due to crooked feeds" statement than to say "straight feeds and stable scums are overrated. The lack of tightheads is due to far more than that, and is a result of the changing nature of scrums (which, I suppose, is partly a result of the crooked feeds) and the skill of the players.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
WB3, the hit isn't the key. It's only become the key in the last ten years. The reason is the crooked feed, because if your hooker can't hook, then you need him driving over the ball to have any chance. It's a bastardised bajadita, in effect..
It's Mike Cron's "Race to the Middle" idea. And it is dangerous, intrinsically so, because all the medical research shows it to be the primary mechanism for catastrophic injury at the scrum. However, it's also the only logical response to a crooked feed. A straight feed means a fast hooker can strike it clean out from under a slower guy (and Moore, having been good enough to do it, knows what he's on about). A crooked feed means he can't.
However, you don't break your neck striking. You can break your neck if you power up the engage and it slips on the engage. I've had it happen to my hooker in just that manner. Thankfully, not the cord, and nothing permanent; but that's the danger. It's why they've brought in the "touch" part, to bring the front rows closer and depower the hit.
You're forgetting that if you take away the hit, you get old-school scrums, with head-fencing and all the magnificent fun and games going on there. Make the scrum settle, with a straight feed, and you remove the need for a huge hit; you gain nothing by it, and you're better off having a good head-fencer instead of someone who engages like a rocket but can't recover.
It's Mike Cron's "Race to the Middle" idea. And it is dangerous, intrinsically so, because all the medical research shows it to be the primary mechanism for catastrophic injury at the scrum. However, it's also the only logical response to a crooked feed. A straight feed means a fast hooker can strike it clean out from under a slower guy (and Moore, having been good enough to do it, knows what he's on about). A crooked feed means he can't.
However, you don't break your neck striking. You can break your neck if you power up the engage and it slips on the engage. I've had it happen to my hooker in just that manner. Thankfully, not the cord, and nothing permanent; but that's the danger. It's why they've brought in the "touch" part, to bring the front rows closer and depower the hit.
You're forgetting that if you take away the hit, you get old-school scrums, with head-fencing and all the magnificent fun and games going on there. Make the scrum settle, with a straight feed, and you remove the need for a huge hit; you gain nothing by it, and you're better off having a good head-fencer instead of someone who engages like a rocket but can't recover.
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
I don't mind it and I'm a hooker.
Sure, it largely eliminates THs but that doesn't mean it eliminates your chance to give the opponent bad 1st faze ball. Also, it ensures the team who mucked up doesn't just get the ball straight back.
In an ideal world we'd see scrums fed through the middle but in an ideal world there would be no scrum collapses.
Sure, it largely eliminates THs but that doesn't mean it eliminates your chance to give the opponent bad 1st faze ball. Also, it ensures the team who mucked up doesn't just get the ball straight back.
In an ideal world we'd see scrums fed through the middle but in an ideal world there would be no scrum collapses.
Thin Thighs
Ted Fahey (11)
What about the "new" engagement sequence? Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage.
The timing differences between individual referees must confuse and frustrate scrums. With some it is like touch/pause very quickly, with others it is like touch (2 seconds), Pause (2 seconds) Engage.
T'other observation I have about modern scrums is that the feeding teams halfback is being nailed at the back of the scrum by the non feeding halfback more than "the olden days". Are the 8's not doing their job, are the 9's just useless, or are the non feeding #9's cheating?
The timing differences between individual referees must confuse and frustrate scrums. With some it is like touch/pause very quickly, with others it is like touch (2 seconds), Pause (2 seconds) Engage.
T'other observation I have about modern scrums is that the feeding teams halfback is being nailed at the back of the scrum by the non feeding halfback more than "the olden days". Are the 8's not doing their job, are the 9's just useless, or are the non feeding #9's cheating?
TheRiddler
Dave Cowper (27)
Anyone spot the Meerkat deliberating flouting the rules during the recent Eastwood v Uni game on ABC? Taking the piss and feeding the ball into the scrum one handed. Wasnt picked up by either the ref, AR or opposition 9. Very strange.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
It should be born in mind that, in a well-ordered world, scrum-halves would be the sort of thing you'd put down traps for or call Rentokil to get rid of them. After all, being around them is like having tinnitus; all you hear is this constant whining noise.
But they're forgiven, for three reasons. One, they're annoying little runts, but their my pack's annoying little runt, so they must be defended. Two, they're wearing a single-digit jersey, and they vaguely understand rugby (unlike backs), so you can stand them. Three, all you have to do is train the little fuckers to kick, and you can leave every other bastard out there to freeze while the forwards get on with the game as God intended.
But they're forgiven, for three reasons. One, they're annoying little runts, but their my pack's annoying little runt, so they must be defended. Two, they're wearing a single-digit jersey, and they vaguely understand rugby (unlike backs), so you can stand them. Three, all you have to do is train the little fuckers to kick, and you can leave every other bastard out there to freeze while the forwards get on with the game as God intended.
- Status