Scrum Talk

[Lee Grant]

Has there been less front row collapses and more successful scrums as a result of the ref's no longer broadcasting the "yes 9" call to the fatties?

We'll have to wait for some bad weather because the change just happened last weekend and conditions were goodish.

Incidentally the couple of artificial pitches are getting a big tick this winter as regards to fewer collapses in bad conditions compared to what they would have been otherwise.

There was even a scrum hooked against the head by Munster yesterday against Gloucester.

What about the scrum with Clermont's feed 5M from their own goal-line in the 80th minute and Quins only 3 points behind?

The ball was fed straight and Quins hooked it.

Before the death of the power hit (may it burn in hell) and perhaps the discontinuation of "Yes 9 !!", I can guarantee that Quins would not have got that ball from the scrum unless Clermont kicked it through because the feed hit the lock's feet.

The hooking contest is a beautiful thing which is now reborn because the power hit is dead.

The best predictions are true when you make them.
.

 

[Lee Grant]

Lee Grant, I know you watch a hell of a lot more French rugby than I do. I was wondering if you caught the Toulon v Cardiff game where the ref awarded 3 penalty tries to Toulon. Would be interested in reading your take on it if you did.

I forgot to reply to this. I don't think I have seen three penalty tries in one match, let alone three to the same team, let alone, three to the same team in one half.

But I don't think that Cardiff can complain too much. They had obviously been warned before oranges because of the consequences of their inferior scrum. Then their THP just got blown away in the first scrum after the break when, of all people, Halfpenny dropped a routine pass. Then the Toulon scrum raced ahead and it collapsed. Garner awarded a penalty try because of 'probability', and a yellow card.

The only problem with that one in my eyes was that he blew the penalty too early because Steffon Armitage scored anyway a second or two after the whistle. Maybe there was a Toulon infringement that negated it, but I didn't see it.

The second yellow card and penalty try in the half was five minutes later for a maul that was traveling even faster than the scrum was towards the Cardiff line, before being pulled down. No brainer—I don't see any reason why a team can't be awarded both a penalty try against them and get a yellow card.

Not even commentators Johnny Hammond and Frankie Sheehan whinged about that one.

The third penalty try at the end of the game was probably coloured by persistent infringements from 5 meters out, in a short time, though there is nothing in the law book on that, only the probability of a try being scored but for the infraction.

The first of these infringements was for the lineout (pulling down ??). From the scrum option (eventually) the Quins scrummie was offside grabbing the Toulon no. 9 too early—second penalty.

From the tap and go and a subsequent ruck the Cardiff no. 8 kicked the ball out of the scrummies' hands, into the air. He got a yellow card for this third penalty.

From the scrum option Cardiff got walked back to under their posts and Garner saw a penalty event, and thought a Toulon try would have been scored otherwise (though I don't know what it was for). This was the fourth penalty in four minutes, all within 5 metres of the Cardiff goal line—third penalty try.

No—Cardiff should have no complaints about the three penalty tries but, not to the point, Toulon should have got a yellow card awarded against them for persistent infringements just before the last Cardiff try.
.

 

[suckerforred]

Jeeez. How many men did Cardiff have on the field by the end?

 

[Lee Grant]

Jeeez. How many men did Cardiff have on the field by the end?

The first card in the second half, relating to the first penalty try, was at the 41st minute and the second card for the second penalty try was at 46 minutes; so Cardiff had only 13 men for five minutes.

But the third penalty try was right at the end of the game and everybody was back on deck by then.

No card was given for this third penalty try, but the Cardiff no. 8 had already got one a minute before. Since I can't work out what the reason for the third penalty try was, except that it related to the scrum, it might not have been cardable, in itself, but you'd have to think it might have been had there been any time left on the clock.

Incidentally, Cardiff got a yellow card in the first half also, to make four yellow cards and three penalty tries against them in one match.

It wasn't their day.
.

 

[suckerforred]

Can you have a penalty try without a yellow card?

I seem to recall this discussion a while ago but can't remember the outcome....

 

[Lindommer]

Spose it's possible. If the whole front row, or maul, collapses it could be a bit difficult to find a particular offender. I would've thought a penalty try would be sufficient punishment in some circumstances.

 

[scaraby]

Can you have a penalty try without a yellow card?

I seem to recall this discussion a while ago but can't remember the outcome..

I was of the understanding that the Ref had to award a yellow card to someone if a penalty try was given under the rules

 

[scaraby]

Law 10.2A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
I guess if the ref couldnt identify the culprit then you may have an issue

 

[Bardon]

There were some interesting sights in the Leinster v Ospreys game tonight. Leinster were dominate in the scrum and would have been a bit miffed when the game went to uncontested scrums when replacement hooker Baldwin went off injured. Starting hooker Hibbard had already departed earlier and couldn't return due to injury.

Uncontested scrums themselves aren't that uncommon a sight but Ospreys brought on a 3rd prop and we returned to contested scrums with 3 props in the Ospreys front row. This led to the unusual sight of Adam Jones throwing into the lineout.

The commentary team pondered if a 3 prop front row would do a better job of hooking the ball in the scrum, an area where hookers have struggled since the law changes. The answers was they didn't do very well, but this was more to do with the pressure that Leinster put than a lack of hooking ability.

Also in the game it was good to see referee Poite remind scrum half Webb that it's his job and not Webb's to decide if the scrum is steady enough to feed the ball in. By the way Poite added to the range of methods to indicate the scrum half could go ahead by giving the thumbs up.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It warms the cockles of this former piggies heart to see a dominant scrum shunt the bejesus out of another scrum backwards, after a clean hook and the ball controlled at the feet of the #8 while they advance 5 or 10 metres (or more).

Getting rid of the power hit should make it dogs balls obvious which prop is deliberately collapsing the scrum. It should also reinstate the scrum as a platform that allows the princesses to launch incisive attacks from.

 

[Bardon]

Very good point Hugh and it's something that came up in the commentary in last night's Leinster game. The commentary team were talking about how players need to realise the opportunities available to move the ball once the scrum starts marching forward rather than holding the ball at the back for too long.

These changes in the scrum are truly the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Bardon]

Today's Munster v Edinburgh HEC round 6 game is worth checking out for a fantastic contest in the scrum. One of the best I've seen in a long while.

 

[Pfitzy]

There is no Law stating that a given punishment must involve a yellow card. "Cautioned" is a very wide open term - witness recently retired ref Kaplan*, who would continually warn people about yellow cards (particularly the All Blacks or anyone playing the Waratahs) and then never award it until the last ten minutes.

Refs are fucking soft when it comes to yellow cards. A professional foul can occur at any time in the game. Do it early before the players get too tired, and draw the line early. You'll get a better game of rugby, I guarantee it.

* who I will NEVER forgive for failing to card McCaw when the bloke basically did something that said "This is the embodiment of professional foul".

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Not happy with the way the scrum has reverted to be a platform to gain a penalty from instead of legitimate contest for the ball from which the winning team can launch an attack.

For about 1 week of the new rules/engagement sequence, I had hopes that things would change. Silly me.

Yappy Cheating Runt #9s are still not feeding the ball in the centre of the scrum.

Hookers are not legitimately contesting for the ball. Either they are hooking about three weeks early, or not hooking at all, relying on Yappy Cheating Runt #9's to win the scrum for them by illegally feeding the scrum.

Too much time is still being lost in the set up of the scrum. Each scrum = a minimum of 1 minute of game time lost.

Far too many scrums end in a PK or FK after wasting 60 or more seconds of game time.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Not happy with the way the scrum has reverted to be a platform to gain a penalty from instead of legitimate contest for the ball from which the winning team can launch an attack.

For about 1 week of the new rules/engagement sequence, I had hopes that things would change. Silly me.

Yappy Cheating Runt #9s are still not feeding the ball in the centre of the scrum.

Hookers are not legitimately contesting for the ball. Either they are hooking about three weeks early, or not hooking at all, relying on Yappy Cheating Runt #9's to win the scrum for them by illegally feeding the scrum.

Too much time is still being lost in the set up of the scrum. Each scrum = a minimum of 1 minute of game time lost.

Far too many scrums end in a PK or FK after wasting 60 or more seconds of game time.

Mostly agree but hard for a hooker to hook when the "yes 9" call from the ref is the signal for the opposing scrum to get their 2nd hit on. Need to go back to the feeding teams hooker signalling the feed, provided he's not too slow about it - give him say 15 seconds to get his feet positioned where he wants them, the ref should give say a 5 second warning then call "now 9" or similar if it's still not been fed, or at least the ref giving a non-verbal signal to feed. HB's love slapping their forwards on the arse, maybe they could get a bitve a tap from the ref?

There's a great YouTube clip of the classic '73 AB v Baa match in which a scrum is awarded, formed & contested within no more than 20-30 seconds. I have no idea how, but we need to get back to something like that being the norm. It's a vital part of our game, we just need to figure out how to do it better.

Saw on another thread someone wanting to take away the scrum option at penalty & FK time. Bad idea IMO, if you have a dominant scrum you should be able to utilise it, it's no different to kicking the penalty to touch & relying on your dominant lineout to get the ball back.

 

[boyo]

The referees don't say "Yes 9" these days - they use a non-verbal signal.

Some hookers seem to rely on their team moving forward rather than hooking.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

The referees don't say "Yes 9" these days - they use a non-verbal signal.

Some hookers seem to rely on their team moving forward rather than hooking.

Pretty sure I heard at least a couple of "yes 9" calls in the Chiefs v Crusaders so assumed it was still optional. If not, good. Agree on your other point, true hooking seems to be a bit of a rarity thee days. On a positive note, at least our scrums haven't been completely leagueified.

 

[Quick Hands]

Not happy with the way the scrum has reverted to be a platform to gain a penalty from instead of legitimate contest for the ball from which the winning team can launch an attack.

For about 1 week of the new rules/engagement sequence, I had hopes that things would change. Silly me.

Yappy Cheating Runt #9s are still not feeding the ball in the centre of the scrum.

Hookers are not legitimately contesting for the ball. Either they are hooking about three weeks early, or not hooking at all, relying on Yappy Cheating Runt #9's to win the scrum for them by illegally feeding the scrum.

Too much time is still being lost in the set up of the scrum. Each scrum = a minimum of 1 minute of game time lost.

Far too many scrums end in a PK or FK after wasting 60 or more seconds of game time.

Could not agree more HJ. My observations are:

From the whistle at infringement to conclusion it's close to 2 minutes, 3 if there's a reset.

I've watched a couple of 6 nations games this year in which the commentators congratulated the dominant scrum for earning a penalty. The higher the level of rugby, the more this seems to apply.

According to the laws : The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20

It is not being coached, played or refereed that was at the professional level.


What I've noticed about the new scrum engagement sequence is that at the "bind" call, things look pretty good, but at the "set" feet go back and heads and shoulders drop to or below the hips. The laws of physics and Newton's Law of Gravity mean that this position is extremely difficult to maintain, particularly if both sides are exerting forces designed, not to push the other team off the ball, but to engineer a collapse or pop by the opposition.

I'm not sure exactly when the purpose of the scrum stopped being winning the ball with a combination of striking for it and/or pushing the opposition of it, to trying to "win" a penalty.

I watched the Cheetahs v Hurricanes game on Saturday and the first scrum of the match was at the 35 minute mark (and it took 3 minutes) and the game was so fast and flowed as rugby should flow. What seemed like poor defence was actually a response to the speed of the game.


As I've said on a couple of other threads, one part of the laws that I would like changed is that teams no longer can take a scrum in lieu of a penalty or free kick - it just kills the speed and flow of the game. (referees have a part to play here - they need to give teams far more latitude in taking quick taps instead of being pedantic about on which blade of grass the mark was)

As an aside, quite why a team like the Waratahs whose whole game is built on playing at speed, take scrum options at a penalty is quite beyond me. Dave Dennis had a poor game as captain last night and this was another aspect to that.

 

[Quick Hands]

Saw on another thread someone wanting to take away the scrum option at penalty & FK time. Bad idea IMO, if you have a dominant scrum you should be able to utilise it, it's no different to kicking the penalty to touch & relying on your dominant lineout to get the ball back.

The difference is that we're in the entertainment business. If scrums were done as the laws intend; i.e. quickly, and were a striking/pushing contest to win instead of a penalty winning contest I'd be with you. In fact I used to hold the same view as you.

Unfortunately they have become a blight on the game.

Incidentally they lottery that is the scrum penalty really means that by taking the scrum option, you are putting your future in the hands of the referee. Most unwise I'd suggest.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Have we reached the limit of human endurance?

It has taken thousands of years for the human body to evolve into the shape that it is, to be able to contain the stresses that we put it through.

In the old days, when 8 packed against 8, the props were 100kg, hooker 90kg, second row would be 95kg and 100kg, flankers would be 90 kg and 95 kg, and No 8 was 95kg. Total weight 765 kg. Scrums didn't collapse much, hookers fiercly contested the hooking contest, and scrums were over and done with in about 30 seconds.

Today the modern scrum is at least 110kg heavier: Props 115 and 110 kg, Hooker 102 kg, Second row is 120 and 110 kg, flankers are 100 and 105 kg and No 8 is 110 kg. That is the equivalent of a 9 man scrum going through the same 3 fatties spines as previously. Hookers don't hook, scrums collapse frequently, scrums can take up to 3 minutes of game time and are concluded with the award of a frequently inexplicable penalty more often than not.

Some voodoo maths that may or may not be relevant.
Previously 3 fatties spines and necks took the weight of 765kg and absorbed the weight of 765 kg in the other direction. That is 255kg per spine (or 510 kg per spine if you consider both packs weights).
Nowdays the fatties are taking 872 kg (1744kg) or 290 kg (581 kg) per spine.
The figures are 12% higher across a generation. Have we strengthened the human spine and neck by 12% in that same generation?

Is it time to drop one of the forwards from the scrum, and get the pretty boys back 5 metres from the last feet?