Scrum Talk

[Rob42]

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.

I'm guessing each team has a chart defining the average time each ref takes between Pause and Engage. Nigel Owens on the weekend seemd quite happy to let the packs engage slightly before his call when the hit was simultaneous - almost as though he wanted to let them play the game. Shocking. Then we had the spectacle earlier in the Tri-Nations of...another ref, was it Joubert?...holding the packs up for an eternity after Pause, just so's they'd know who was really in charge.

 

[Richo]

Kaplan was doing "Crouch... Touch... Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse.... .... ... Engage" in Christchurch. Maybe that's who you're thinking of?

 

[DPK]

I'm guessing each team has a chart defining the average time each ref takes between Pause and Engage. Nigel Owens on the weekend seemd quite happy to let the packs engage slightly before his call when the hit was simultaneous - almost as though he wanted to let them play the game. Shocking. Then we had the spectacle earlier in the Tri-Nations of...another ref, was it Joubert?...holding the packs up for an eternity after Pause, just so's they'd know who was really in charge.

Or perhaps he was trying to control the game and prevent teams from going early?

 

[MrTimms]

A couple of ruggamatrix's ago they had a pommy prop (I think it was Dan coles) on talking about the hit and the removal of it from the game. he made some very valid points, and I don't think it would be a bad thing to go back to old school set then push. The hit should be illegal, because you shouldn't push till the ball is in anyway, and a hit is a push.

 

[Linus]

Taking up Mr Timms point. Every scrum half should know the the laws, that you put the ball in only when square and steady, or as the laws state stationary and parallel [20.1 (j)] which in effect should neutralise the hit. Going against this is that the ball must be placed in immediately, but a good half knows how to control the scrum to give his pack the best opportunity.

 

[en_force_er]

Particularly at a local level the whole touch-pause-engage call has become very very subjective. Last week I had a ref confuse all 6 front-rowers (me being one of them) so much that none of us could put a real hit on.

It was ridiculous, surely the best way to make a scrum safe is to have a universally accepted engage calling process that one can fully understand and execute properly and safely rather than the willy-nilly process we play in currently.

 

[Crow]

A couple of ruggamatrix's ago they had a pommy prop (I think it was Dan coles) on talking about the hit and the removal of it from the game. he made some very valid points, and I don't think it would be a bad thing to go back to old school set then push. The hit should be illegal, because you shouldn't push till the ball is in anyway, and a hit is a push.

I think it's a good call, but the push for changes in scrums must come from the 6N participants. If any SH nations pick it up, the NH media will scream "Blue murder" and it'll all go back under the mat. Especially given the English perception of their own scrum strengths, you just know that they'll say it's a plot to make it easier for SH nations.

 

[Lee Grant]

There was a discussion on Rugbyrugby recently about scrum collapses and Paul Dobson asked for some input. I got in my 5 cents worth and it included the crooked throw syndrome:

Scrum collapses are a blight on our game. I'm no scrum guru, just an ex-flank who was onside only at an occasional kick-off, but I'd warrant if the following four matters were addressed (the first two are connected), there would be fewer collapses - and yet the dominant scrum would still dominate.

(A) De-power the hit

The hit on engage should be de-powered because it has a built-in collapse element. Also, the importance of not missing the power hit has given rise to a spate of early engagements and consequent free kicks. This timing issue has added another element that referees can get wrong at scrum time and they do.

To those who would complain that depowering the hit would take away one of the great traditions of our game: it isn't. The power hit is a relatively recent phenomenon which has become more prevalent in the professional era. Around the time of the first Rugby World Cup the engage was simply that, and before then the front rows folded into each other.

In those earlier times the scrum with superior power after the engage, and better technique, still dominated and the scrums had a higher completion rate. Also front rowers did not have to absorb the power of modern hits and have their neck discs damaged.

(B) Make the scrums crouch closer to each other

Scrums crouch too far away from each other and the excess distance encourages the power hit. Front rowers have to have their feet back far enough to be in a position to push forward (with their weight on the front of their feet) but that's all the distance they need. The six heads of the front rowers should be at least aligned and there could be a case to trial the touching of necks before the put in with the commands being: Crouch, touch (necks), bind, push.

(C) Enforce the law of throwing the ball into the scrum straight

It is no wonder that there are bajada no-hooking scrums these days because the defending hooker has no chance to compete for the ball; he may as well push. The only tightheads one sees these days are when 2nd rowers accidentally kick the ball forward as it is thrown into their feet by their scrumhalf.

The throw into the scrum should be straight. It beggars belief that referees tutt tutt and wag their fingers at hookers who throw the ball 15 metres into the line-out slightly off line, when they allow scrum halves a minute later to throw the ball 1 metre into the scrum 20 degrees skew. This would take two weekends to fix up if referees had the will to do so, but they don't.

(D) Make the props engage squarely

Tweak the laws so that all four props should be required to engage squarely, not just be in a position to do so. One often notices that the loosehead prop is bound to his hooker in such a way that his chest is facing more towards the opposing hooker instead of the opposing tighthead prop. Guess what direction he will be directing his force to on the hit - and will this non-square hit by the loosehead prop tend to make more scrums collapse, or not?

Make the loosehead prop engage squarely and then if he can bore in after the square hit to wheel the scrum, good for him. It's the skew angle of his hit that is one of the collapse problems.

**********

There were some other responses; you can see them here:

http://www.rugbyrugby.com/laws_and_referees/law_discussions/story_7710130417.php

 

[Thomond78]

I think it's a good call, but the push for changes in scrums must come from the 6N participants. If any SH nations pick it up, the NH media will scream "Blue murder" and it'll all go back under the mat. Especially given the English perception of their own scrum strengths, you just know that they'll say it's a plot to make it easier for SH nations.

You might be surprised. We dislike the massive engage (except for the English), and Irish-Welsh games are quite old-school scrums still. We changed over mid-season to the current engage procedure, and I don't think anyone would object to old school; Moore, Thornley and others have all come out in favour of straight feeds and old-school scrums. Moore, in particular, has been running a campaign on it when on the BBC, so the ground has been prepared.

 

[Lee Grant]

PS

One idea I forgot to mention is to get the front row to bind first; then the 2nd row and then the back row. It's an old idea because it's virtually the way they used to do it – and it happened within a few seconds. Then the throw-in started the scrum and straight after the push happened.

No power hit; not so many collapses, but still a big physical and technical contest and the dominant team was rewarded more than they are now.

Now weaker scrummaging teams can get some approach to parity on the guess of the referee when the scrum collapses. We Aussies know all about that and I blush as I write it.

Back to the topic of the thread: the crooked scrum feed. Who is the main culprit for this unholy abomination? I waffle on about the referees, but in more sober reflection, and I mean that literally, it is the power hit that is to blame.

It takes an almost perfect hit from both teams to have credible tunnel in which to feed the ball straight. In reality, imperfect hits see the tunnel disintegrate as front rowers try to cope with the physics of them. Referees turn a blind eye to crooked feeds to conform to the reality of there not being a good tunnel.

I usually blame the fathers and grandfathers of current referees for the conventions they have observed which have corrupted the laws as they were written. But in fairness I can't match the evolution of the power hit with infractions of the laws as they were written at the time.

Therefore we should, in effect, legislate to outlaw the power hit before the feed by getting the front row to bind first.

Warning – we may see some strange things if the power hit disappears and a credible tunnel becomes common: things that happened in olden times wherein there was a contest in the scrums: where both of the two guys between the props tried to hook the ball back with their feet. We called them hookers.

Now and then the hooker whose head was further away from the ball than the other hooker, hooked the ball back to his side. In those days it was called a tight head. Now we say a tight head happens when the 2nd rowers kick the ball forward accidentally to the other side of the scrum because their scrummie threw the ball to their feet.

In the old days hookers who could earn tight heads were like rock stars in South Africa and even well regarded in Oz.

And - to eventually get back to the subject of the thread: the scrummies put the ball into the scrum straight, otherwise it spoilt the contest and they were pinged mercilessly when they didn't.

I'd like to see that – all of it.

 

[cyclopath]

Without trying to derail the "feeding thread" and veer off into the hit again, I found some of the overhead shots of the scrums in last week's game interesting, if only to see the ridiculous amount of angling in at the hit from both sides at times - on one occasion Myth was actually driving towards his own goal line partly! The shenanigans in that instant are the entire focus of the scrum now. Compare to the Wallaby 1984 famous push-over v Wales - watch them all fold into place as Lee posted above, but then just get a really good focussed drive on, and the rest is history. A good scrumming unit could get its advantage.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Be interesting to compare overhead scrum shots of Wobs vs Saffers at Loftus V (if they have the capability) to those shots from last weeks Ab's vs Saffers.

Are the AB's the only mob angling in as Cyclo has noticed?

Get rid of the hit. Bring back "proper" scrummaging, with the runts feeding the scrums in the centre, and hookers actually hooking for the ball.

There should be a reward for a dominant scrum - pushover try, instead of the collapse we are getting so used to under present rules.

The referees have changed their emphasis in relation to the tackle, which has opened up the game, without the need to change the rules of the game.

Why can't the referees (note to P O'B) sort out the cheating runt 1/2 backs, by simply enforcing the rules of the game??

 

[Gnostic]

I would like to see the "HIT" removed from the engage, back like it used to be. Now whoever gets the microsecond advantage will win the hit and in most cases be able to disrupt the opposition scrum.

The true contest for possession from hooking is disappearing as Moore said. If the hit was removed and the scrums engaged as they used to we wold see virtually no collapses, fewer resets and we would retain the genuine contest for the ball that the scrum is supposed to be. It wasn't that long ago that the Hit became prominent.

If the Ref isn't so focussed on see who is collapsing, not binding, jumping the engage etc etc etc he will then be able to police the crooked feed.

My other pet hate is the half back being in front of the ball at the scrum and tackling before the 8 even picks it up. A close third is the flankers slipping up their prop and pushing on the opposition prop.

 

[cyclopath]

Be interesting to compare overhead scrum shots of Wobs vs Saffers at Loftus V (if they have the capability) to those shots from last weeks Ab's vs Saffers.

Are the AB's the only mob angling in as Cyclo has noticed?

Get rid of the hit. Bring back "proper" scrummaging, with the runts feeding the scrums in the centre, and hookers actually hooking for the ball.

There should be a reward for a dominant scrum - pushover try, instead of the collapse we are getting so used to under present rules.

The referees have changed their emphasis in relation to the tackle, which has opened up the game, without the need to change the rules of the game.

Why can't the referees (note to P O'B) sort out the cheating runt 1/2 backs, by simply enforcing the rules of the game??

No, I don't think the ABs are the only ones angling in at all, I'm sure most, if not all teams do it, why wouldn't they? It's just that overhead angle on a couple of scrums last week, and they happened to do it then - other scrums wheeled too, but couldn't tell as easily who did what. Don't want to get them all upset about cheating, eh?
I agree with others it seems to be the hit - not quite right, and 1 team folds in sideways, or hinges and goes to ground. And the difference between refs in terms of gap, timing etc make it nigh on impossible to get consistent clean scrums. I think someone like Baxter would have scrummed "better" (i.e. had fewer collapses) throughout his career without the hit, as he tried to go too low I think, and reduced any margin for error. He never lacked for strength. Someone with a great technique and strength like Hayman would have been good in any era. get them square and engaged, then let them go. Just my 2c.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

At Provincial and International level, we have scrums of nearly 900kg impacting each other at the "Hit".

This energy is absorbed through the 6 front rowers spines.

Someone in Gaggerland smarter then me would be able to do the maths on the pressures/kinetic energy transfers on the front row spines/necks.

I am sure that it is not healthy.

Kinetic energy transfer is 1/2 mass x the velocity squared. Doubling the mass of the scrums results an increase of only 1/2 the energy. The dangerous bugger is the speed of the "hit". Slowing that down will have a huge impact on reducing the energy of the hit, therefore the potential for a serious neck/spine injury.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Scrum overhead shots show what a disgrace they are.
Props folding in.
Front row popping up.

Law makers and Referee bosses need to see these shots.

 

[Gnostic]

Scrum overhead shots show what a disgrace they are.
Props folding in.
Front row popping up.

Law makers and Referee bosses need to see these shots.

It is the biggest lottery in the whole game. At every single scrum somebody could get penalised for a blatant illegailty many but no all stemming from the hit.

If the hit was taken out the ref might be willing to penalise the other illegailities that at the moment just get let go, no doubt because the ref is thankful the bloody thing didn't collapse and just wants the play to move away from that phase.

 

[Thin Thighs]

Didn't really realise how crap modern scrums are until recently.

The Austin scrum video teaser helped focus my attention. I hate not being able to correctly answer questions like this.

The recent overhead video from Safferland of scrums has shown how crap they are. Imagine the inner self chortling when Gordon Bray and his like make statements in their call like " Good Solid Australian Scrum".... Horseshit - Obviously Gordon has never been a piggy, nor does he understand basic physics, or vector mathematics.

The overhead vision has been a real eye opener. Note to ARU and Topo R- buy some more of these cameras and conduct proper video analysis. Guarantee your selections will change.

 

[Thin Thighs]

Didn't really realise how crap modern scrums are until recently.

The Austin scrum video teaser helped focus my attention. I hate not being able to correctly answer questions like this.

The recent overhead video from Safferland of scrums has shown how crap they are. Imagine the inner self chortling when Gordon Bray and his like make statements in their call like " Good Solid Australian Scrum".... Horseshit - Obviously Gordon has never been a piggy, nor does he understand basic physics, or vector mathematics.

The overhead vision has been a real eye opener. Note to ARU and Topo R- buy some more of these cameras and conduct proper video analysis. Guarantee your selections will change.

The overhead vision from the scrums this weekend showed the props were less crap than last week.

Wonder if Teams have been looking at Overhead vision?

They also showed how badly the little #9's are feeding the scrum. Brings me back to the initial topic of this thread.....Cheating Halfbacks.

 

[Thin Thighs]

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?

I'm guessing each team has a chart defining the average time each ref takes between Pause and Engage. Nigel Owens on the weekend seemd quite happy to let the packs engage slightly before his call when the hit was simultaneous - almost as though he wanted to let them play the game. Shocking. Then we had the spectacle earlier in the Tri-Nations of...another ref, was it Joubert?...holding the packs up for an eternity after Pause, just so's they'd know who was really in charge.

Kaplan was doing "Crouch... Touch... Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse.... .... ... Engage" in Christchurch. Maybe that's who you're thinking of?

And meanwhile on Fox, the NZ Commentators during ITM Cup games have said that there is a bit of debate going on in Kiwiland about the inconsistencies of the scrum calls.
They said it is like "...trying to hold back a pack of wild horses with a few pieces of string"