Scrum Talk

[boyo]

Nice use of (brackets) there, for some of us he will always be the the c##t who stood back & watched while his captain was getting his face bitten by a Frenchman & chose to do FUCK ALL about it, let the littest guy on the park try to drag his fat French arse off've him...

IIRC he was the opposition prop who recognised that Ben Darwin was in serious trouble.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^ correct.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-11-16/darwin-tells-of-injury-terror/1509824

I still can't forgive him (& the other JAFA's) for what happened in that France SF, though, absolutely shameful lack of gonads shown by everyone but Graeme Bachop.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I honestly don't follow what you're arguing here.

The scrum isn't guaranteed posession for the non-offending team. They have always been required to win the ball in the ensuing scrum.

I've never heard anyone advance this line of argument before.

Either it's a contest for possession or it isn't. If it's a contest for possession, then both sides must have a chance to win it. If we don't want it to be a contest for possession, but a guarantee of possession for the non-offending team, then we need to change the laws to relect that (which I don't support by the way).

You haven't heard that argument before. I have. That's why I brought it up. If a team has a stronger scrum, it's in their interest to make sure a scrum happens, whether it's their own feed or the opposition's. In your framework, a defending team with a stronger scrum is rewarded for doing something like knocking on, because they'll most likely win the scrum and a penalty. That's one reason I'm not so concerned about the feed angling in a bit, as long as it's not being fed directly into the hooker's feet.

And in either case, I'd rather see free kicks awarded instead of penalties. The less reward there is for collapsing a scrum and blowing smoke at the ref, the less reason there is to make scrums such an important means of scoring points.

 

[TOCC]

Australia has been on the receiving end of scrum penalties for a decade now, so naturally Australian fans will want the penalty reduced... There's no way in hell the northern hemisphere, South African, Argentina or even New Zealand will support such a concept though.

These countries won't support a free kick because the balls at the back and the scrum collapses, nor will they support any other proposal which reduces the value of the scrum as a means to accrue penalties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris McCracken]

You haven't heard that argument before. I have. That's why I brought it up. If a team has a stronger scrum, it's in their interest to make sure a scrum happens, whether it's their own feed or the opposition's. In your framework, a defending team with a stronger scrum is rewarded for doing something like knocking on, because they'll most likely win the scrum and a penalty. That's one reason I'm not so concerned about the feed angling in a bit, as long as it's not being fed directly into the hooker's feet.

And in either case, I'd rather see free kicks awarded instead of penalties. The less reward there is for collapsing a scrum and blowing smoke at the ref, the less reason there is to make scrums such an important means of scoring points.

Surely, though, its no different to a team with a dominant lineout who can win the opposition ball much of the time.

 

[fatprop]

One of the commentators on the weekend suggested that the ref should confirm "advantage" and then use the "use it" call.

The premise being "you have got the penalty, now try to do something positive with the f*chin ball"

 

[mxyzptlk]

Surely, though, its no different to a team with a dominant lineout who can win the opposition ball much of the time.

True, good point. The difference, I'd say, is no one is really complaining about line-out restarts taking up a third of the game and wasting everyone's time. And they generally look a lot better.

 

[TOCC]

One of the commentators on the weekend suggested that the ref should confirm "advantage" and then use the "use it" call.

The premise being "you have got the penalty, now try to do something positive with the f*chin ball"

This is what I believe should occur, it retains the value of the scrum so northern hemisphere teams can remain happy but it also encourages teams to have a shot at a backline move knowing that if it fails it can come back to a penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is what I believe should occur, it retains the value of the scrum so northern hemisphere teams can remain happy but it also encourages teams to have a shot at a backline move knowing that if it fails it can come back to a penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So they lose the penalty if they don't use it?

 

[Chris McCracken]

For the record, what I find most infuriating is the way everyone has a lie-down when the scrum is called. It takes minutes just to pack the scrum.

In one case the other night, I saw some props running back for a kickoff. Scrum was awarded for a knock on at the catch.

One of the props who ran back for the kickoff then went down for treatment. He hadn't done anything....

 

[Brendan Hume]

For the record, what I find most infuriating is the way everyone has a lie-down when the scrum is called. It takes minutes just to pack the scrum.

In one case the other night, I saw some props running back for a kickoff. Scrum was awarded for a knock on at the catch.

One of the props who ran back for the kickoff then went down for treatment. He hadn't done anything..

Agree completely. Doesn't happen in park footy where players don't have the same conditioning, shouldn't happen at the highest level. Refs really need to get tougher on players slowing down the play. Penalties and Yellow Cards if they don't sort out their shit.

 

[TOCC]

Yep that's annoying, teams are doing it intentionally to slow the game down... If a bloke needs to spend 2 min on the ground then they should be making the reserve prop or hooker come on..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[formerflanker]

Quick Hands posted a film clip of a 1964 scrum which was over in less than 20 seconds. Compare that the the interminable delays at scrum time in the Reds/Tahs game last weekend.
This blight on our game has the potential to destroy the players' and spectators' enjoyment of rugby.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd be interested to know the relative forces going through a scrum in 1964 compared to a scrum now.

Obviously the players are bigger and stronger, but I'd also imagine that technique is further increasing the forces at work.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Have a look at the historical neck injuries v today's rate as well.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Quick Hands posted a film clip of a 1964 scrum which was over in less than 20 seconds. Compare that the the interminable delays at scrum time in the Reds/Tahs game last weekend.
This blight on our game has the potential to destroy the players' and spectators' enjoyment of rugby.

If only rugby could go back to 1964 levels of fitness, strength and preparation, then the world would be grand.

Not sure that comparing today's game with the game 50 years ago makes a lot of sense. It's like comparing today's NFL to the leather helmet era.

 

[formerflanker]

If only rugby could go back to 1964 levels of fitness, strength and preparation, then the world would be grand.

Not sure that comparing today's game with the game 50 years ago makes a lot of sense. It's like comparing today's NFL to the leather helmet era.

If the "unfit" warriors of 1964 could run to the scrum mark, quickly set, and continue playing immediately, then today's supermen should be more able to achieve that same outcome. The moment a refs whistle blows today, all players stop and walk slowly to the mark. That issue at least must be improved, let alone the lengthy binding process.
So yes, comparisons can be made.

 

[Braveheart81]

If the "unfit" warriors of 1964 could run to the scrum mark, quickly set, and continue playing immediately, then today's supermen should be more able to achieve that same outcome. The moment a refs whistle blows today, all players stop and walk slowly to the mark. That issue at least must be improved, let alone the lengthy binding process.
So yes, comparisons can be made.

I think the difference is in how powerful scrums are and how strong the participants are.

As an analogy, let's say it's the difference between running up and having to lift a 100kg barbell or running up and lifting a 200kg barbell. They could all run up there and very quickly lift the first weight. For the second one they'd spend much more time preparing because it is more dangerous and more difficult to complete.

As someone also said previously, there is far more awareness regarding catastrophic neck injuries now.

I definitely think things should be sped up a bit but generally I just think they should stop the clock for scrum resets.

Lineouts also take far more time now but they are also far more technical with lifting etc.

 

[formerflanker]

I think the difference is in how powerful scrums are and how strong the participants are.

That really is the key.
If scrum collapses are the main cause of neck injury, then the law should be "shoulders higher than hips", not "no lower than the hips" as we have now.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I definitely think things should be sped up a bit but generally I just think they should stop the clock for scrum resets.

Stop the clock, award free kicks instead of penalties so scrums aren't seen as simply score-generating set-pieces, and refs should be much, much quicker to award those free kicks once a side tries to get tricksy with the dark arts. That'd be a start. I'd at least like to see that trialled.