Scrum Talk

[Quick Hands]

And he only got pinged once, that's why he's still in the side.

If the Wallabies had scrummed like that we'd have seen a procession of penalties followed by a yellow card.

 

[qwerty51]

I wasn't arguing his critic of the ABs it was his overall message I don't like, the whole tone of the article is that scrums must be used for penalties rather than restarting play.

 

[Strewthcobber]

And he only got pinged once, that's why he's still in the side.

Will be interesting to see how he goes this weekend, and what the future is like once more and more stadiums start using the spidercam.

It really changes how the TV viewer (or really keyboard warriors like us) see the funny business in the scrum, and as he says in the article, if the refs can't see the most obvious stuff like this, then their credibility is going to be left way behind.

 

[pjm]

I wasn't arguing his critic of the ABs it was his overall message I don't like, the whole tone of the article is that scrums must be used for penalties rather than restarting play.

The tone of the article was one for the purity of scrums free from illegal activities and that of safety. Did you ever spend a good period of time in the front row in your days?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I wasn't arguing his critic of the ABs it was his overall message I don't like, the whole tone of the article is that scrums must be used for penalties rather than restarting play.

I think you're right to some degree, when scrums have some semblance of stability refs shouldn't be looking to award penalties. Lord knows we've been on the wrong end of it over the years

But in the two cases in the article they disintegrate, and the ref really should be blowing the whistle to keep the situation safe.

If he blows the whistle then, he has to decide on an outcome, and penalizing the guy who created the instability seems like the only legitimate decision.

 

[kiap]

I wasn't arguing his critic of the ABs it was his overall message I don't like, the whole tone of the article is that scrums must be used for penalties rather than restarting play.

So basically you agree that the ABs LHP was boring in illegally and dangerously and should have been penalised.

But the whole "tone", or "vibe", was unnecessary. Inflammatory, even. The writer ought to be ashamed of himself.

 

[Pfitzy]

Was Woodcock actually penalised though? Or was it the AB back five walking around the corner?

I did this breakdown for TSF but here it is again:

if you look just at the first scrum there are a few things to note:

Pre-engagement with lines of T5 torso marked. You can see from this the shear the Wallabies are trying to create with their second row, but are very smartly keeping their front row straight as a die. Horwill and Mumm, meanwhile, are about to drive at an angle. Why do this? Check out Tony Woodcock: not even attempting to pack straight (duh), but then Coles is off at an angle too, while Franks is pretty straight.

Speaking of Franks - he isn't "leading" as the THP, where you should have your shoulders slightly ahead of the hooker. It helps stop the loosehead getting around you if he's so inclined. Romano's height at TH lock looks too high, and he doesn't look bound tight enough to BBBR across the shoulders.

Post-engagement look at the shoulder position of Horwill and Mumm (circled) versus Romano - they are preparing for a big shove on their skipper, acting as the third prop. Moore doesn't have to hook so he can take the pressure. Coles needs to get his foot up (sort of - the feed wasn't straight either way all night) and so Romano should have all his weight through Franks, but due to bad setup, can't.

But look at Woodcock - shortly to be folding like a cheap table, his bind is bad and his shoulders are turning inwards. He's no help to Coles at this point, and the other red circle shows Kepu has effectively broken Coles' hold on Woodcock.

The ball goes to the back of the scrum and Read holds it under his feet when the Wallabies get another shove on and things start to go bad. The line of the Wallabies' force is starting to make Woodcock's angle more noticeable, and the whole pack is going with him. Look at how tight the Wallaby pack are bound - for a change - we have a lot to thank Ledesma for, but really this is fucking basics that should be taught from school level onwards.

And now its just ugly - thank fuck A Smith threw that in under Woodcock's feet or that could have been disastrous in terms of outright possession or penalty.

 

[pjm]

Can't teach an old dog new tricks. Show me a scrum where Woodcock is straight and then I'd be surprised.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^And no penalty to us for the scrum at 1.45 shown in Pfitzy's post.

This is where we need Monsieur Poite et al

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The overhead spider cam view has the potential to change the way people think about who is in breach of the laws of the game at scrum time.

It is blatantly obvious who is cheating when spider cam view is shown.

Reference to TMO would be useful but it would only hold up the game for questionable benefit.

Educate the referees. Most of them were Backs (onlookers) in their playing day and have no idea at all when it comes to scrum time, and are easily bluffed.

Good analysis @Pfitzy.

 

[Quick Hands]

The overhead spider cam view has the potential to change the way people think about who is in breach of the laws of the game at scrum time.

It is blatantly obvious who is cheating when spider cam view is shown.

Reference to TMO would be useful but it would only hold up the game for questionable benefit.

Educate the referees. Most of them were Backs (onlookers) in their playing day and have no idea at all when it comes to scrum time, and are easily bluffed.

Good analysis @Pfitzy.

I agree with much of this HJ. It illustrates what I've said many times on these threads re scrum penalties - 1/3 of the times the referee gets it right, 1/3 of the time he gets it completely wrong and the other 1/3 could have gone either way. Which is why I've come around the the Poite doctrine - if your scrum stays straight and is dominant - you get the penalty unless it's blindingly obvious that you have infringed.

 

[Gnostic]

I think many of the people who have complained about the use of Spidercam haven't considered the long/medium term ramifications for the Australian scrum in particular. That was such a dominant display and totally within the laws that it has the real possibility that it will alter perceptions of the Wallaby scrum.

I did find it very frustrating when they tried to follow general play with it and was cursing it and the producers a fair bit during the game, but I will accept that for the outcome that this footage should produce.

 

[fatprop]

Was Woodcock actually penalised though? Or was it the AB back five walking around the corner?

I did this breakdown for TSF but here it is again:

Great work mate, here is a piece from Ireland doing the same kind analysis, only for money

http://www.the42.ie/australia-new-zealand-scrum-analysis-2267495-Aug2015/

 

[Tex]

It's great to read in depth scrum analysis. For so long in Australia us good looking former backs have had to settle for Buddha Handy and Kearns for our in game scrum insights. Too often all we got was a wry chuckle and mumbled blather about the "dark arts" or the front rowers' union.

I find myself excited about scrum time, which is 180° from where I used to be.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

The challenge, always, is to correct yourself in the milliseconds you have between having a good scrum and collapsing into a bad one. Similar to making a tackle, but the end result of a bad tackle is your opponent gets away.

The end result of a bad scrum is humiliation and the knowledge you probably have to front up for another one shortly thereafter.

 

[Gagger]

I think it's impossible for one ref, standing at the side of a scrum to get more than 30-40% of the scrums right, except by chance and guessing on what looks like dominance + perception.

But this can be fixed!

• TMO is specially trained in scrummaging.
• Watches each scrum live via spider cam. Can replay instantly if needed
• Ref on ground can access at any time, or be fed info from TMO, live. Need not hold up game and instead eliminate a lot of resets and shithouse scrummaging tactics like the Kiwis have been rolling out for years

Simple

 

[Pfitzy]

OR I get off my arse and get qualified as a ref, then obtain Portuguese citizenship so I can ref the Wallabies as a neutral.

Simples

 

[kiap]

Following the Bok uncontested scrums:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&year=2015&clarification=1014

Clarification 5 2015

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling: 5-2015
Union / HP Ref Manager: Joel Jutge
Law Reference: 3
Date: 19 August 2015

1. Assuming a team only has two players in the starting 23 who can play tight head (TH). If the starting TH of that team is injured and replaced by the replacement TH and the replacement TH is subsequently temporarily replaced (either through blood or a HIA), can that team bring on a replacement, even though when the next scrum is awarded, that team will not be able to provide a suitably trained TH?
2. If that team is allowed to bring on a replacement, what should happen at the next scrum?
3. If that team is allowed to bring on a replacement, what happens if that temporary replacement becomes permanent?

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
In specific answer to the question:

1. Yes the team can bring on a replacement
2. Uncontested scrums with 15 players
3. If the temporary replacement becomes permanent then the game continues with uncontested scrums but with 14 players

For the case of completeness the following may help:

Definition from Law book:
Replacement. A player who replaces an injured team-mate.
Substitute. A player who replaces a team-mate for tactical reasons.

Example 1: 3 is injured and replaced (note definition above) by 18 (the declared TH cover). If 18 gets then gets injured the team goes to 14 players and uncontested scrums. (Law 3.5 h, m and t )

Example 2: 3 is substituted (note definition above) by 18 (the declared TH cover). If 18 gets then gets injured then 3 can return and the game continues with contested scrums (Law 3.5 r and s and 3.13)

Example 3: 3 is injured and replaced by 18 (the declared TH cover). If 18 gets then gets temporarily replaced for Blood (Law 3.10) or HIA (Law 3.11) the team can continue with 15 players but scrums become uncontested until 18 returns. If 18 does not return then the team goes to 14 players and uncontested scrums. (Law 3.5 h, m and t)

Example 4: 3 is substituted by 18 (the declared TH cover). If 18 gets then gets temporarily replaced for (Law 3.10) or HIA (Law 3.11) then 3 can return and the game continues with contested scrums. (Law 3.13)

In order to facilitate this process and apply Law 3.5(g) then teams should declare prior to the match (on the competition team sheet) exactly which front row positions that players are suitably trained and experienced to play in. These players can be nominated to play in more than one front row position.

 

[Braveheart81]

I find it bizarre that the reserve front rower can be replaced temporarily for blood/concussion but if that change has to become permanent, the replacement has to leave the field and the team drops to 14 players.

 

[Jagman]

So you can't replace with a backrower and have uncontested scrums, which you'd have anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk