Scrum Talk

[fatprop]

And are you happy with it now going back to the old ways or do you think it would be better left alone? I wonder if we can find some footage on youtube of the old scrums, that would be good.

Better, dunno but the issue to me is that scrummaging had become all about the hit and walking over the ball.

So the good scrums essential whack on a big hit and the half quickly feeds the ball as the scrum is walking forward.

As Baxter said on the podcast, the big hit means more collapses

 

[IronAwe]

I am a fan of the hit, and I agree that it is a good spectacle and great for promoting the game.

But I have to say, that if removing the hit, returns the scrums to a situation where it really is a battle between the two hookers and the props, I think we will get more tight heads, I think getting a tight head will mean a lot more, and I think the scrum will become more of a weapon for a team.

This is a good thing.

 

[Slim 293]

The hit can only survive if the packs move in a lot closer...

At the moment they stand so far apart (to obviously try and get the 'big hit') but there's no where else to go most of the time but to the ground, or for the prop to put his hand on the ground to stay up...

 

[Lee Grant]

I think we are digressing between what should happen with the current laws, and what is actually happening on the park - and especially, but not exclusively, what happens in the 3 months of wet and mud in the northern hemisphere and even sometimes in the Southern Hemisphere, especially when winter hits in NZ.


What we have to decide is whether or not the power hit is a good thing or a bad thing. It is certainly a new thing, unless one is relatively young. The pluses include a good spectacle as near to 1 tonne of players from each side smash together. The negatives I have mentioned in my earlier post and don't bear repeating except one: the dominant scrum is penalised by the power hit for all the reasons I mentioned.


There used to be no power hit: it is a confection of coaches to get a scrum advantage and started about 30 years ago, then become more prevalent in professional rugby as professional players had the time to condition themselves in the gym to take impact. Unfortunately they could not strengthen the discs in their necks, but never mind.


Rather than repeat what I have said earlier I will ask these questions of proponents of the power hit:

- if you have knowledge of how the scrum used to be, when the hookers could contest the scrum with a clear tunnel in which the ball was put in straight every time - do you think that contest is better than trying to win a power hit over 40cms .

Younger fellows would have a lesser understanding of the hooking contest and a better understanding of the hit contest; so their opinions are less valid because they don't really know what they don't know. But older fellows have seen both scenarios. Would they rather see the power hit contest with its consequent more frequent collapses or a hooking and power contest after the players engaged without the destabilising hit.


I think that younger fans think the old scrums didn't have power, or that dominant scrums didn't dominate because there was no power hit. There was power all right, but it was after the ball was put in and there were no benefits to the weak scrum because they guessed the hit right or they got the advantage of a referee's guess.


And the scrums stayed up more - or is that not a good thing?

 

[liquor box]

Can one of the older posters give an opinion of what the bodies of the forwards will look like with a different style of scrum. Will props need to be bigger, smaller or the same. Will the forwards of 2011 be suitable in a new scrum or will we see a new shape to the forwards?

Will this be the end of a mobile prop and hooker?

 

[DPK]

Younger fellows would have a lesser understanding of the hooking contest and a better understanding of the hit contest; so their opinions are less valid because they don't really know what they don't know. But older fellows have seen both scenarios. Would they rather see the power hit contest with its consequent more frequent collapses or a hooking and power contest after the players engaged without the destabilising hit.

But what about those who have played at a lower level where the power hit exists but there is still a very important hooking contest?

I think if the front rows start bound, they will bind loose and the power hit will still exist, just that the distance the hit is over will be minuscule in comparison to today.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't like the fact that the scrum has become all about the power hit, as it has led to more collapses. There are few things that blight the game more than endless scrum resets. I feel the life draining out of me every time I witness one. I'm all for a strong scrum having an advantage, as it should. There must be a better way.

On what Lee said, I can remember what scrums were like before the emphasis on the hit and IMHO they were better. They stayed upright more, there were more tightheads and probably more pushovers. There were some great scrummaging packs through that whole era, especially Argentina. As Lee pointed out, the power came on after the ball was fed and that's as it should be in my opinion.

Perhaps having the front rows binding first and then everyone else is the answer.

 

[Riptide]

Here's what I'd prefer. Packs bind (ref confirms bind), Opposing front rows touch, then engage (ref confirms binding is legal, square and over the mark).. scrum feed approved by ref (ref confirms feed is straight, and all players remain legally bound until he gives signals that scrum is over). I'd also prefer touchie/assistant ref confirms attaching tight-head bind remains legal and square throughout, while ref makes similar calls for attacking loosehead side.

 

[Gagger]

I'll say it - I also think there's a bunch of bullshit machismo to it. Anyone who says the 'hit' should be reduced must be 'soft', or want league scrums.

Rubbish

I'm with Lee, the scrums were never soft before and you always knew who had the dominant scrum - how many pushovers do you see nowadays? Now we get repeated collpases

 

[Sully]

I don't think it would make any difference to body types of front rowers. The hit is a tiny bit of the game.

 

[Lee Grant]

Rather than repeat what I have said earlier ...

Dear old Rex Mossop would have loved that one.

Can one of the older posters give an opinion of what the bodies of the forwards will look like with a different style of scrum. Will props need to be bigger, smaller or the same. Will the forwards of 2011 be suitable in a new scrum or will we see a new shape to the forwards?

Will this be the end of a mobile prop and hooker?

I don't see why it should change a lot. Props will still need to be big to exert power after the put in. Maybe power is the wrong word technically, maybe we should say "applied strength" instead. Props are bigger now on the average than in the 70s, but so are the 2nd row and the backrow. Then, as now (once the hit is over), technique played a huge part in scrum success.

I don't know why the present day props should not succeed as its the same as it is now when both sides have exerted a perfect power hit and the tunnel is in the same place. Teams that have perfected the timing of the hit will be disadvantaged, though in the past the timing of the power push was critical after the ball was put in. It was a pack effort then too and when one team didn't get the timing of the push right and the other team did, they would find themselves back-pedalling. The difference was there were fewer collapses.

Therefore you would expect that packs who got the power hit timing right would get the timing of the power push right.

As for it being the death of the mobile prop and hooker: mark my words - in the NH they will be making the counter argument that those bastards in the SH (read "Australians") want to do away with big guys and the game will lose its precious gift of being a game for all shapes and sizes.


It won't be all roses. The old props have to be involved in creating a scrum ELV and there has to be a protocol for the soft engage because coaches will want their front rows to be in the optimum position for the power push and there will probably be resets as front rows stand up because something isn't right.

There will be a lot of free kicks for this event in the transition period just as there are now for delay in throwing to the lineout, but they should become minimal over time.

And there will still be scrum collapses, especially when one team gets the power push right and the other team doesn't. It won't be the same as in the old days when amateurs folded in and did their power pushes. They didn't have the time to train in the gym anywhere near as long as the modern pro player does now; so they weren't as strong. There are other differences too that impinge on the scrummagers of now and then - you could start a thread on the subject.

But, with all these disclaimers and maybes, the scrum deserves an ELV just to see if the going back to the future is the way to go.

Maybe it isn't, but let's see.

 

[Mank]

And there will still be scrum collapses, especially when one team gets the power push right and the other team doesn't. It won't be the same as in the old days when amateurs folded in and did their power pushes. They didn't have the time to train in the gym anywhere near as long as the modern pro player does now; so they weren't as strong. There are other differences too that impinge on the scrummagers of now and then - you could start a thread on the subject.

But, with all these disclaimers and maybes, the scrum deserves an ELV just to see if the going back to the future is the way to go.

Maybe it isn't, but let's see.

Good points. Players will seek advantage in any way they can. Collapsing a scrum when the other team has the shove might be one of them. The idea is that it should in theory be easier to see which team collapses, as why would the one going forward collapse? Well, milking penalties is one reason. We see it in the current scrums. Pretty confident we'll see new kinds of trickery.

However, it's time to try something and I think removing the power hit and getting back to old style scrums is at the very least worth a try.

 

[Gnostic]

A few set-ups shown here from the 1984 grandslam tour and the most celebrated push over ever by Oz. Even backpedaling at pace the Welsh never looked like collapsing.

[video=youtube;ClIkEShVCQc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClIkEShVCQc[/video]

 

[Gnostic]

And another from the same tour - just have a look at the free kick at 0:49 I don't think I've seen one of those called in way too long.

[video=youtube;p6qBvqLR_uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6qBvqLR_uc[/video]

 

[Nusadan]

And another from the same tour - just have a look at the free kick at 0:49 I don't think I've seen one of those called in way too long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6qBvqLR_uc&feature=related

Ugh...the first two scrums showed the frontrowers hitting each other practically from a standing position...no such thing as 'crouching' there!

 

[Lee Grant]

Brings back memories that.

Not to the point but one of the silliest questions posed in the last 10 years by commentators and others has been: "Why would a team collapse its own scrum?"

It's the wrong question. The right question is: "Why couldn't the attacking scrum deal with the pressure exerted by the defending scrum, and why did the props have to move their arses out and their shoulders in and/or go down, or go up, to relieve such pressure?"

 

[DPK]

A few set-ups shown here from the 1984 grandslam tour and the most celebrated push over ever by Oz. Even backpedaling at pace the Welsh never looked like collapsing.

Man that first scrum was set quickly! Today's piggies better do some fitness training if they're going to bounce off the deck and have the scrum packed in about 5 seconds like in the clip.

If they could get things happening half as fast as in that clip, the game would take one of the most painful aspects (waiting for the scrum to be packed) straight out.

 

[Lee Grant]

Man that first scrum was set quickly! Today's piggies better do some fitness training if they're going to bounce off the deck and have the scrum packed in about 5 seconds like in the clip.

If they could get things happening half as fast as in that clip, the game would take one of the most painful aspects (waiting for the scrum to be packed) straight out.

Exactly - the posturing ritual of getting ready for the crouch is not part of rugby tradition. Add to that the catechism like drone of the high priest referee during his countdown, more like for a communion than for a scrum engage, and you get the impression that is a religious ceremony of long standing in our game.

It isn't - it's recent.

I hate these confected conventions that have taken us down the wrong path and which have attained bogus significance. These modern scrum conventions have destroyed the hooking contest, and spawned an excessive amount of scrum collapses and early engagement transgressions which has resulted in there being fewer completed scrums and more penalties and free kicks instead.

The IRB has failed in their effort to keep the scrums up in Europe during the 3 month wet and mud part of the season. They have tried the manage the hit instead of getting rid of it. Let's see the cart behind the horse this time.

 

[IronAwe]

Agreed. If we could get the scrums to half the speed shown in those clips it would be a huge step forward.

Man, Poidevin was everywhere.

 

[Slim 293]

It's incredible to watch in those videos two opposing packs pretty much just walk over to each other and launch into it instantaneously without going to ground...

I think you could take that to the IRB... play it to them... and rest your case...

It has everything but the stupid posturing, the ref on his high horse, and the constant collapses that Lee Grant has already pointed out...

Yet it still has that intensity when the two opposing sides launch into each other...

How is it we've gone so far backwards?!