Video: Front Row Technique Issues - Green and Gold Rugby
ACT Brumbies

Video: Front Row Technique Issues

Video: Front Row Technique Issues

Watching the Crusaders v. Waratahs and Brumbies v. Reds games from the weekend it was apparent that the problems with Australian scrums are not going away.

Once Tatafu Polota-Nau went off injured, the Waratahs scrum started going backwards dramatically, then improved until the last quarter of the match when it fell apart again. In both games there were numerous re-set scrums.

While I acknowledge that I’m no expert on scrums, after watching the footage of Ben Alexander against the Reds I wanted to take a closer look at front row techniques. This video focuses on the Brumbies scrum, but all Australian Super Rugby teams have issues with their technique. It’s also got to be hard for Ben Alexander playing half his year at loosehead for the Brumbies and then the other half of the year at tighthead with the Wallabies.

I know there were plenty of other scrums I could have looked at but there’s only so much time in the day.

The points I make in the video seem pretty obvious to me, but let me know how you see it.

[youtube width=”600″ height=”450″][/youtube]

  • Skip

    it’s pleasing to see Mark Lawrence remember that a prop’s hand on the deck is illegal…….:-s

  • Kunte Kinte

    I completely agree with your point of view. Literally! Your argument based on the angle you see is absolutely true. Like John Smit, I played both hooker and prop back in the day. Taking control of the scrum is absolutely important. During our scrum, my pack followed my call. To try and mentally defeat the opposing pack, I would sometime try make the call and initiate alot of penalties based on timing.

    What i see here is hookers without control. Unless that rule changed and the ref now calls the bind sequence then I respect that. # 2. You’re right. Ben Alexander’s pre-bind position is wrong and he is absorbing the opposing prop’s weight and momentum. Judging from past experience, he may have a secret injury or soreness he doesn’t want to expose. Andrew Sheridan, the Wallaby prop-killer exploited this weakness prior. Sheridan may not be a first choice prop In England at the moment but I’m sure if we meet England @ the RWC 2011, Johno will bring him on alongside Wilko and punish us on the penalties.

    #3. I had a great flanker who had a clever way of supporting me. It appears not only is Alexander supporting the opposing flanker’s weight but he may also be carrying his own flankers weight. His flanker is the first one to disintegrate in this chaos. For years, I have been calling for TPN’s positional change to prop. For a moment, join my fantasy land and see how great the forward play of Moore and TPN would be in a wallaby jersey. I think Moore is a better thrower than TPN anyway. That would give us an extra back reserve in the 16 jersey and we would only need a prop for a reserve front row replacement.

  • james

    Good analysis. I fail to see why Alexander is rated as one of our best props, it seems like he’s struggled with scrummaging for years, no?

    He may be the Brumbies best try scorer but if this keeps up he’s definitely going to cost them more than he scores.

  • Ben

    That was very interesting… also seems Alexander is packing too high

  • Josh

    All these a very valid points, but binding isn’t the whole scrum… Look at 0:19, and the scrum that follows. To me it looks like one of the props is boring in on the opposition hooker and isn’t pushing straight. It’s things like these and referee’s not knowing the that i think kills the scrum. Also, when i was younger, i thought we weren’t allowed to push in the scrum before the ball was in… But maybe that has changed in recent years?

  • MattyP

    Scott, it seems to me the problem is less one of binding than one of body angle. If your hips are higher than your shoulders (which is a penalisable offence in itself…), and squeezed between two packs, there’s only one way to go. You can bind as well as you like on the THP, but that’s just making sure that he’s going to fall on you the harder.

    If you are packing against a low opposition, the solution isn’t to bend forward at the waist (a la Al “Hinge” Baxter). It’s to bend your legs a little more (rather than splaying them wider) and sink in the hips. Seems simple, doesn’t it? I was taught this by an old dog when I first propped, at age 19 (I think it was my opponent at the bar afterwards!). Who’s mentoring these guys?

    • Spot on Matty P. Body angle is key…binding is just the icing on the cake. The problem here is in Alexander’s hip position, relative to his shoulders and the ground.

      In the second scrum, Palmer had bugger all support from behind, despite having an OK body position…

  • rugby smartarse

    totally agree with Matty P. When I was propping (admittedly some time ago and never at this level) the rule was if you are getting pushed back, bend your knees – this allows you to dig your heels in and take more of the pressure. It seems Aussie props these days are taught to keep their legs straight, maybe so they can get a better push, but when they are getting out pushed it means they get walked off the ball (at best) or collapse (at worst). Interestingly, NZ props seem to have their hips lower and knees bent more – and when there is a strong contest, the scrum is still stable.

  • Nabley

    While I agree with what has been written, there are other points that have been missed. Take for example the requirement for the tighthead to bind by …”grip the loosehead prop’s jersy with the right hand only on the back or the side”. Most tight head props grip the loosehead behind the upper arm. Some of you may remember Baxter being refereed off the field in a Test for doing that. However it is a good law as it stops the tighthead pulling the loosehead down. The problem is, this part is poorly if ever policed.

    Reality is players and props in particular will shave any advantage they can from the way a law is being interpreted by the ref or the opportunity provided by the opposing player. Perhaps the real point is more one of the delay that the refs allow for the throw in. That allows scrums to screw up. My reading of the law is ..”As soon as the front rows come together, the scrum half must throw the ball in without delay”. It also says that.. ” voluntary delay in throwing the ball in must be penalised” It says nothing about the scrum being steady which most scrum halfs wait for. While they wait, the front row and the rest of the scrum like feral kids, cause trouble.

    Finally a mojor contributor to the problem is the way the refs often position themselves in front of the scrum half, going through their routine of getting it to pack. By being there, they obstructing the scrum half. Fortunately in the video example above, the ref has not been obstructing, but he does in the majority of games.

    More speed at the trow in as required by the law, would lead to less problems and more successful scrums without resets.

  • Mad Dog

    The continual repeating of crap about Baxter is a pain. In 2005, on a Twickenham surface that was downright dangerous, Baxter had a bad time. He came back from that experience, and completely changed his whole set-up to packing a scrum. He packs lower than any other prop in Australia except Robinson. He has his back parallel to the ground, his head up before engagement, and his arm and elbow very high. He does his bit, the rest need to do theirs.

    I played prop with Sydney Uni (one first grade game, LOL, lots of 2nds) and in subbies, Kentwell Cup, then down thru the grades until I was 42. I then coached for another 7 years. As a loosey I can tell that if the ref allows the tight head to bore in, or drop his shoulder, you are stuffed, since you have nothing to push against. The absolute keys to good scrummaging apart from front row body height, are how hard the hooker can pull the props together, and how well the second rows keep the props bums from spreading outwards. The whole weight of the scrum needs to feed through to the props inside shoulders. Polota Nau has very long, strong arms, which helps no end.

    Alexander has lousy technique, and always has had.



    • Nabley

      All was saying about Baxter was he was penalised repeatedly because he continually griped his opposite number at the back of his upper arm pulling him down instead of gripping on the back or side. That was why he had to be replaced, no more no less. He still does it from time to time and like most gets away with it, but in doing so if he is of a mind, destroys the scrum. You may have played a lot of rugby and coached a bit, but you also need to learn the detail of the laws.

      • Mad Dog

        Refs very rarely give ‘arm binding’ as a reason for a penalty. Could you cite an occurrence. Baxter has been, on my observation in the last four years, rarely cited by a ref as the ‘reason’ for a scrum penalty, and I have watched virtually all of his games for the Tahs and Australia. Again, examples please. In 2005, Joel Jutge sent off Baxter because he was the nearest front row, after The Australian scrum collapsed for about the fifteenth time. In that game our front row was Baxter, Cannon and Dunning. The rest of the scrum comprised one real second rower (Sharpe) and four backrowers, McMeniman, Smith, Waugh and Roe, all of them lightweights. The England front row outweighed us by over 15 kg per man, and the rest of the scrum was down much more than that, per man. Here’s the teams. Gregan was yellow carded in the 25th minute, and that is when our scrum woes started. Smith played half, and we were stuffed, because McMeniman wasn’t a second rower, and the poms ploughed straight through between Dunning and Cannon. After that, the ref had made up his mind, and Sheridan could do what he liked. He deliberately pulled down Baxter at least five times, and then did it to Dunning after Baxter was sent off, and Dunning changed sides. I still have a video of the match. In the 2007 WRC quarter final, lost by us 10 – 12, (Tuqiri try, Mortlock 2 from 5, vs Johnny , 4 pens from 7), Baxter dealt perfectly well with Sheridan, and the notoriously pedantic Alain Rolland of Ireland found one penalty against the Australian scrum, vs 3 against the Poms. So much for the self perpetuating myths.



        • Nabley

          It was not the 2005 occassion, but it was against England and Baxter was not sent off, he was replaced quite early in the match, after about 4 penalties. I think Deans was coaching. You are right, it is not picked up very often because the refs by their own admission know stuff all about what happens in front rows. See my comments to Nutta below.

  • Nutta

    Straight legs from a prop means he intends to “hold or fold”. As a prop you pack with straight & locked-out legs when you are committed to not giving ground – like your feed on your own 5m line against a strong opponent. To pack with locked out legs beyond that scenario tells me (as the opposing prop) that either you are an impostor (yay) or that you have no faith in your scrum (also yay). Either way I going to eat you – especially these days when we pack so much closer that I can deliberately pack soft and force you to collapse forward (did I say that…?).

    Re quicker feeds. There are rules and then there is reality. Bear in-mind a scrum is approx 900kg driving forward at approx 20-25km/hr. Someone better at physics will tell you specifics, but when 2 packs engage that’s roughly the same impact as driving my old Kingswood ute into a tree at 50km/hr. And you want a Hooker to firstly withstand that impact on one foot and be foot-up, stable and ready to strike immediately post it? Physically not possible with any degree of stability or safety. And it’s made worse these days with the dumb-arse 4-part call that simply allows me more time to coil me up like a spring waiting to explode forward all the while analysing my opponents stance for a weakness? C’mon…just because it’s a rule doesn’t make it right

    In terms of binding, it is truthfully a bit of a lottery sometimes. You will have a plan prior to engagement, but given every scrum is a little different and no two scrums are ever identical, your pre-engagement plan goes out the window when the engagement begins and between changes in your opponents, your own fatigue and your own scrum support, sometimes it can really just be “grab what you can”!

    Personally – and I know lots will argue with me – given how close the refs make us stand these days, the idiotic 4-part call and the resulting kinetic energy it allows to build up and unleash I recommend something completely different: let the props start from a 3-point crouch pre-engage so they are properly positioned and balanced (but still look for hips & shoulders parallel to ground), forget the pansy “touch” as they are already close (too close, but anyway)and allow a hand on the ground or even good old fashioned bridging during the scrum. You will still see powerful scrumming but also a lot less collapses – I guarantee it. You will also see a lot less refs destroying their credability by clearly showing they don’t know what the fk they are talking about with inexplicable scrum penalties

    • Nabley

      Nutta, we don’t play by Rules, we play by Laws. We know all the hoopla about the impact forces in front rows, that is why Halangahu or Beale does not play there. Front rowers rightly have their place and an important place it is too, but they are built to take it. I do not know if you hav enoticed that 10yrs ago the Wallaby props maxed out at about 112 kg and many in the international community did the same. Nowdays they are both heavier and taller than they were. The task is forcing teams to select from persons more suited to the current Laws.

      I reckon you are right about the approach to front row binding at club level, but the guys playing S15 etc are better than that. They know exactly where their hands are going and why. To be more explicit the Law goes on….”prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition..” If a Law exists and it does on all these matters, then I want my teams to exploit the opportunities that they create, the refs to police the Laws and penalise the bastards that breech them. The fact that they are rarely policed and the props are regularly offending, does not make it good or even useful to sorting out scrums.

      I am old enough to remember refs getting scragged walking between front rows. I can also remember that the scrum contest did not start until the ball was thrown in. Ah much easier days.

    • Love your work Nutta. Remind me never to scum against you….

  • Scott Allen

    Great comments guys – I’ve learnt some things from the discussion.

    I’m going to hit the video archive tonight to start working up a video further comparing the techniques of strong scrums compared to Australian scrums looking at the points raised.

  • Gnostic

    Thanks to you Mr Allen.

    I have been saying this about Alexander since the start of last year, often to howls of derision from Brumbies and Deans supporters. You have clearly stated the facts that were indeed evident in his yellow card last year against the Frogs.

    I would like to see an analysis of the Tahs efforts against the Crusaders as it appeared to me that Crocket bored in on Baxter in almost every scrum and once TPN went off Baxter lost the support of the hooker and invariably the scrum folded in or got driven around from the TH side. I re-watched the game and there are clear instances where Crocket repositions and changes angle to drive across the Baxter.

  • JD

    You don’t want to focus on the binding too much. Mike Cron gets his guys to train with boxing gloves in order to encourage correct positioning. That’s the important bit.

    • Nabley

      You might have to explain to others who Cron is, but I can agree with his philosophy. With the exception of binding between prop and hooker, binding should not be part of the dark art, but it has been allowed to be. It should be about body and leg positions.

    • Nutta

      Nabley – I totally respect the purity of your position re following laws. However I love this game because it’s the last of the body contact team sports where they haven’t fkd with the rules too much to please the marketers – although lifting in lineouts and the current scrum mess is making me start to doubt that. It’s still largely a contested game about players and for players (thank God). So I talk from the point of reference of my individual enjoyment of the contest – not adherence to a law book. Your view is valid. It’s just mine is different.

      JD – Couldn’t agree with you more re binding. As a prop I see my scrum mission as three-fold; firstly I conduit and focus energy from my side to theirs, secondly I deflect theirs away from mine (if I do point 1 correctly then point 2 is moot) and thirdly (and the bit I think folk forget and I enjoy the most) is the 1vs1, me vs him wrestle.

      As with all battles, it is 90% over before the blow is struck (apologies to Sun Tzu for mangling his work). In that vein it is the out-thinking and pre-positioning for impact that decides the vast majority of the path the scrum will take. A scrum is generally over as a contest in approx 8seconds. It’s the initial impact that will decide the first 5-6 seconds. Yes a dumb-arse will line up and thump in. But that’s a dumb-arse. But the art of it under the current rules is in the impact and that is dictated by bodyshape, power and angle of drive. Binding is important for leveredge post engagement, but that only covers the last 2-3 seconds of the contest. Thus to have a strong scrum, work more about the first and longest element – impact – rather then too much on the second and shorter element – binding

      And THAT’S why Alexander does and always will struggle – his pre-engagement shape is shite and so his impact is shite. Go have a look at the Dago tight-head (Castro somethingorother) from the last WB vs Dago test. We can argue if his shape was illegal, but the point is his shape was strong. Thus he dominated the contest.

      Better go do some work now…

      • chasmac

        Nutta – As always I find myself in agreement with your comments. My reason for writing is to ask a general question regarding core strength and gym work. My belief is that Alexander doesn’t seem to have the core strength required to hold the ideal body position straight after the hit (sorry, the en….gage). If he were able to achieve parity or dominance in this one single aspect of his game then he would be one of the first picked for the wallabies. This being the case, how is the issue being addressed in his training. I want to see results from his gym work like you see in the opening scenes of Conan the Barbarian, Alexander should be locked in the gym from Sunday to Friday afternoon before each game. Baxter was similarly made to bulk up / get core strength, and the Franks brothers are total gym junkies apparently. Can someone shed light on the level of focus on this issue for Alexander? Is his training encompassing the essential strength work he needs? Will we simply have to wait until wc 2015 to see him at his strongest?
        Well done Scott on the video. Observations I made were that Slipper could have gone better against a weak opponent ( buried him). And that Daley seemed to do pretty well against a good THP. I would love to see Daly and Palmer pack against the incumbent wallaby props.

        • Nutta

          Bloody hell, my Boss would kill me if he knew…

          Chasmac – cheers for the nod. Re Alexanders core strength. I dunno how strong he is. Clearly he doesn’t have the core of the Franks Monsters, Andy Sherridan, Castro Whateverhisnamewas etc. But he must have fantastic lats and traps to continually move up & through post engagement given the shite shape he hits with

          But more to the point (and this actually also goes to the binding issue) if someone amongst the 50,000 coaches that pay their mortgages thanks to the ARU would simply break down his pre-engagement sequence and get him STRAIGHT and SQUARE he would be hugely more effective and wouldn’t have to go flailing about like a Quade Cooper tackle looking for a bind when he suddenly has the “Oh Fk” moment that surprise surprise he is in yet another scrum stuck in a poor shape.

          I know I’m old fashioned. I know I aint cool. I am sure there is an ARU consultant with a new-fangled way. But I reckon the best source of core power is still the free-squat. Use all the fancy Smith machines and leg-presses you like, but it’s the free-squat (not a machine squat) augemented with good dead-lift technique that truely indicates core power and balance under strain. Looking at his pre-engagement stance, I reckon he would have a comparatively poor squat (his hips are everywhere, his feet are nowhere and his shoulders…well…). So I would send him to live in Peter Kay’s gym in Parramatta (remember the Two-Blues power-lifting hard-head? He was a midget of a prop but by Christ he was powerful). Break down his squat technique and re-build it.

          Also allow the poor bastard to settle on one side of the scrum and become adept there first before even attempting to learn the other. Trying to be a Jack of Both and Master at Neither is idiocy. Even possibly the greatest dual-side scrummer of all time – Richard Loe – learnt to be a tight head first before dabbling on the loose side

      • Nabley

        The problem is Nutta there is no place for the wrestle that you love. The laws have been written to do away with that part of the game, primarily as a means of speeding it up and creating smoother scrums as a restart system. Yearn for it, but it is not allowed. Possibly because so many yearn fo it, it makes a mess of the scrums which brings us back to square one.

        • Nutta

          Hey Nabley – I knew you would come back…(I’m enjoying it)

          I agree the wrestle I loved is gone and I do mourn it – but there is a wrestle still there…

          The wrestle mostly came after the engage when you were fighting for the best shape to conduit the 2nd shove coming through. Like you alluded to it was a time of softer engagements and then a contest to win a better shape. These days we have far less 2nd shoves (at all levels) for all sorts of reasons. With the emphasis shift to harder engage (because of the 4-part call), the key is in pre-engage shape.

          The up-shot of that is the prop most worried about binding now is the one who loses the engagement and is trapped chest-down and trying to bind “up” above his line of sight to wrestle/lever his way back to a square position. Leaving aside the Laws, the prop who “won” the engage has virtually a free pick of binds (long/short/cross/down or even up) to cement his supremecy whilst the other guy desperately goes for anything he can get to try & pull himself back up. That’s what I meant by “plan out the window” – as he had a plan prior to engagement, but because he lost the engagement it’s now a matter of grab what you can, roll your shoulder and force up (or drop it and start again)

          I agree the laws were tweaked to try and speed it up & smooth it out. But I really think they screwed it up as unfortunately it has had the completely opposite effect and it’s actually made it easier for old dogs to get away with all manner of blue-murder (look at what we do these days with boring!)! I say go back to the 3-phase call and let us have a true contest instead of trying to force us into being robots (as that path leads to the Dark Side – Mungo!)

        • Nabley

          I suppose Nutta, that you would like to bring back the fight for the loosehead as well. The thing is the game has moved on. I just wish the refs had moved their knowledge on as well and knew what they were doing in this area of the game, which most of them, even at the top level, do not.

      • Morty

        I have just stumbled across this forum and am enjoying it. Some great input from Nutta and Nabley amongst others. I played hooker for many years and currently referee, so here are my thoughts not necessarily in any order. Al Baxter seems like a terrific bloke, and probably a very good THP at club level but in the rep stuff he’s just not technically strong enough. In my opinion he is too tall and his first option when put under pressure is to cave in or down. Fortunately Deans saw the problem and acted. I could never work out why McKenzie could not see the problems. Maybe they were too close. Occasionally you can get a strong tall prop but usually the best props are shorter rather than taller. We need props like the Pommy ones, short and stout, tough as nails and immovable. We seem to pick taller, rangy, mobile props and hope that they will cope at test level, but more often than not they struggle. The core strength thing is crucial and one would hope the coaches would be on top of this but you wouldn’t no for sure! The four call engagement process has made things more difficult and the tight slippery jumpers have made the binding process harder. This could be improved. I watched a replay of the semi final in the 87 world cup between the Aussies and the French and the scrums were fantastic, ball quickly in and out and back into play. Most of the Ref’s have no idea what’s happening and the penalties are a lottery. A hand momentarily on the ground should not be a penalty. In most cases the hand goes onto the ground because the prop could not get a good bind and also if because of the initial pressure the THP caves in towards the hooker then the LHP naturally will drop down a bit because all his weight is on his inside shoulder. There is so much pressure at engagement between the front rows that the smallest thing can cause a collapse. In the test last year in France when Alexander was penalised and a penalty try awarded if you look closely at the replay Alexander lost his footing in the soft ground and that was the initial and maybe major cause of the collapse. Five minutes later when the scrum went down on the French five metre line there was no penalty just a scrum reset. In that game we had the Referee with a pre game mindset that the Aussie scrum was inferior and therefore would be the cause of any problem. Unfortunately we have a lot of Refs that have that same mindset, and have no idea about the intricacies of the scrum. Maybe one solution would be to be able to give more half arms and less penalties. In the game last week between the Reds and the Crusaders just before half time the Reds were penalised for a hand on the ground and Carter said thanks very much, I’ll take three points. That hand on the ground is not worth three points to a team and this is a blight on the game at the moment! It’s too late for this world cup but if I was Deans I would be scouring Sydney and Brisbane club rugby for prospective props and talking to the coaches and club first grade hookers because they know who the good props are. Someone on this forum also mentioned the importance of the hooker. Is there some way of turning Steve Thompson into an Aussie! I like the way the Reds hooker plays his rugby but he is still a light weight when it comes to test level. I think though we are okay in the hooker department with Moore and Poulota Nau. We just need to pick the strongest scrummaging props first and foremost, and then worry about their lineout lifting and skills around the paddock. We cannot afford a crumbling scrum on our own five metre line in the world cup in NZ playing against the AB’s with a Northern Hemisphere ref or Kaplan!
        On another issue I thought McCaw was completely fine to pick up the ball after what I thought was a dominant counter ruck. I know Dickinson had called ruck, no hands but that was when there was a ruck. The counter ruck and cleanout changed the whole situation.
        What do readers think about my thoughts on the scrum issue?

        • Nabley

          Hi Morty, I am glad you were able to find this as it has been a while now.

          I agree with you about the Crusaders Counter Ruck. McCaw of course is part of our favourite kicking ball, but I felt that McCaw was hard done by. However thats rugby, good or bad. The real question was given the penalty count 2 to 1 against the Crusaders, why did the Crusaders let the ball get within kicking range before they tried to win back possession. As that part of the game progressed, I felt that the ref was simply looking for an excuse and took it when he thought he saw it.

          On the issue of front row size, the simple fact is they are becoming both taller and heavier with matching core strength and speed. The days of the 5 ft 9 inch front rower have gone unless he is also very mobile which is what the Laws have designed the game to become. I saw a TV shot of Bismark Du Plesse standing by Mortlock when the Sharks played the Rebels. Mortlock is a big man and he was dwarfed by Bismark. Remember Hayman from the Highlanders, he was massive and could have played second row, as was Baxters nemesis Sheridan. The big thing was they could contribute in a number of areas in the game, where as you described Pommy characterture has only one possible role. The next generation are now starting to come through internationally of the likes of Crockett who has shown us he can run like an inside centre.

  • Robson

    Position of feet, angle of back, binding etd, etc – yep all these issues are relevant as stated by some great posts. As a former (long time ago) LH prop (who also had a few goes at hooker and TH), I think a lot of very relevant insights have been provided.

    I would like to add one more.

    The very first impression I had was that Alexander was attempting to roll and angle under his tight head opponent way too early. Then – because of other deficiencies in his technique he was exposed like a lame duck and had to put his hand on the deck. He should at the very least drive into the engagement straight and then attempt to slide into a leverage position. If the opposing TH won’t let him he, at least, won’t be forced into putting his hand on the ground.

    I’ve been trying to say for a while that there is just no way he can scrum like this at LH during the super season and then expect to perform like an international class TH for the Wallabies against the best loosehead scrummagers in the world. He is not a better TH than either Baxter or Slipper and shouldn’t really make the bench for the Wallabies.

    • Mad Dog

      I couldn’t agree more about Alexander. A part time TH prop masquerading as a no 6 is not what you need in the WRC. Get the set piece right and we have more than enough esprit, panache and straight out speed in the backs to beat anybody.

  • NTA

    Watching the slowmo you can see where all the Brumbies’ problems come from on Alexander’s side – he is not going level into the engagement, but rather doing a bit of a dolphin dive. By the time he hits his shoulders are already moving downwards.

    Thus, when he hits, his shoulder joint is in the wrong place to swivel up into a bind, particularly if the opponent beats him to the bind. Additionally, the impact he’s driving downwards with twists his body inwards, which creates further binding issues and also means he’s going under the THP.

    From here there is no way back unless he arches, extends the elbow and has a neck like concrete.

ACT Brumbies

Scott is one of our regular contributors from the old days of G&GR. He has experience coaching Premier Grade with two clubs in Brisbane.

More in ACT Brumbies